You are here: / NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY...

Search Results

/ ,

NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a waste management company (Sealand), which had sought to purchase property for use as a land fill, was properly allowed to intervene in an action to determine the validity of a local law which prohibited expansion of the existing land fill:

​

Upon a timely motion, a nonparty is permitted to intervene as of right in an action involving property where the nonparty “may be affected adversely by the judgment” … . Additionally, after considering “whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party,” a court may, in its discretion, permit a nonparty to intervene when, inter alia, the nonparty’s “claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” … . “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012 (a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … . * * *

​

Here, although Sealand did not seek to intervene until several years after it knew its interests in the property may be implicated in the dispute, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion inasmuch as Sealand’s intervention will not delay resolution of the action and defendants will not suffer prejudice … . Sealand does not seek to assert any new claims or to conduct extensive additional discovery but rather, in essence, seeks only to continue the challenge to the 2007 Law on causes of action that remain unresolved despite lengthy litigation … . Where, as here, there is no “showing of prejudice resulting from delay in seeking intervention, the motion should not be denied as untimely” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2018 NY Slip Op 01010, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LAND FILL, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/LAND FILL (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERVENE, MOTION TO  (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (MOTION TO INTERVENE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , , ,

SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees in this accountant malpractice action constituted a request for indemnification which was prohibited by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged they hired defendant-accountants to make sure plaintiffs were in compliance with overtime compensation and wage notice requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiffs were subsequently sued on related claims and sought recover of the attorney’s fees expended to settle the suit. The Fourth Department noted that the breach of contract action was not the same as the accountant malpractice action, but that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty actions were duplicative of the breach of contract action:

​

It is well established that “there is no right of contribution or indemnity for employers found liable under the FLSA” … , and the FLSA preempts any conflicting provisions of state labor laws, including those of New York … . A party may not avoid this bar on indemnity by seeking indemnification damages through other legal theories … . In view of the foregoing, we agree with defendants that seeking attorneys’ fees associated with that underlying class action is a request for indemnity … . * * *

​

.. .[w]e reject defendants’ contention that the breach of contract cause of action is duplicative of the accounting malpractice cause of action. The breach of contract cause of action is based on allegations that defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs by failing to perform certain services, and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover all compensation paid to defendants for those unperformed services. That is separate and distinct from the allegations in the accounting malpractice cause of action, which seeks damages based on allegations that defendants did perform services pursuant to the contract but failed to comply with the accepted standards of care. Delphi Healthcare PLLC v Petrella Phillips LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 01012,  Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) (SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE (THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a report written by defendant concerning plaintiff-doctor’s competence was protected by the common interest qualified privilege and was the expression of pure opinion. The competence assessment was done after one of plaintiff’s patients died during surgery:

​

Plaintiff, a doctor employed by defendant Kaleida Health (Kaleida), performed a surgery in which the patient died. As a result of this incident, and pursuant to Kaleida policy, plaintiff underwent a neuropsychological competence assessment by Ralph Benedict, M.D. (defendant). Defendant thereafter submitted a written report detailing his findings and opinions to both Kaleida’s internal review body and plaintiff’s personal physician. …

​

“It is well settled that summary judgment is properly granted [dismissing a defamation cause of action] where a qualified privilege obtains and the plaintiff[] offer[s] an insufficient showing of actual malice” … . Here, defendant established as a matter of law that his written report and associated oral commentary were protected both by the ” common interest’ ” qualified privilege … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of actual malice … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in denying that part of his motion with respect to the defamation causes of action on the alternative ground that the allegedly defamatory statements are expressions of pure opinion … . “Expressions of opinion . . . are deemed privileged and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation” … . Shenoy v Kaleida Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 01008, Fourth Dept  2-9-18

DEFAMATION (COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE  (DEFAMATION, COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support endangering the welfare of a child. The child’s mother was convicted of killing the victim and transporting the victim’s body in a car when her four-year-old daughter was in the car:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that her conviction of endangering the welfare of a child is not based on legally sufficient evidence, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. The charge arose from defendant allegedly having her four-year-old child accompany her when she transported the victim’s body to her mother’s house. Viewing the evidence in support of that charge in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the child’s riding in the car with the victim’s body was likely to result in harm to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the child … . Specifically, the People presented no evidence that the child was aware that the victim’s body was in the car or that the child was upset or bothered by any smells or sights in the car or later at his grandmother’s house … . People v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 00935, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD (EVIDENCE, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/

SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, noted that the failure to mention youthful offender treatment in a plea offer does not constrain the court from considering it:

​

There is no dispute that defendant was eligible … for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10). Nevertheless, based on comments that the court made in denying defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment, it appears that the court believed that it was constrained to deny defendant’s request simply because it was not contemplated by the People’s plea offer. …

“Compliance with CPL 720.20 (1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment” … . Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has held that CPL 720.20 (1) mandates “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant . . . agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … , a new sentencing proceeding is required… . People v Hobbs, 2018 NY Slip Op 00995, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds should not have been granted. The delay attributed to the unavailability of a witness and the related adjournment should not have been charged to the People:

​

We agree with the People that a witness’s one-day unavailability while her father is undergoing heart surgery is an excludable delay that was “occasioned by exceptional circumstances” … . Moreover, the ensuing 21-day adjournment until February 2, 2017 was attributable to the court and not chargeable to the People … , inasmuch as the People had requested a one-day adjournment and “any period of an adjournment in excess of that actually requested by the People is excluded” … . People v Barnett, 2018 NY Slip Op 00968, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT))

/

SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction:

​

“It is well settled that, under New York’s strict equivalency standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . We therefore modify the order by granting that part of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 seeking to vacate the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to resentence defendant as a nonpredicate felon … . People v Hamn, 2018 NY Slip Op 00961, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF CORPORATION’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly found that plaintiff corporation did not make sufficient efforts to produce a former employer to be deposed by defendant in this breach of contract action, and therefore properly precluded plaintiff from presenting the former employee’s testimony. However, the Fourth Department held that Supreme Court abused its discretion when it precluded any secondary or hearsay evidence related to the former employee, which would preclude plaintiff from asserting its claim:

​

Generally, where there is no evidence that a corporation exercises control over a former employee, that corporation cannot be held responsible for the former employee’s refusal to appear for a deposition … . Here, however, the firm representing plaintiff undertook the representation of that former employee, implicitly conceding control over the former employee … . When the court ordered plaintiff’s attorney to make every reasonable effort to secure the former employee’s appearance for a deposition, plaintiff’s attorney merely sent a letter notifying the former employee that the attorney was supposed to make additional efforts to secure her presence. There is no evidence that any actual efforts to secure her appearance were made. We thus agree with the court that plaintiff should be precluded from presenting testimony from the former employee.

We conclude, however, that the court abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from relying on any secondary or hearsay evidence related to the former employee. There was no order compelling the production of such evidence that plaintiff was alleged to have violated, and the court did not find a willful failure to disclose such evidence. Hypercel Corp. v Stampede Presentation Prods., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00936, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3126 EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York courts could not exercise jurisdiction over an Ohio gun dealer, Brown, who, in Ohio, sold a handgun to an illegal gun trafficker from New York (Bostic). The handgun was ultimately used in New York to shoot the plaintiff. The Fourth Department, applying a federal due process “minimum contacts” analysis, concluded that to exercise jurisdiction over Brown would violate due process:

​

… CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) requires an evaluation of whether Brown “expect[ed] or should reasonably [have] expect[ed his] act[s] to have consequences in [New York].” … * * *

​

… [W]e conclude that Brown lacks the minimum contacts with New York that are a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction over him. Brown’s submissions established that Great Lakes was an Ohio retailer permitted to sell guns within Ohio only and, during the relevant period from 1996 to 2005, it did not maintain a website, had no business telephone listing, did not advertise in New York, and made its retail sales and transfers to customers present in Ohio … . The evidence submitted by plaintiffs in opposition does not tend to establish that Brown “purposefully reach[ed] out beyond’ ” Ohio and into New York … . Brown did not, for example, engage in a purposeful distribution arrangement thereby evincing an effort to serve the market for firearms in New York … .

… Brown’s knowledge that guns sold to Bostic might end up being resold in New York if Bostic’s ostensible plan or hope came to fruition in the future is insufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts with New York because such circumstances demonstrate, at most, Brown’s awareness of the mere possibility that the guns could be transported to and resold in New York … . Williams v Beemiller, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00939, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DUE PROCESS, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/DUE PROCESS (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, MINIMUM CONTACTS, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/MINIMUM CONTACTS  (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (MINIMUM CONTACTS,  OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/JURISDICTION, LONG ARM OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 302 (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))

/

BACK AND NECK INJURIES PROPERLY RULED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE RESULTING FROM REPETITIVE LIFTING AND CARRYING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant demonstrated his back and neck injuries constituted an occupational disease related to his lifting and mix heavy containers of compound and applying the compound to walls and ceilings:

​

“In order for an occupational disease to be established, the claimant must establish a recognizable link between his or her condition and a distinctive feature of his or her employment”… . Claimant testified that his job required lifting and carrying containers of plastering compound weighing roughly 50 pounds and using the compound to hang sheetrock for eight hours a day, five or six days a week, for over 30 years. Samuel Kim, a neurosurgeon, opined that claimant suffered from chronic neck and back pain and degenerative disc disease in his cervical and lumbar spine and that the condition was consistent with a history of repetitive movement, and Yong Kim, claimant’s treating physician, attributed claimant’s back pain to “repetitive use at work.” In light of the foregoing, and given that no contrary medical opinions were presented, the Board’s determination that claimant suffered from an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . Matter of Garcia v MCI Interiors, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00873, Third Dept 2-8-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, BACK AND NECK INJURIES PROPERLY RULED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE RESULTING FROM REPETITIVE LIFTING AND CARRYING (THIRD DEPT))/OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, BACK AND NECK INJURIES PROPERLY RULED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE RESULTING FROM REPETITIVE LIFTING AND CARRYING (THIRD DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy