You are here: / MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH...

Search Results

/ ,

MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a 1983 municipal resolution health insurance for non-union town employees did not create a vested contractual right for continued benefits. Therefore the 2012 reduction of the town’s contributions to the retirees health insurance was valid, although the contributions could not be reduced below the levels mandated by the Civil Service Law:

​

“A municipal resolution is, in general, a unilateral action that is temporary in nature and, thus, does not create any vested contractual rights” … . Nothing in the language of the October 13, 1983, resolution indicates that the Town intended to create a contractual or vested right … . Moreover, the appellants failed to submit any evidence, beyond the resolution, of a right to retirement health insurance benefits … .

Additionally, the Supreme Court properly found that the Town was not barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from reducing the appellants’ retirement health insurance benefits … . To establish promissory estoppel, a party must prove a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made, and an injury sustained in reliance on that promise … . Here, even assuming the appellants proved a clear and unambiguous promise, they failed to establish reliance thereon … .

However, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the Town was not required to contribute any amount for the retirement health insurance benefits of former Board members who retired prior to July 1, 2012. Civil Service Law § 167(2) provides, in relevant part, that participating employers, such as the Town, are required to contribute 50% of the cost of premiums for retired employees, and 35% of the cost of coverage for their dependents. … [T]he Town may not reduce its contribution rates below the legally mandated minimums … . Matter of Weaver v Town of N. Castle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05960, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (HEALTH INSURANCE, MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, HEALTH INSURANCE, MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT))/HEALTH INSURANCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT))

/

ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241 (6) and 200 action should have been granted. The defendants are husband (Joel Mendlovits) and wife (Malka Mendloits). Malka owns the house where plaintiff was injured and was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from liability under the Labor Law. Joel, who did not own the house, hired the company for which the injured plaintiff worked. Joel was entitled to summary judgment because he was not a contractor or agent within the meaning of the Labor Law, nor did he exercise and control over plaintiff’s work:

​

Joel established that he did not possess the requisite authority to supervise or control the work being done to support liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). He hired All Care to perform stucco work on the home, but did not instruct All Care or the plaintiff how or when to do the work and did not provide them with any tools, materials, or safety equipment. The plaintiff received instructions on when, where, and how to perform the work from All Care and never spoke to Joel, who supervised the progress of the work only to the extent of making sure it was getting done. Such general supervision is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) … . …

​

To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence where, as here, the plaintiff’s claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, “recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had . . . unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . Rodriguez v Mendlovits, 2017 NY Slip Op 05988, Second Dept 8-2-17

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the file for a pre-litigation investigation of a fire insurance claim done by a law firm hired by the insurer was discoverable.  The court further found the attorney who conducted the investigation was properly disqualified because she may be a fact witness in the underlying litigation, but her law firm should not have been disqualified because her testimony would not be prejudicial to the client’s case:

​

CPLR 3101(a) entitles parties to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” Discovery determinations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis “with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure” … .

“[T]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding [whether to pay or reject a claim] are made in the regular course of its business” … . Reports prepared by insurance investigators, adjusters, or attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are not privileged and are discoverable, even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly compelled disclosure, as the material … was prepared by [the law firm] as part of [the insurer’s] investigation into the claim, and was not primarily and predominantly of a legal character … . …

​

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying … the attorney who conducted the investigation … since she was likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact … . However, it improvidently exercised its discretion in disqualifying [the law firm] itself …. Pursuant to Rule 3.7(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “[a] lawyer may not act as [an] advocate before a tribunal in a matter if . . . another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client”… . Here, there was no showing that [the attorney’s] testimony may be prejudicial to [the client’s] case … . Advanced Chimney, Inc. v Graziano, 2017 NY Slip Op 05927, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (DISCOVERY, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to foreclose because the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met. The court noted that the bank’s failure to demonstrate standing did not require granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on that ground. Defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate plaintiff did not have standing:

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its standing … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Selena Mitcherson, a vice president of the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Mitcherson averred, based upon her review of the loan servicer’s business records, that “prior [to] commencement and at all times thereafter,” the plaintiff remained in possession of the original promissory note, which bears an indorsement payable to the plaintiff’s order and was “delivered to it, or its agent, on or about March 31, 2010.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Mitcherson under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since Mitcherson did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff … . The plaintiff also failed to establish standing based upon the purported assignment of the note and mortgage … . …

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing. “[T]he burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied. To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” … . Here, on his cross motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff lacked standing … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Talley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05996, Second Dept 8-2-17

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff, a mortgage loan servicer for Wilmington (bank), did not demonstrate standing to foreclose and did not demonstrate it had been delegated the authority to foreclose by Wilmington. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

​

… [I]n support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jessica Lancaster, its “Legal Coordinator.” Lancaster averred that the subject “loan” was part of a portfolio of assets purchased by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and deposited into Wilmington. Lancaster further averred that on February 1, 2013, “the notes and mortgages relating to the Purchased Assets were physically delivered to the offices of [the plaintiff].” The affidavit, which was based upon Lancaster’s review of and familiarity with the plaintiff’s records, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that “the notes and mortgages relating to the Purchased Assets” were physically delivered to the plaintiff. However, Lancaster’s averment that the subject “loan” was among those purchased assets was hearsay for which she failed to lay a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Moreover, no further evidence was submitted to establish that the subject note and mortgage were among the purchased assets. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its standing to commence this action.

In addition, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its capacity to commence this action. In that respect, the plaintiff did not demonstrate, prima facie, that it had been delegated the authority by Wilmington to act on its behalf with respect to the subject mortgage since it failed to submit any agreement, power of attorney, or similar documentation of such alleged authority … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Adames, 2017 NY Slip Op 05925, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BUSINESS RECORDS, PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS, STANDING, PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, although finding the error harmless, determined the introduction of DNA evidence without testimony by the analysts violated the Confrontation Clause:

​

The defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const Sixth Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted into evidence lab reports from a nontestifying DNA analyst which directly linked the defendant to the crime … .

“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” … . “Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . This determination is based on a review of the ” entire record'”… . In order for the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt must be overwhelming, and there must be “no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction” … .

Here, apart from the erroneously admitted evidence, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. People v Tsintzelis, 2017 NY Slip Op 05980, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was not given the opportunity to object to the procedure used in finding that he violated probation and did not freely waive his right to a hearing. Preservation of the error was not required for appellate review:

​

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in finding that he violated the conditions of his probation without holding a hearing is not subject to the preservation requirement … . The transcript of the resentencing proceeding confirms that the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to object to the court’s procedure before the finding of probation violation was made, and the defendant was resentenced immediately thereafter.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the record contains no evidence that the defendant freely admitted to the violation of probation. Nor is there any evidence that the defendant waived his right to a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70. Rather, the County Court, without conducting any hearing, found “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. This was error … . People v Montenegro, 2017 NY Slip Op 05973, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBATION VIOLATION, APPEALS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/PROBATION VIOLATION (DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROBATION VIOLATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have rejected plaintiff’s request for more time to file opposition papers. On the return date for the motion to dismiss, plaintiff tried to file a stipulation signed by defendant’s (NCAA’s) counsel which allowed plaintiff to adjourn the motion and granted plaintiff more time in which to file the papers. The court rejected the stipulation and marked the motion unopposed. That same evening, plaintiff e-filed the opposing papers:

​

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” In considering a motion for an extension of time, “the court may properly consider factors such as the length of the delay, whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the delay, the reason given for the delay, whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension, and, if so, the presence or absence of an affidavit of merit” … .

Here, the plaintiff established good cause for an extension of his time to submit opposition papers to the NCAA’s motion given the brief and unintentional delay, the lack of prejudice to the NCAA, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the NCAA’s motion, and “the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits” … . Calderone v Molloy Coll., 2017 NY Slip Op 05932, Second Dept 8-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 2004, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))

​

/ ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the defendant attorney’s retainer agreement unenforceable and properly ordered the attorney to disgorge the $65,000 fee which had been paid. The attorney had agreed to acted as both a broker and attorney in the sale of a business. The sale was not completed:

​

… [T]he plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the defendants acted as both attorney and broker in connection with the possible sale of the plaintiff company … , and that the retainer agreement provided for a contingency fee to compensate them in the event a sale of the company was completed. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the retainer agreement is unenforceable because it created a nonconsentable conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[a][2]; NY St Bar Assn Comm on Prof Ethics Op 1015 [2014] … ). The fact that the defendants are seeking to recover under the hourly fee provision of the retainer agreement, instead of the contingency fee provision, does not alter this result. The conflict created by the contingent fee existed during the representation, regardless of whether a sale of the business was ultimately completed. Accordingly, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ first counterclaim to recover fees under the retainer agreement.

An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and is not entitled to fees for any services rendered … .Here, the plaintiffs discharged the defendants for cause based on their nonconsentable conflict of interest in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) 1.7 … ). Thus, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ second counterclaim to recover in quantum meruit. Further, although the first cause of action is styled as one to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, it does not seek damages allegedly caused by such a breach, but merely for disgorgement of fees already paid … . Accordingly, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment on the first cause of action, in effect, to disgorge fees which had already been paid … . Jay Deitz & Assoc. of Nassau County, Ltd. v Breslow & Walker, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05940, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

ATTORNEYS (DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))/BROKERS (ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined that defendant’-trustee’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted. Although the defendant indenture trustee did not owe the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty with regard to the sale of securities, the trustee still owed plaintiffs a duty of care as described in the trust agreement, including a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Here the plaintiffs alleged the trustee sold the securities below market price and then sold them for a profit, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the equity in the securities:

​

This appeal concerns the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the termination of certain REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) trusts. The assets held by the trusts were mortgage loans. The trusts originally sold securities to outside investors, representing two classes of holders, i.e., regular security holders and residual security holders. Plaintiffs … are holders of the residual security interests in those trusts. While the holders of regular securities were entitled to receive regular payments on distribution dates, the residual security holders had no such right. Instead, they were entitled to receive the proceeds of the disposition of any asset remaining in the trust REMICs upon their termination, but only after each class of regular security holder had been paid. Plaintiffs’ interest is referred to as the trust “equity.” The residual holder interest was the riskiest tranche of ownership and any right to payment was subordinate to payment in full of amounts due to the regular interest holders.

… The trustee argues that under the trust documents, it had the right to purchase trust assets at below market, even though it could resell them within days of acquiring them, allowing the trustee to realize millions of dollars in personal profit. The trustee is alleged to have kept for itself the profit it realized on the forward sale, which was in excess of $3,000,000.

… Even if the sale of assets to the trustee had been conclusively established by documentary evidence, there is still a valid claim that the trustee’s actions create a conflict of interest prohibited under the operative trust agreements and in violation of the trustee’s contractual obligations. The trust documents do not give the trustee the express right to purchase the trust assets for its own financial benefit at less than market value and to thereby diminish, let alone extinguish, plaintiffs’ interest as residual security holders. NMC Residual Ownership L.L.C. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05923, First Dept 8-1-17

​

​

Similar issues and result in Cece & Co. Ltd. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05924, First Dept 8-1-17 (Gische, J)

 

SECURITIES (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST 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