Page 1026 – New York Appellate Digest

SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s welfare fraud conviction, determined the statute required that the fraud involve a program administered by the department of social services. Here the fraud involved the federal section eight housing subsidy program, which was not administered by the department of social services:

… [D]efendant’s interpretation of the statutory definition of public assistance benefits is supported by the legislative history of the statute, which shows that it was enacted primarily to combat Medicaid fraud … , and Medicaid benefits are administered by the department of social services or social services district. In addition, we note that the People’s interpretation of the statute would extend its reach beyond its intended meaning to include any “money, property or services provided directly or indirectly through programs of the federal government,” without qualification … For example, under the People’s interpretation, veteran’s benefits would be “money, property or services” falling within the definition of “[p]ublic assistance benefits” … , but it seems unlikely that the Legislature intended the improper receipt of such benefits to be considered welfare fraud.

We conclude that both [the People’s and defendant’s] interpretations of the statute are plausible. In such situations, the rule of lenity applies and we must adopt the interpretation of the statute that is more favorable to defendant … . The People were therefore required to establish that the Section 8 funds were “administered by the department of social services” … , which they failed to do. People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 07800, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT))/WELFARE FRAUD (CRIMINAL LAW, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT)))/SECTION EIGHT (CRIMINAL LAW, WELFARE FRAUD, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Criminal Law

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by waiver of indictment and plea to a superior court information (SCI), noted that defendant was still charged with an A felony at the time of the waiver and plea. The A felony complaint was not dismissed until after the plea:

In a prior appeal, we reversed the judgment of conviction, determining that the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as defendant had been charged with, inter alia, a class A felony and thus could not validly waive indictment or consent to be prosecuted by an SCI … . We thus vacated the plea and waiver of indictment and dismissed the SCI, noting that ” the People may present the case to the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … .

On remittal, the People did not present the case to a grand jury but, rather, made a second attempt to proceed by SCI. As the People correctly concede, the SCI is again jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as the felony complaint charging defendant with the class A felony was not dismissed until after the waiver of indictment and plea to the SCI. As a result, defendant was still “charged” with a class A felony when he waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted by an SCI. “Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a class A felony, the defendant cannot validly waive indictment or consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information” … . We therefore vacate defendant’s plea and his waiver of indictment, and we dismiss the SCI, noting again that ” the People may present the case to the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … . People v Priest, 2017 NY Slip Op 07859, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Criminal Law

BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant was entitled to a sentence which comported with his expectations based upon the plea agreement. The Fourth Department vacated his sentence. It turned out defendant could not be credited with jail time in accordance with the plea agreement:

The promise with respect to jail time credit … could not be fulfilled. Penal Law § 70.30 (3) provides that “[t]he term of a definite sentence . . . imposed on a person shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time the person spent in custody prior to the commencement of such sentence as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence.” Such credit, however, “shall not include any time that is credited against the term . . . of any previously imposed sentence . . . to which the person is subject” … . Thus, “a person is prohibited from receiving jail time credit against a subsequent sentence when such credit has already been applied to time served on a previous sentence’ “… . The correctional facility to which defendant was committed therefore properly determined that defendant was prohibited from receiving jail time credit against his sentence on the conviction of attempted CPCS in the fourth degree for the time that he had served between sentencing on the prior conviction and the subsequent sentencing proceeding … .

It is well established that ” [a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored’ ” … . ” The choice rests in the discretion of the sentencing court’ and there is no indicated preference for one course over the other’ ” … . Where, as here, “the originally promised sentence cannot be imposed in strict compliance with the plea agreement, the sentencing court may impose another lawful sentence that comports with the defendant’s legitimate expectations” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to impose a sentence that comports with defendant’s legitimate expectations of the negotiated plea agreement or to afford defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. People v Drake, 2017 NY Slip Op 07844, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT))PLEA AGREEMENT (SENTENCING, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, PLEA AGREEMENT, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Contract Law

CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a contract was not an agreement to agree and was sufficiently definite, and the liquidated damages clause was enforceable. The parties agreed that plaintiff would provide exhibit services at several trade shows with the price amortized over the upcoming shows. Defendant informed plaintiff it was not going to participate in the 2016 shows and this breach of contract action was brought:

The agreement itself is … sufficient to establish a binding contract inasmuch as the parties agreed to a fixed cost for each show that defendant was required to attend and set a minimum amount that defendant was obligated to spend in aggregate over the four shows … . …

” [W]here the parties have completed their negotiations of what they regard as essential elements, and performance has begun on the good faith understanding that agreement on the unsettled matters will follow, the court will find and enforce a contract even though the parties have expressly left these other elements for future negotiation and agreement, if some objective method of determination is available, independent of either party’s mere wish or desire’ ” … . …

“Where, as here, the parties to the agreement were sophisticated business [entities], and the terms of the agreement were mutually negotiated, with each party represented by experienced counsel, a liquidated damages provision which is reached at arm’s length is entitled to deference” … . The evidence in the record … establishes that plaintiff’s damages “are sufficiently difficult to ascertain to satisfy the first requirement of a valid liquidated damages provision” … . With respect to the second requirement, we conclude that the negotiated amount of liquidated damages is not ” conspicuously disproportionate to [plaintiff’s] foreseeable losses’ ” … . RES Exhibit Servs., LLC v Genesis Vision, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07796, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/AGREEMENT TO AGREE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DEFINITENESS DOCTRINE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITIES (CONTRACT LAW, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/

November 09, 2017

/ Civil Conspiracy, Mental Hygiene Law, Municipal Law

TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the town’s request for an adjournment of a hearing was properly denied. After the hearing, the NYS Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities permitted the establishment of a community residential facility for the developmentally disabled within the town. Although the town requested that the hearing be adjourned, it did offer timely explanations of the reasons for the adjournment:

Petitioner (the town) contends that, if it had been given additional time to prepare for the hearing, it could have proposed alternative sites, and thus the denial of an adjournment was an abuse of discretion. If petitioner believed that another site would be appropriate, however, it should have suggested another site in response to the sponsoring agency’s initial notice or, if needed, asked for time to find such a site … . Instead, petitioner decided to object to the facility outright … , which led the sponsoring agency to request an “immediate hearing” … . We therefore respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that there was no reason for petitioner to anticipate preparing for a hearing upon receiving notice from the sponsoring agency.

We further respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that an adjournment should have been granted so that petitioner could study traffic and waste disposal concerns. In its requests for an adjournment, petitioner did not state that it needed time to study those issues. It was not until after the decision of respondent’s Acting Commissioner, in which she stated that petitioner’s traffic and septic concerns were not based on any studies, that petitioner argued that it should have been granted an adjournment to study those issues. To the extent that petitioner contends that its stated reason of needing “time to prepare” encompassed those specific issues, we reject that contention. To conclude otherwise would mean that adjournments should always be granted upon request, even when it is well settled that the decision to grant or deny an adjournment is a matter of discretion … . Matter of Town of Boston v New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities, 2017 NY Slip Op 07803, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ADJOURNMENTS, TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW ( OWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Civil Procedure

FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the failure to include a return date in a notice of petition is no longer a jurisdictional defect and can be overlooked where notice was actually provided:

A “notice of petition shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the petition” (CPLR 403 [a]). The omission of a return date in a notice of petition does not, however, deprive a court of personal jurisdiction over the respondent … . Indeed, such a technical defect is properly disregarded under CPLR 2001 so long as the respondent had adequate notice of the proceeding and was not prejudiced by the omission… .

Here, it is undisputed that respondent had ample notice of the proceeding from its inception. Moreover, respondent has not identified any prejudice from the omitted return dates. The technical defects in the notices of petition should therefore be disregarded under CPLR 2001 … . Matter of Bender v Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07853, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/PETITION, NOTICE OF (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/RETURN DATE (NOTICE OF PETITION, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 403 (a) (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Civil Procedure

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, following the other three departments, determined that a motion to amend the pleadings no longer requires a demonstration of the merit of the proposed amendment:

We have previously adhered to a rule requiring the proponent of a motion for leave to amend a pleading to make a “sufficient evidentiary showing to support the proposed claim” … , that is, to make an “evidentiary showing that the proposed amendments have merit” … . However, we are persuaded to depart from that line of authority and follow the lead of the other three Departments, and we now hold that “[n]o evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025 (b)” … . Thus, the rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit”… . The rationale for adopting this rule is that the liberal standard for leave to amend that was adopted by the drafters of the CPLR is inconsistent with requiring an evidentiary showing of merit on such a motion. “If the opposing party [on a motion to amend] wishes to test the merits of the proposed added cause of action or defense, that party may later move for summary judgment [or to dismiss] upon a proper showing” … . NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v People Care Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07918, Third Dept 11-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/PLEADINGS, AMENDMENT OF (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (b) (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Civil Procedure

TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined the law of the case doctrine prohibited the trial court, a court of coordinate jurisdiction, from deviating from a prior ruling in the commercial division. The commercial division had ruled the plaintiff restaurant’s exhaust system violated the NYC Mechanical Code:

The “law of the case doctrine is designed to eliminate the inefficiency and disorder that would follow if courts of coordinate jurisdiction were free to overrule one another in an ongoing case” … . Here, the trial court was prohibited from finding that plaintiff’s commercial kitchen exhaust system did not violate the Mechanical Code. The trial court adopted the earlier finding … when it held that [the] orders were the “law of the case,” and limited the issue at trial … . Glaze Teriyaki, LLC v MacArthur Props. I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07770, First Dept 11-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OF THE CASE, TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (LAW OF THE CASE, TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Privilege

REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed most of Supreme Court’s rulings on the disclosure of documents in a billing dispute, including a report from a consultant, finding that the documents were not protected by privileges for attorney-client communications, attorney work-product, or material prepared for litigation. The criteria for all were described:

… [T]he report “does not include any legal advice, legal analysis or discussion of legal issues” nor does it disclose confidences of defendant, and ,,, it is not a communication “of a legal character” … . * * *Thus, the report was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

…[T]he report was not protected from disclosure as attorney work product, as this “privilege should be narrowly applied to materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his [or her] analysis and trial strategy” … .

Materials such as reports prepared by a third party, a nonlawyer consultant, during an investigation do not ordinarily qualify under this exception … . * * *

With regard to the claim that the report was protected from disclosure as material prepared for litigation, defendant’s “burden was to demonstrate that [the report] was obtained solely for litigation purposes” … , which “cannot be satisfied with wholly conclusory allegations”… . “[M]ixed or multipurpose reports are not free from disclosure” … . NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v People Care Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07909, Third Dept 11-9-17

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGES, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEYS, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, PRIVILEGE, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT (REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/LITIGATION, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR (PRIVILEGE, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT)/DISCLOSURE (PRIVILEGE, ATTORNEYS, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

November 09, 2017

/ Corporation Law, Unemployment Insurance

CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not totally unemployed and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant was winding up his corporation’s business during the relevant period of time:

“[A] corporate officer who performs activities in connection with the winding up of a corporation will not be considered totally unemployed, even if his or her activities in this regard are minimal” … . Following the sale of the business, claimant took measures in winding up the business during the time period in question, including changing the company name with the Department of State as required by the purchase agreement, distributing the monthly installment payments received from the purchaser of the business, and writing checks from the company account for accountant and counsel fees, taxes, insurance costs, a charitable contribution, office supplies and other business expenses. Under these circumstances, the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . “Contrary to claimant’s assertion, actual financial gain is not a prerequisite to a finding that a claimant is not totally unemployed” … . Matter of Lasker (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 07924, Third Dept 11-9-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))

November 09, 2017

Search Results

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT).

BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT).

FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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