You are here: / CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT...

Search Results

/ , ,

CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the state was obligated to defendant the petitioner, a corrections officer, in a civil action brought by an inmate against the petitioner. The state argued its obligation to defend the petitioner ended when petitioner pled guilty to official misconduct. The court found that the sparse plea allocution did not indicate the acts alleged in the civil complaint were outside the scope of petitioner’s employment, the allegations in the bill of particulars could not be used to supplement the plea allocution, and the plea did not address at all some of the allegations in the civil complaint:

​

As is the case in the private insurance realm, the state’s determination to disclaim financial responsibility for an employee’s defense is rational only if it can be determined, as a matter of law, “that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which the [s]tate may be obligated to indemnify the employee” … . Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17 (3) (a), the state has an obligation to indemnify its employees for any judgment or settlement obtained against them in state or federal court, so long as “the act or omission from which [the] judgment or settlement arose occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties” and “the injury or damage [did not] result[] from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee.” Stated differently, the state will not have a duty to indemnify an employee if the act or omission giving rise to the civil judgment or settlement occurred outside the scope of his or her employment or was the product of intentional wrongdoing … .

Generally, “a particular issue expressly or necessarily decided in a criminal proceeding may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent affected civil action” if “the issue is identical in both actions, necessarily decided in the prior criminal action[,] . . . decisive in the civil action [and the defendant in the criminal action] had a full and fair opportunity . . . to litigate the now-foreclosed issue” … . Contrary to respondent’s contentions, neither petitioner’s plea allocution nor the elements of official misconduct preclusively established that the acts alleged in the civil complaint occurred while petitioner was acting outside the scope of his employment or that the injuries or damages allegedly sustained by [the inmate] were the result of petitioner’s intentional wrongdoing … . Matter of Rademacher v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 08416, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW,  CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CORRECTIONS OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the transfer of a school assistant superintendent to another job with lower pay did not violate the Education Law (pay reduction was not discipline) or due process (deprivation of property without due process of law):

​

… [W]e conclude that the term “discipline[]” in Education Law § 3020 refers not merely to action that has an adverse impact, but adverse action that is motivated by a punitive intent.

Case law applying and interpreting Education Law § 3020 supports our reading of the statute. “The purpose of [Education Law § 3020] is to protect [tenured educators] from arbitrary imposition of formal discipline. It was not intended to interfere with the day-to-day operation of the educational system” … . * * *

​

Petitioner’s reliance on cases involving employees covered under Civil Service Law § 75, which prohibits imposition of a “disciplinary penalty” without a hearing, is misplaced. While it has been held that a lateral transfer of a tenured civil service employee that results in a diminution of salary or benefits constitutes a form of discipline requiring compliance with the procedural safeguards of Civil Service Law § 75 … , this is so because Civil Service Law § 75 specifically provides that a “demotion in grade and title” constitutes a disciplinary penalty … . No comparable statutory language exists within the Education Law. * * *

​

Here, petitioner’s right to receive the specific level of compensation earned in his position as Assistant Superintendent derived not from any tenure rights granted under the Education Law, but solely from the terms of his employment contract. Such contract expired on June 30, 2012, prior to the alleged deprivation. Moreover, the contract makes clear that it does not provide for the payment of salary beyond that date and that renewal or extension of its terms could only be effectuated by agreement of the Board. Under these circumstances, petitioner did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the compensation and benefits derived from his employment contract beyond its June 30, 2012 expiration date … . Matter of Soriano v Elia, 2017 NY Slip Op 08431, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s finding that an oral agreement concerning the repayment of a $170,000 loan was enforceable, because the loan could have been paid off within a year (re: the statute of frauds). Both plaintiff and defendant were bookmakers who had been convicted of promoting gambling. The fact that plaintiff refused to answer questions about whether he paid income tax on the proceeds, based upon the Fifth Amendment, did not affect the result because there was nothing illegal about the loan agreement itself. The two dissenters argued the parties were engaged in money laundering and the loan agreement should not be enforced as a matter of public policy:

​

We are mindful that plaintiff testified that the source of the loan proceeds was cash obtained through his illegal bookmaking activities. Indeed, both plaintiff and defendant were convicted of promoting gambling and required to pay fines in the amount of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. Although plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked whether he ever reported the cash as income, we are not persuaded by defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to draw a negative inference because the source and/or taxable status of the funds was not probative of the issue presented. According due deference to Supreme Court’s credibility assessments, we find ample evidence to support the determination that plaintiff and defendant agreed to the loan that defendant breached by failing to make all of the payments due… . Contrary to defendant’s argument, because there was nothing prohibiting defendant from repaying the loan within one year, the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of the oral agreement … .

We also find that defendant waived his right to challenge the loan on the basis of illegality because it was not raised as an affirmative defense … . Were we to consider the issue, we would find that, because neither the agreement nor the performance of the agreement was illegal, the judgment was enforceable … . Centi v McGillin, 2017 NY Slip Op 08430, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MONEY LAUNDERING, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTRACT LAW, (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant, a doctor accused of operation a “pill mill” for persons addicted to opioids and Xanax, was properly convicted of manslaughter in the overdose deaths of two persons to whom he has supplied drugs:

Defendant argues that the manslaughter convictions should be reversed because, as a matter of law, the sale of a controlled substance can never support a homicide charge in the absence of express legislative authorization. He bases this position on a [2nd] Department decision, People v Pinckney (38 AD2d 217 [2nd Dept 1972] … ). * * *

… Nothing in Pinckney suggests that one who provides a controlled substance, whether it be heroin by a street dealer, or opioids by a medical doctor, can never be indicted on a manslaughter charge. Indeed, in People v Cruciani (36 NY2d 304 [1975]), the [Ct.] of Appeals affirmed the second degree manslaughter conviction of the defendant, who injected the victim with heroin, because he knew she was already in a highly intoxicated state. The Cruciani Court distinguished Pinckney, because in the latter case there was not “any proof, as here, of awareness of the ongoing effect of drugs in the victim’s body at the time any self-inflicted injection might have been made, or, beyond the general knowledge of the injuriousness of drug-taking, of a real threat to life. The remoteness of that fatal injection from the fact of sale diffused intent and scienter by possibly unknown or intervening events beyond Pinckney’s control” … .

At bottom, all that was needed for the manslaughter charge to be sustained was for the People to satisfy its elements. That is, that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [death] [would] occur . . . The risk [being] of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitute[d] a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

The question then becomes whether the People presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant consciously disregarded the risk that Haeg and Rappold would die as a result of his prescribing practices. … People v Stan XuHui Li, 2017 NY Slip Op 08438, First Dept 11-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (OPIOIDS, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/OPIOIDS (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/PILL MILL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the prosecution could not use the doctrine of collateral estoppel to fulfill its proof requirements at the grand jury stage. Defendant had been convicted of attempted murder, which included the intent to kill. After the victim died, the People indicted the defendant for murder. The grand jury was told the intent element had already been proven and the grand jury need only consider causation. The Third Department noted the difference between the application of collateral estoppel in civil and criminal cases. From the defendant’s perspective, using the collateral estoppel doctrine in this context violated defendant’s constitutional rights:

​

While the People argue that their offensive use of collateral estoppel is fair play, in that had defendant been acquitted of attempted murder, he would defensively rely on collateral estoppel principles to argue against a subsequent murder trial, this analysis overlooks the obvious and critical difference between an accused’s defensive use of this doctrine and a prosecutor’s strategic use of it against an accused. An accused’s defensive invocation of this doctrine implicates and protects constitutional rights — to a jury trial, to present a defense, to due process and to not be placed twice in jeopardy, among others — whereas the People’s affirmative use is for matters of expediency and economy and lacks a constitutional imperative  … . A California intermediate appellate court that confronted this identical issue over 20 years ago similarly concluded that this strategic use of collateral estoppel was inconsistent with due process, noting that “the pursuit of judicial economy and efficiency may never be used to deny a defendant . . . a fair trial,” and that instructing a jury that a murder trial was limited to causation created an impermissible “gravitational pull towards a guilty verdict” … . People v Morrison, 2017 NY Slip Op 08405, Third Dept 11-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, EVIDENCE, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death was properly granted. Plaintiff’s daughter died after the lawsuit had begun. She had ingested a harmful substance at a festival and the complaint alleged the failure to prevent the use of drugs at the festival and the inadequacy of medical treatment facilities at the festival. Defendants argued there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the ingestion of the harmful substance and plaintiff’s daughter’s death:

​

… [D]efendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating either prejudice or hindrance and, on these facts, they cannot credibly claim surprise from the proposed amendment… . Moreover, we have previously recognized that plaintiff has a viable negligence cause of action based upon allegations that decedent’s injuries were caused by defendants’ failure to ensure that she received adequate and timely emergency medical care … . Defendants have not demonstrated that the amendment, which adds a cause of action for wrongful death based upon that negligence … , is “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … .

To the extent that defendants argue that the motion for leave to amend to add a cause of action for wrongful death must be supported by competent medical proof showing a causal connection between their alleged negligence and decedent’s death, they are incorrect. Prior decisions have held that, “[w]here a plaintiff seeks to amend a complaint alleging medical malpractice to add a cause of action for wrongful death, such motion must be accompanied by ‘competent medical proof showing a causal connection between the alleged negligence and the decedent’s death'” … . Matter of Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08433, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINT, AMENDMENT OF (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (CIVIL PROCEDURE, AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over a two-justice dissent, determined the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (LPC’s) decision to allow the electrification of a landmark nineteenth century clocktower (similar in structure to Big Ben) was based upon an error of law and was irrational. The clocktower had been sold to a private party which planned to convert it to a residence. The LPC found, in effect, that the commission did not have authority over the now privately-owned clocktower:

 

We hold that the LPC has authority under the Landmarks Law to regulate the clock mechanism for two reasons.

First, this result effectuates the statutory purposes. The Landmarks Law, New York City’s first historic preservation statute, * * * declares that “the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements . . . of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people” (Landmarks Law § 25-301[b]). … * * *

Second, the Landmarks Law defines the term “interior architectural feature” to include the “components of an interior, including, but not limited to . . . the type and style of all . . . fixtures appurtenant to such interior” (Landmarks Law § 25-302[l]). Matter of Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08457, First Dept 11-30-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/LANDMARKS (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/CLOCKTOWER  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action seeking a declaration whether a proposed development was within the jurisdiction of the planning board was premature. Although the board found it had jurisdiction, it also indicated the landowner could obtain a hardship exemption which would allow development:

​

Here, the Planning Commission’s initial finding that the proposed subdivision constituted “development” within the meaning of the Act (see Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107[13]; see also Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan § 4.3.5) did not constitute a final determination prohibiting the petitioners from subdividing the property in accordance with their proposal. As the Planning Commission’s determination indicated, the petitioners may still obtain a hardship exemption, which would render the proposed residential use of the property authorized … . Since the petitioners failed to adequately allege that they suffered an actual concrete injury, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as premature … . Matter of Equine Facility, LLC v Pavacic, 2017 NY Slip Op 08371, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

ZONING (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, ZONING, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ZONING,  (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the truck defendants’ (Crown and Kumar’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Another defendant, Ferreira, had cut the truck off attempting to make a right turn from the left lane. Ferreira’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident:

​

Ferreira’s testimony indicated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which states that “[a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.” Therefore, she was negligent as a matter of law … . The appellants further established that Kumar was not negligent, since he took prompt evasive action by applying his brakes hard.

Thus, by demonstrating that Ferreira was negligent and that her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff and Ferreira failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. Pipinias v Ferreira, 2017 NY Slip Op 08400, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE PER SE,  DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/

DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact about the storm in progress proof precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this slip and fall case. In support of the motion, defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and climatological data. Because there was a conflict between those two sources of evidence, summary judgment was not available:

​

“Under the storm in progress rule,’ a landowner generally cannot be held liable for injuries sustained as a result of slippery conditions that occur during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter'” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … based on the storm in progress rule. The climatological data submitted by the defendants in support of their motion contradicted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which the defendants also submitted, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the accident. Since the evidence submitted by the defendants was in conflict and, thus, could not establish, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … , the court should have denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Pecoraro v Tribuzio, 2017 NY Slip Op 08386, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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