You are here: / DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendants failed to show that they did not create the dangerous snow-ice condition or have notice of it:

​

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Their own submissions, which included, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendants’ superintendent, in addition to a certified weather report for the month of February 2014, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to the whether the defendants caused or exacerbated the alleged icy condition on the subject sidewalk or had notice of it. The plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, she slipped on ice on the path which had been shoveled through the snow on the sidewalk adjacent to her apartment building. She also testified that the path was slippery when she had used it the night before and that she did not observe any salt or sand on it. Although the building superintendent testified as to general snow removal procedures for the building, he could not remember what he did on the date of the accident and did not have an independent recollection of removing snow from the outside of the building at any time on either February 3, 2014, or February 4, 2014. His testimony conflicted with statements set forth in his affidavit, submitted in support of the motion, in which he stated that he personally checked the path at issue at the end of his shift at 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2014, and did not observe any snowy and/or icy condition. Such contradictory statements raise an issue of credibility which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment … . Further, the certified weather report demonstrated that there was an accumulation of 6.7 inches of snow as of 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2014, approximately 26½ hours prior to the accident, and that no snow fell on the date of the accident. Consequently, the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that they neither created the alleged hazardous icy condition on the sidewalk nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Michalska v Coney Is. Site 1824 Houses, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08365, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the amount of interest and attorney’s fees in this foreclosure proceeding must be recalculated. There was a three-year delay (which was not plaintiff’s fault) for which interest should not have accrued. In addition there must be some showing the attorney’s fees reflect the work actually done:

​

“In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . Here, in view of the lengthy delay by PE-NC’s [plaintiff’s] predecessors in interest in prosecuting this action, PE-NC should recover no interest for the roughly three-year period of time from when the action was commenced in 2005 to when the defendant filed a request for judicial intervention in 2008. While PE-NC did not cause this delay, it should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from this delay caused by its predecessors in interest. Furthermore, PE-NC should not recover interest on the counsel fees awarded to it. Paragraphs 7 and 21 of the mortgage are inconsistent regarding whether interest could be recovered on counsel fees. Since “ambiguities in a contractual instrument will be resolved contra proferentem, against the party who prepared or presented it” … , this ambiguity must be resolved against PE-NC, whose predecessors in interest presented the mortgage. Moreover, interest awarded under paragraph 7 of the mortgage, on money advanced to protect the lender’s rights in the property, should not have been awarded at the rate of 17%, but at the “Note rate,” which, in this case, was 7.25%.

“An award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to a contractual provision may only be enforced to the extent that the amount is reasonable and warranted for the services actually rendered. In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factors as the time, effort, and skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or certainty of compensation” … . In this case, a determination must be made on the reasonableness of the counsel fees, following a hearing on that issue, if necessary. Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v Lamberti, 2017 NY Slip Op 08353, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FORECLOSURE (INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FORECLOSURE, INTEREST, FEES, INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST (FORECLOSURE, ATTORNEY’S FEES, INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Mastro (not fully summarized here), reversing Family Court, determined father, who had been excluded from the home because of sexual abuse allegations involving a child, was entitled to an expedited hearing pursuant to Family Court Act 1028. Although the father had been returned to the home by the time the appeal was heard, the court deemed the issue important and likely to recur thereby warranting an exception to the mootness doctrine:

​

Since the removal of a child from the family home and the exclusion of a parent from that same home require equal showings of imminent risk, and both result in similar infringements on the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship, we conclude that both trigger the same due process protections. Accordingly, in cases such as the one before us, where no “imminent risk” hearing is held before the parent is excluded from the household and the parent-child relationship is thereby severed, the holding of an expedited hearing within three court days pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, upon the parent’s request, is mandated so that the question of reunification of the parent and child pending resolution of the proceeding may be determined. Due process requires the parent’s prompt, full, and fair opportunity to contest his or her exclusion from daily interaction with his or her children in this manner. Matter of Elizabeth C. (Omar C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08370, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

/

COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have given mother the power to cancel father’s visit with a child if the father was more than 15 minutes late:

​

The Family Court erred in granting the mother the authority to unilaterally cancel the father’s visitation if he were more than 15 minutes late to pick up or drop off the child. This provision did not give the father an opportunity to judicially challenge the mother’s determination, or to present a legitimate reason for his tardiness before having a visit canceled … . Thus, the court improperly delegated its authority to the mother to determine when the child would visit with the father … . Matter of Michael R. v Aliesha H., 2017 NY Slip Op 08377, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT))

/

DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied petitioner permission to live in his family home (Telford home) after released on parole, apparently based upon community pressure:

​

“Pursuant to Executive Law § 259-c(2) and 9 NYCRR 8003.3, special conditions may be imposed upon a parolee’s right to release. The courts routinely uphold these conditions as long as they are rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chance of recidivism. Acceptable parole restrictions have included geographical restrictions and restrictions requiring that parolees refrain from contact with certain individuals or classes of individuals”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, speculation by DOCCS about possible community efforts to exclude the petitioner from otherwise suitable housing and about the petitioner’s potential response to such efforts is not a rational basis for denial of otherwise suitable housing … . As the respondents have articulated no other basis for denying approval of the proposed residence, the respondents’ refusal to approve the Telford home as a suitable postrelease residence was arbitrary and capricious, as the determination bears no rational relation to the petitioner’s past conduct or likelihood that he will re-offend … . Matter of Telford v McCartney, 2017 NY Slip Op 08384,  Second Dept 11-29-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT))

/

AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed and reversed several rulings on defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, and common law negligence action. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a loose piece of sprinkler pipe on property owned by defendant One City. The 2nd Department determined the correct standard for analyzing the Labor 200 cause of action was under the dangerous condition prong, rather than the manner of work prong, of Labor Law 200 and dismissed that cause of action. There was no proof One City created or knew about the dangerous condition. The Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action properly survived summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the fall occurred in a passageway that should be kept clear and there was a question fact whether plaintiff was cleaning up the area at the time (which would preclude suit). The 2nd Department further found that there was a question of fact whether another defendant had purchased insurance as required by a contract with One City. The court also addressed indemnification issues. With regard to the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, the court wrote:

​

Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . “Claims for personal injury under the statute and the common law fall into two broad categories: those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises and those arising from the manner in which the work was performed” … .”Where the injury was caused by the manner and means of the work, including the equipment used, the owner or general contractor is liable if it actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work” … . “Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … .

Here, the court finds that the appropriate standard to apply in this case is the dangerous condition standard and not the manner and means standard. The cause of the accident, the piece of loose pipe, was not a condition created by the manner in which the work was performed by plaintiff or his employer but was rather a condition that already existed prior to plaintiff’s arrival on the fifth floor that day.  Prevost v One City Block LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08303, First Dept 11-28-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default in this foreclosure proceeding. Defendant’s counsel had neglected to file opposing papers when plaintiff moved for summary judgment and moved to vacate the default a month later. The failure to answer the motion was deemed excusable. The First Department found merit in defendant’s allegations of flaws in the notice provided by the bank, flaws in the bank’s proof of standing, and flaws in the bank’s proof the note was lost:

​

The borrower’s prior counsel acknowledged that he failed to submit opposition to the summary judgment motion after stipulating to adjourn that motion. However, counsel moved to vacate the default less than one month after Supreme Court’s decision was entered. Absent a pattern of dilatory behavior, the default was an excusable, one-time oversight, resulting in no prejudice … . …

​

The borrower raised a colorable notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the mortgage’s 30-day default notice and the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff’s servicing agent failed to indicate that she had familiarity with standard office mailing procedures … . * * *

​

Plaintiff seeks to foreclose the principal sum of $327,828.34, but there are gaps in its proof. * * *

There is also a question as to the sufficiency of the content of the lost note affidavit submitted on summary judgment. The affidavit * * * does not state when the search was made or by whom, and does not indicate approximately when the note was lost. Therefore, the borrower has demonstrated a potentially meritorious standing defense … . US Bank N.A. v Richards, 2017 NY Slip Op 08299, First Dept 11-28-17

 

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATE DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT (FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the first degree assault convictions. The dissent argued the proof of “serious physical evidence” was not sufficient:

​

The element of serious physical injury … required for the assault convictions  … was established by evidence showing that four years after the complainant was struck by a bullet, he still felt pain and the bullet fragments in his leg and could not engage in sports at the same level as before the incident. This proof sufficiently shows a protracted impairment of health or protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ to support a finding of serious physical injury … . * * *

​

From the dissent:

​

There is no proof of injury connected to the bullet fragments, nor is there proof that [the victim’s] life was endangered by the presence of the fragments … .Notably, the People’s expert was unable to opine as to whether [the victim] had suffered permanent deficits associated with the injury.

The fact that [the victim] suffered a gunshot wound does not ipso facto establish that he suffered a “serious physical injury” … . People v Garland, 2017 NY Slip Op 08302, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT (CRIMINAL LAW, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should have been granted. After the trial the prosecutor informed the court that a juror in defendant’s trial had applied for a job at the district attorney’s office two days before jury selection but did not disclose the application during voir dire. Ultimately the juror was hired by the district attorney’s office. Although the juror had prior experience on the prosecution side, her position at the time of trial involved white collar criminal defense. Defense counsel stated at the hearing that the juror was chosen because of her criminal defense work and, had defense counsel been aware the juror had applied for work in the district attorney’s office, the juror would have been struck:

​

Here, due to the juror’s concealment of material information regarding her job application, which also demonstrated a predisposition in favor of the prosecution, defendant was deprived of an impartial jury comprised of 12 jurors whom he had selected and approved through voir dire. In fact, defendant was tried by only 11 jurors whom he truly selected and approved; this violated his constitutional right to a jury of 12 of his own choice in a criminal case … . He was also deprived of exercising the various safeguards put into place by our legislature. As defense counsel testified, had the juror timely disclosed this information he would have moved to strike her for cause, and if unsuccessful would have exercised a peremptory challenge against her … While we recognize that there is no rule requiring automatic reversal in these situations … , since the verdict was not returned by a fair and impartial jury and we find the juror would have been subject to removal for cause, we agree with defendant that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was not tried by a jury of his own choice. We thus remand for a new trial. Critically, the juror remaining on the jury was prejudicial to defendant because he was ultimately convicted by the jury. People v Southall, 2017 NY Slip Op 08344, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Supreme Court should not have allocated all the proceeds of an insurance policy to the Workers’ Compensation Board and should have ordered the Board to file an accounting pursuant to CPLR 7702. The Board is seeking compensation from members of a workers’ compensation trust which was found to be insolvent. Respondent was a member of the trust and settled with the Board, paying over $1,000,000. Subsequently, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, both the Board and the respondent separately sought to recover funds from an insurance policy. Supreme Court ordered all the recovered proceeds to be paid to the Board and did not order the filing of a verified accounting. The Third Department found that respondent, under the terms of the settlement agreement with the Board, was entitled to some of the funds and an accounting should be filed by the Board. The matter was remitted:

​

The provision of the settlement agreement governing allocation of damages obtained from third parties by petitioner is unambiguously applicable by its terms only to the share of the jointly-recovered settlement proceeds that are ultimately allocated to petitioner. This interpretation gives full meaning and effect to the material terms at issue, including respondent’s reservation of its claims against the parties formerly responsible for administration of the trust, the agreement that allocation of the jointly-recovered settlement proceeds would be made in the instant CPLR article 77 proceeding and the provision precluding respondent from using activities undertaken after May 31, 2012 to justify a claim to allocation of the settlement proceeds. Petitioner’s contrary view — that it is entitled to all settlement proceeds because they were insufficient to satisfy the trust’s outstanding obligations and, therefore, that no surplus existed for allocation to former trust members, including respondent — is counter to the plain language of the settlement agreement and would impermissibly render meaningless the express reservation to respondent of all of its claims against former trustees, administrators and professionals. For petitioner’s argument — that all damages recovered from any third party from any source must first be used to satisfy the trust’s outstanding obligations — to prevail, the settling members, like respondent, would have had to have waived their claims against such third parties or subordinated their independent claims to petitioner’s claims. The settlement agreement contains no such terms. Thus, the matter must be remitted for allocation of the jointly-recovered settlement proceeds between petitioner and respondent and, as to any such proceeds allocated to petitioner, a determination of whether there are surplus funds remaining for distribution among the settling former trust members, including respondent. Matter of New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd, 2017 NY Slip Op 08244, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,  (THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VERIFIED ACCOUNTING, (THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 7702  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VERIFIED ACCOUNTING, (THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (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