From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
A Town Entered a Contract Which Purports to Bind Current and Future Town Officials to a Development Project, Is the Contract Enforceable?
Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25
To Survive Summary Judgment, Must a Plaintiff Demonstrate Defendant Used the Corporate Structure to Perpetrate a Fraud to “Pierce the Corporate Veil?”
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25
A Worker Employed by a Nonparty Used a Subcontractor’s Defective Ladder Without Permission and Was Injured, Is the Subcontractor Liable?
Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25
In this DWI, the Arresting Officers Did Not Show for the License-Revocation Hearing; the License Was Revoked; Was Due Process Denied?
Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25
- Searchable, Organized Database of Over 17,000 Decision-Summaries
- “Latest Posts” Updated Weekly
- Weekly Reversal Reports
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Reports
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Reports
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Reports
- Civil Procedure Update CLE’s
- Personal Injury Update CLE’s
- Criminal Law Update CLE’s
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division on different grounds, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense that the weapon displayed by defendant during the robbery was not capable of causing death or serious injury. Defendant had displayed BB gun during the robbery and was charged with first degree robbery. The dissent argued that, because it was uncontroverted that defendant displayed a BB gun, second degree robbery is the only available charge. Penal Law 160.15(4) provides “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:* * * [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, robbery in the second degree … .”:
… [T]he court properly denied [defendant’s] request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense. “When a defense declared by statute to be an ‘affirmative defense’ is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence” (Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). The court must charge the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is “sufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the defense are satisfied, i.e., that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon [readily] capable of producing death or other serious physical injury” … . BB guns are capable of producing injury, including but not limited to protracted impairment of vision … . Whether a particular BB gun is “readily capable” of doing so is not a question that we can decide as a matter of law … .
Here, although defendant made a prima facie showing that the object he displayed during the robbery was a BB gun that the police recovered from his home, he presented no evidence concerning the capabilities of that particular gun. Given the absence of such evidence, “the members of the jury could do no more than speculate that defendant’s gun was not [readily] capable of causing death or other serious physical injury, and thus the court properly denied defendant’s request to submit the issue to them” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 07082, CtApp 12-18-25
Practice Point: When a defendant seeks a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Here the defendant argued the BB gun he displayed during the robbery could not cause death or serious injury and he was therefore entitled to a jury instruction on the “displayed weapon could not cause death or serious injury” affirmative-defense to first degree robbery. But because defendant presented no evidence on the capabilities of the BB gun, the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not meet his burden of proof and the trial judge properly denied the request for the affirmative-defense jury instruction.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELEASE TO APPLY TO A PENDING FALSE ARREST ACTION, THE PENDING ACTION WAS NOT LISTED IN THE RELEASE AS AN EXCLUSION AND IS THEREFORE PRECLUDED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals determined that, even if plaintiff did not intend to release the city from the second false arrest action when he signed a release for the first false arrest action, the release must be enforced according to its plain language. The release had a section where any actions not intended to be encompassed by the release must be specifically identified and listed. Plaintiff, with counsel present, signed the release without listing the second false arrest action as an exclusion, so the release precluded the second action:
This Court has repeatedly made clear that “[i]f ‘the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a “jural act” binding on the parties’ ” … . “As with contracts generally, the courts must look to the language of a release—the words used by the parties—to determine their intent, resorting to extrinsic evidence only when the court concludes as a matter of law that the contract is ambiguous” … , or where such evidence establishes one of the ” ‘traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake’ ” … . With respect to mutual mistake, a “high order of evidence is required” to overcome the ” ‘heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument [manifests] the true intention of the parties’ ” … .
Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the clear language of the release, and plaintiff failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition. The City’s intent to secure a release from plaintiff of “any and all” claims is evidenced by the plain text of the document it transmitted for plaintiff’s signature. As the Appellate Division correctly held, there was nothing “surreptitious” about the way the release was drafted or transmitted … . Although plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, could have excluded this action from the release by the simple act of listing it in the space provided for that purpose, he signed the release without doing so, an objective manifestation of assent that is binding upon him notwithstanding any unilateral mistake or subsequent regret on his part … . Smith v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 07081, CtApp 12-18-24
Practice Point: A release is strictly enforced according to its plain language. If a release includes a section where any exclusions from its reach must be listed, and that section is left blank, the release will preclude any other pending action, even where the failure to list a pending action was unintentional.
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge concurrence, determined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which purported to bind current and future municipal officials to plaintiff’s rezoning request for a real estate development project violated the term limits doctrine and was unenforceable:
“The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so” … . It recognizes that “[e]lected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors” … . The doctrine thus instructs “that where a contract ‘involves a matter of discretion to be exercised by the [municipal body,] unless the statute conferring power to contract clearly authorizes th[at body] to make a contract extending beyond its own term, no power . . . so to do exists’ ” … . The term limits doctrine reaches only “matters relating to governmental or legislative functions” … and does not apply where the municipality is “acting in its proprietary capacity” … . * * *
… [W]e conclude that by entering into the MOU, the Town Board violated the term limits doctrine by purporting to “limit” a “discretionary right of [its] successors,” rendering the MOU invalid and unenforceable … . Absent an enforceable agreement, plaintiff’s contractual claims fail as a matter of law. Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25
Practice Point: Here an attempt to bind current and future municipal officials to a rezoning request for a real estate development project was deemed unenforceable because it violated the “term limits doctrine.” Consult this opinion for insight into how the “term limits doctrine” is applied.
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:
The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25
TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL THE PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE (1) THE OWNERS EXERCISED COMPLETE DOMINATION OF THE CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE AND (2) THE DOMINATION WAS USED TO COMMIT A FRAUD OR WRONG AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF; HERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE WAS FRAUDULENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the complaint in this “pierce the corporate veil” action was properly dismissed because there was no evidence the recapitalization at issue was done to commit a fraud:
From the concurrence:
A court will disregard the corporate form and pierce the corporate veil when there is a showing by plaintiffs that: “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Because the use of the corporate form to limit liability of owners is a legal and beneficial principle of corporations, those who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .
Here, [the] attempts to pierce the corporate veil fail to raise a triable issue on prong two. The … defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that they did not abuse the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice, and [plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition. [Plaintiff] points to no evidence in the record that supports its claim that the 2006 recapitalization at issue was fraudulent. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25
Practice Point: This decision illustrates the two prongs of proof required to pierce the corporate veil: the owners must completely dominate the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and the transaction at issue must be fraudulent or wrongful with respect to the plaintiff.
SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined that DAL, a subcontractor, was not contractually required to indemnify the general contractor, JRM, and the property owner, Rockefeller, for plaintiff’s injuries from a ladder-fall. The plaintiff, Dibrino, a carpenter working for a nonparty subcontractor, Jacobsen, had already completed his measurements using his employer’s A-frame ladder and a scaffold, which he had moved to his next work-area, when he was asked to redo the measurements. Plaintiff, knowing it was defective, used an A-frame ladder owned by DAL when he remeasured. The ladder wobbled, plaintiff fell; a tool on his belt impaled his abdomen. The ruling that DAL was not obligated to indemnify the general contractor (JAM) and the owner (Rockefeller) for plaintiff’s injuries is based on the contractual language:
Mr. Dibrino’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder (which he knew was not furnished by his employer and knew he was not supposed to use) instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by Jacobson that he had used earlier that day in that same spot, to perform work squarely outside the scope of the agreement between DAL and JRM, is not reasonably construed as arising from performance DAL’s work. JRM and Rockefeller’s reading would mean DAL’s contractual duty to indemnify would be triggered by any event that could be traced to DAL through any path—even, for example, had DAL disposed of the defective ladder in a dumpster and Mr. Dibrino retrieved it. Such an expansive reading of these indemnity provisions is implausibly broad, … an indemnification provision “must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how indemnification clauses in contracts among a subcontractor, the general contractor and the owner should be interpreted under the Labor Law. Here the clauses did not apply to injuries suffered by a worker who (1) did not work for the subcontractor and (2) used the subcontractor’s ladder without the subcontractor’s permission, knowing that the ladder was defective.
AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD (A BARRIER TO PROTECT A TREE FROM VEHICLES USING A PARKING LOT) IS SUBJECT TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; HERE THE BOLLARD, WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD TRIED TO SWING ON IT, WAS INSTALLED 14 YEARS AGO; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN-NOTICE AND BECAUSE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHEN THE BOLLARD WAS INSTALLED, THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined an arch-shaped bollard (a barrier to protect a tree from damage by vehicles using a parking lot), which fell over when a child attempted to swing on it, was subject to the written-notice requirement in the General Municipal Law. Because the city did not have written notice of the dangerous condition it cannot be held not liable. The Court of Appeals noted that a parking lot is a “highway” within the meaning of the General Municipal Law section 50-e “written notice” requirement:
Prior written notice is not required “where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence” which “immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . The exception is meant to “address[] situations where a hazard was foreseeable, insofar as the municipality created it” as opposed to situations where there is “difficulty in determining, after the passage of time,” whether the municipality was initially negligent … .
Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the City caused or created an immediately dangerous condition through an act of affirmative negligence … . Nor did the affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert create a triable issue of fact as to the City’s affirmative negligence because, among other things, it did not tend to establish that the City left behind an unsafe condition at the time it installed the bollard 14 years prior to the accident. Although the expert opined that the bollard was unsafe from “the moment” it was installed, they failed to explain this conclusory opinion through reliance on industry standards or empirical data, nor did they explain how their “professional experience in construction” supported their conclusion … . Rather, the summary judgment record suggests that, to the extent the installation method created a defect, any such defect resulted from the effects of environmental conditions over time. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 07076, CtApp 12-18-25
Practice Point: A parking lot is a “highway” for purposes of the General Municipal Law 50-e “written notice” requirement.
Practice Point: A bollard (a post which serves as a vehicle-barrier in a parking lot) is subject to the “highway” “written-notice” requirement in the General Municipal Law.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a driver, Monaghan, whose license was automatically suspended when he refused to submit to a chemical test at the time he was arrested for DWI, was not denied due process rights when the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoked his license despite the arresting officers’ failure to appear at the revocation hearing. Monaghan had subpoenaed the officers and argued he was denied his right to cross-examine them. The Court of Appeal noted that Monaghan could have sought to enforce the subpoenas but chose not to. The Court found that the procedure for enforcement of subpoenas is not unduly burdensome. Therefore requiring Monaghan to use that procedure to exercise his right to cross-examine the officers does not amount to a denial of due process:
… [W]e reject the contention that Mr. Monaghan’s was deprived of his due process right to cross-examine the Troopers. His private interest in retaining his driver’s license and the government’s interest in public safety are both significant. The due process analysis, here, turns on the benefit and burden of requiring a motorist to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Mr. Monaghan chose not to avail himself of the process set forth in CPLR 2308 (b). The process of applying to enforce a nonjudicial subpoena is not so unduly burdensome as to constitute a deprivation of due process of law. Our holding is consistent with appellate courts’ decisions rejecting due process challenges in other types of administrative proceedings where the petitioner has not attempted to enforce a subpoena … . It is undisputed that Mr. Monaghan did not seek enforcement, nor did he request an adjournment to do so. Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25
Practice Point: Here the officers who arrested the driver for DWI did not appear at the license revocation hearing. The driver argued his inability to cross-examine the officers deprived him of due process of law. However, the driver had subpoenaed the officers. He could have used the CPLR 2308 (b) procedure for enforcing the subpoenas but chose not to. The availability of the enforcement procedure was deemed sufficient process.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT TEMPLE AS A “FULL TIME JEWISH EDUCATOR,” WAS FIRED AFTER WRITING A BLOG POST CRITICIZING ISRAEL AND ZIONISM; PLAINTIFF SUED ALLEGING HER FIRING WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW; THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE LABOR-LAW-VIOLATION THEORY FINDING THAT THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ITS MINISTERS (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurrences, determined the ministerial exception precluded this employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff, a “full time Jewish educator” employed by the Westchester Reform Temple. Plaintiff was fired after writing a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism. She alleged her firing was a violation of Labor Law 201-d (2) which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee based on legal “recreational activities.” The court did not address the viability of the Labor-Law theory. The court held that plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the ministerial exception, which precludes application of employment discrimination laws to relationships between a religious institution and its ministers:
We need not resolve today questions such as whether the [Labor Law 201-d (2)] covers blogging specifically or public expression generated during any protected activity, because the ministerial exception dispositively bars Plaintiff’s claim. That exception “precludes application of [employment discrimination] legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers” … . Requiring a religious institution “to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing [them] for failing to do so” both “infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments” and “violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions” … . * * *
Defendants invoked the ministerial exception here as grounds for dismissal on a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion. Such a motion “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s offer letter, which is appended as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. It states that Plaintiff was responsible for guiding the development of programs such as “Shabbat, Havdalah, and other teen led events and initiatives”; planning, supporting, and attending “Confirmation” experiences; and supporting the “Rabbi’s Table initiative.” In her fifteen weekly hours of teaching, she was responsible for “Chevruta (1:1 tutoring for our learners),” “Pre-bimah tutoring,” and “Parsha of the week.” And she was responsible for furthering the Temple’s “mission,” including by “support[ing] the development of a strong Jewish identity” and “bringing Torah to life and inspiring Jewish dreams.” Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 2025 NY Slip Op 06958, CtApp 12-16-25
Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” precludes the application of employment discrimination laws to the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Here the ministerial exception precluded a suit alleging plaintiff was fired from her teaching job at the defendant temple for a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism.
HERE THE TOWN PASSED A LOCAL LAW REQUIRING THE CLOSURE OF A LANDFILL OWNED AND OPERATED BY SMI; BECAUSE SMI’S PROPERTY IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE LOCAL LAW, SMI NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE “ENVIRONMENTAL HARM” AS AN ELEMENT OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DECLARATION THAT THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; SMI HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ISSUING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the petitioner-plaintiff Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), the owner and operator of a landfill, had standing to challenge the town’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) finding that the closure of the landfill pursuant to a Local Law would not have a significant adverse environmental impact. SMI argued the town did not take the required “hard look” at the evidence before issuing its negative SEQRA declaration:
“SEQRA is designed to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources . . . by injecting environmental considerations directly into governmental decision making; thus the statute mandates that social, economic and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities” … . Standing to sue under SEQRA, as with other statutory causes of action, requires that the plaintiff establish an injury-in-fact and that the in-fact injury fall within the zone of interest that the statute protects … . Thus, to sue under SEQRA, a plaintiff must ordinarily show that their injury falls within the statute’s environmental zone of interest by “demonstrat[ing] that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature” … .
However, [Matter of Har Enters. v Town of Brookhaven (74 NY2d 524 [1989])] established that “no such specific allegation [of environmental harm] is necessary” when the petitioner’s property is “the very subject” of the government’s action … . That case involved a rezoning of the petitioner’s property from commercial to residential use … . As the Court explained, “[i]t seems evident that if any party should be held to have a sufficient interest to object—without having to allege some specific harm—it is an owner of property which is the subject of a contemplated rezoning” … . Following that ruling, a few years later, the Court held in [Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia (87 NY2d 668 [1996])] that a landowner whose potential mining operations would be eliminated by rezoning was directly impacted by the governmental land use regulation and thus had standing under Har to challenge the government’s lack of compliance with SEQRA … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2025 NY Slip Op 06961, CtApp 12-16-25
Practice Point: When the petitioner’s property is the subject of the government’s action, the petitioner need not demonstrate “environmental harm” to have standing to challenge the government’s SEQRA declaration. Here the town passed a local law requiring closure of petitioner’s landfill. Petitioner need not demonstrate “environmental harm” to have standing to challenge the town’s SEQRA negative declaration on the ground the town did not take the required “hard look” at the evidence before finding that the landfill closure would not have a significant adverse environmental impact.
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) WERE NOT ENTITLED TO “PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE” DURING THE SUMMER OF 2020 PURSUANT TO THE “CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT;” THE COURT’S ANALYSIS IS TOO DETAILED TO FAIRLY SUMMARIZE HERE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined certain employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) who were not offered employment during the summer of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic were not entitled to “pandemic unemployment assistance” under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The opinion has a detailed analysis of the federal and state unemployment insurance systems and how they interact with the COVID-related legislation. Matter of Klosterman v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 06960, CtApp 12-16-25
FAMILY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DIRECTED SERVICE UPON MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING “BY EMAIL” WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 75-G; ALLEGATIONS THAT MOTHER DESTROYED EVIDENCE OF SERVICE AND WAS AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE IRRELEVANT; THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court never acquired jurisdiction over mother in this modification of custody proceeding. Father was directed to serve mother by email and by Initiating international service through the US Central Authority, a method not compliant with Domestic Relations Law 75-g:
That statute requires that notice be given by personal delivery or by any form of mail requesting a receipt and that the court may only direct an alternative form of service upon a finding that “service is impracticable” by personal delivery or by mail. However, the father’s motion papers contained no indication that personal service or service by any form of mail requesting a receipt was “impracticable” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-g[1][c]). Therefore, the Family Court erred in directing service by email and the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the mother by the email service that was effectuated.
The father claims that the mother was personally served … . However, the record contains no affidavit of service on the mother. The father’s assertion in his brief that the mother destroyed evidence of service does not establish that lawful service was made, as it was his responsibility to prove that service was properly carried out in the first place … . Moreover, the fact that the mother became aware of the proceeding at some point … does not confer jurisdiction if there has not been compliance with the statutorily prescribed methods of service of process … . Matter of John F.B. v Maria U., 2025 NY Slip Op 06905, First Dept 12-11-25
Practice Point: Here father was directed by the court to serve mother by “email” which does not comply with Domestic Relations Law 75-g. The court never acquired jurisdiction over mother, despite her awareness of the proceedings.
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER (DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE) AND FIRST DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER (RECKLESS) FOR THE DEATH OF A SEVERELY ABUSED CHILD; THE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT BY THE MAJORITY AND DISSENT ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVING BOTH “DEPRAVITY” AND “INDIFFERENCE” (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, affirming defendant’s second degree murder (depraved indifference) and first degree manslaughter (reckless) convictions for the death of a severely abused child, over an comprehensive dissent, determined the facts supported the “depraved indifference” element. The dissent disagreed:
Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the fact that he began immediate life-saving measures on the victim and called his wife to summon medical aid does not dictate a different result. Rather “[t]he People were required to show that defendant had the necessary mens rea of callous indifference when the crime occurred, not at all times thereafter” … . Thus, where the defendant is the one who inflicted the fatal injuries, the sincerity and motivation behind post-injury rescue efforts distill to “implicated credibility questions for the jury to resolve” … . We find no reason to disturb the jury’s finding that defendant’s “belated expressions of concern did not reflect any [genuine] interest in the victim’s welfare” … .
From the dissent:
Ask 12 random people on the street to describe the mental state of someone who stomps on a young child’s stomach so hard that it kills him. Each will say something like, “cruel,” “brutal,” [*9]”monstrous” — maybe even “depraved” … . The jurors here rationally arrived at the same conclusion — and, indeed, “the horrific nature of defendant’s assault of the [victim] was clearly intended to be encompassed within the depraved indifference murder of a child statute” … .
But depravity is not enough. Depraved indifference to human life “is something even worse” … . To prove this rare state of mind, there must be evidence of “wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness, combined with an utter indifference as to whether the victim lives or dies” … . That combination is not present here. Consequently, defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder must be reversed, and that count of the indictment dismissed. People v Greene, 2025 NY Slip Op 06931, Third Dept 12-11-25
Practice Point: “Depraved indifference” is a troublesome concept. How do the People prove both “depravity” and “indifference?” Consult this decision for an in-depth discussion.
REMITTAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL-ASSESSEMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THAT AN AVAILABLE GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS NOT RAISED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined (1) appellate review of the SORA risk-level assessment was precluded by the judge’s failure to place on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Correction Law, and (2) defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel in that there was a ground for a downward departure which was not raised. Defendant was assessed 30 points based on a prior conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. However there was no sexual offense involved in that conviction and a downward departure was therefore possible:
“The failure to include the necessary findings prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review of defendant’s designation as a risk level two sex offender and would, alone, require remittal for County Court to comply with the statute” (… see Correction Law § 168-n [3] …). * * *
… County Court was required to assess 30 points under risk factor 9 based upon defendant’s undisputed prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, “without regard to whether the underlying offense involved conduct that is sexual in nature” … . This is because “[t]he Board decided to treat endangering the welfare of a child as if it were a sex crime because it generally involves sexual misconduct, especially when it is part of a plea bargained disposition” … . However, the risk assessment guidelines also provide that, “[w]here a review of the record indicates that there was no such [sexual] misconduct, a departure may be warranted” … . People v Pribble, 2025 NY Slip Op 06936, Third Dept 12-11-25
Practice Point: If a SORA risk-level-assessment is not supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record appellate review is not possible and remittal is required.
Practice Point: If, as here, there is an available ground for a downward departure which is not raised, the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.
HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE; BUT THE SECOND DEPARTMENT VACATED THE $385,000 INQUEST-JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE EXTENT OF THE INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court correctly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in a personal injury case because she failed to provide a reasonable excuse. Plaintiff alleged he stepped in a hole on defendant’s property, twisted his foot and fell. But the $385,000 damages judgment was vacated by the Second Department because plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the extent of the injuries. A new inquest was ordered:
… [A]lthough this Court is not relieving the defendant of her default, “[a]n unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise ‘would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an open season at the expense of a defaulting defendant'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s vague testimony at the inquest was insufficient to determine to what extent the plaintiff’s injuries were attributable to the subject accident and, therefore, whether the amount awarded was warranted. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter … . Albano v Roehrig, 2025 NY Slip Op 06839, Second Dept 12-10-25
Practice Point: Despite losing a motion to vacate a default judgment, a defendant may still successfully move to vacate a judgment awarded after an inquest on the ground the evidence offered at the inquest did not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.
WHEN THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK SPOKE TO THE JURORS ABOUT A JURY NOTE WHILE THE JURORS WERE DELIBERATING, THE CLERK DISCUSSED CONCEPTS OF NEGLIGENCE, FAULT AND CERTAIN FACTS OF THE CASE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial after a defense verdict, determined that the law clerk’s discussion with the jurors while they were deliberating, during which concepts of negligence and fault and certain facts were discussed, constituted interference with the deliberations and usurpation of the role of the court. The motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted:
Following the verdict, the plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability in the interest of justice and for a new trial. In an affirmation in support of the motion, the plaintiffs’ counsel stated that he had learned, after the jury was discharged, that when the clerk went to speak to the jurors about writing the actual question on the form, the clerk improperly communicated with the jurors in a way that went beyond the Supreme Court’s instructions. In further support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a former juror (hereinafter the first juror) who averred, among other things, that the clerk had discussed with the jurors the concepts of negligence and fault, as well as certain facts about the case. The first juror averred that the clerk was in the jury room with the jurors for approximately three to five minutes, and that following that discussion, the jurors “did not feel it [was] necessary to submit further questions to the Court.” * * *
“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . “Litigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . “The interest of justice thus requires a court to order a new trial where comments [have] deprived [a] party of a fair trial or unduly influenced a jury” … .
… [T]he clerk’s conduct cannot be found to be harmless. By offering opinions and/or explanations on the meaning of the legal concepts at issue in the trial, the clerk impermissibly interfered in the jury’s deliberations and usurped the role of the court to, in consultation with counsel, instruct the jurors on the law applicable to the facts. Saporito-Elliott v United Skates of Am., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06886, Second Dept 12-10-25
Practice Point: The law clerk’s discussion with the deliberating jurors about concepts of negligence, fault and certain facts of the case interfered with the deliberations and usurped the role of the court. The verdict, therefore, must be set aside.