You are here: / SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED...

Search Results

/

SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined a sign on plaintiff’s property saying “R. KESSLER [the defendant] SCREWED US BEWARE” was actionable defamation. Therefore the defendant’s defamation counterclaim survived a motion to dismiss:

​

… Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) seeking to dismiss the defamation counterclaim. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the statement is “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation” … . Furthermore, it is a mixed statement of opinion and fact and thus is actionable inasmuch as it is “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it’ “… . The answer thus sufficiently states a counterclaim for defamation … . Sallustio v R. Kessler & Assoc., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07792, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

DEFAMATION (SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the “offering a false instrument for filing” charges should not have been dismissed based upon the evidence presented to the grand jury. Defendant was a county employee who worked with a private company (Casella)  which managed a land fill under a contract with the county. The documents in question were submitted by the defendant to Casella. County Court found that the documents were submitted to a private party, not the government. The Fourth Department disagreed, finding a sufficient relationship between Casella and the county to support the charges:

​

“The essential elements of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree . . . are (1) knowledge that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, (2) intent to defraud the State or any political subdivision thereof, and (3) offering or presenting such instrument to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed” … . The term “public servant” is defined as “(a) any public officer or employee of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state, or (b) any person exercising the functions of any such public officer or employee” … .

Here, we agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that Casella, in accepting the reports from defendant for purposes of complying with the County’s permit issued by the State, was “not acting as a private concern” but rather was exercising a governmental function as an agent of the County … , and thus was acting as a public servant within the meaning of the statute. In addition, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People… , was sufficient to allow the grand jury to infer that defendant intended to defraud the County by submitting reports with fabricated information while still receiving a salary as a County employee … . People v Rafferty, 2017 NY Slip Op 07797, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the assault and unlawful imprisonment charges and reached a prosecutorial misconduct issue in the interest of justice (error not preserved). The prosecutorial misconduct, referring to evidence (a bloody t-shirt) which had been destroyed, was not deemed reversible. The Fourth Department found that a jury instruction on assault allowed the jury to consider a theory about how the victim was injured which was not charged in the indictment. Such an error affects the fundamental right to be tried only on what has been charged and need not be preserved. The Fourth Department also found that the evidence supported both the charged and a lesser included unlawful imprisonment offenses. The judge’s refusal to charge the jury on the lesser included was reversible error:

​

… [The] conviction of assault in the second degree must be reversed because Supreme Court’s instruction created the possibility that the jury convicted him upon a theory different from the one charged in the indictment. … As a preliminary matter, we reject the People’s contention that defendant was required to preserve his contention for our review. It is well settled that ” defendant has a “fundamental and nonwaivable” right to be tried only on the crimes charged’ ” … . With respect to the merits of defendant’s contention, “[w]here the court’s jury instruction on a particular count erroneously contains an additional theory that differs from the theory alleged in the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars, and the evidence adduced at trial could have established either theory, reversal of the conviction on that count is required because there is a possibility that the jury could have convicted the defendant upon the uncharged theory” … . We may not apply harmless error analysis to such an error because it would be impossible to determine whether the jury based its guilty verdict on the uncharged theory … . People v Barber, 2017 NY Slip Op 07807, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES  (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that defendant, during the plea colloquy, raised a mental health issue that was not adequately addressed by the judge. Because the issue was raised in the colloquy, it was appealable despite the lack of preservation:

​

… [D]efendant acknowledged during the plea colloquy that he had mental health problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder that caused him to experience hallucinations, that he heard a voice telling him to commit the crime at issue and that he was taking multiple medications, including Zoloft, to address his mental health problems. Although County Court observed that defendant appeared coherent and responsive during the plea proceedings, it did not ascertain if he was aware that a possible defense, emanating from his mental state at the time that he committed the crime, was available and that he was waiving it by pleading guilty. Inasmuch as an essential element of attempted burglary in the third degree is the intent to commit a crime inside a building that one has unlawfully entered … , and defendant’s mental state potentially negated such intent, County Court should have conducted a further inquiry before accepting defendant’s guilty plea… . Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we find that the guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent and must be vacated. People v Rogers, 2017 NY Slip Op 07889, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLOQUY (CRIMINAL LAW,  PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/MENTAL HEALTH (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

/

STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in finding the street stop of defendant was justified, provided a useful, detailed discussion of the facts and the law (too detailed to summarize here):

​

… [W]e agree with the People that the officer had at least the requisite founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and thus that his initial approach of defendant was proper under level two.

When defendant then immediately fled, the officer pursued him, which was a level three intrusion requiring reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was committing a crime. “In determining whether a pursuit was justified by reasonable suspicion, the emphasis should not be narrowly focused on . . . any . . . single factor, but [rather should be based] on an evaluation of the totality of circumstances, which takes into account the realities of everyday life unfolding before a trained officer” … . We also note that, although “flight alone is insufficient to justify pursuit, defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit’ ” … . Here, we agree with the People that the specific information known to the officer, coupled with the officer’s observations of defendant’s actions, furtive behavior, and immediate flight, gave the officer reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, thereby justifying the officer’s pursuit, detainment, and search of defendant.  People v Jones, 2017 NY Slip Op 07808, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

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))

/

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))

/

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))

/

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))/

/ , ,

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))

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