You are here: / DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attached to the side of a tanker truck and alleged the fall was caused by the design of the ladder and the absence of safety device. Because the Labor Law 200 cause of action was based upon the manner in which the work was performed, the fact that defendants did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work entitled defendants to summary judgment. The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, etc.:

“When the methods or materials of the work are at issue, 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'” … . A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed … . …

The … defendants … established, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) causes of action asserted against each of them by showing that the plaintiff’s work did not constitute erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Kearney v Dynegy, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05209, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the umbrella policy had been cancelled for non-payment just hours before plaintiff (Garcia) was struck by the car owned by the insured, Rakowski. The Second Department rejected the argument that the insurance contract was divisible. The GEICO policy in effect was a $2,000,000 umbrella policy which represented an increase from a prior $1,000,000 policy. The additional premium ($199) for the $2,000,000 policy had not been paid, but the premium in an amount equal to the premium for the prior $1,000,000 policy ($306) had been paid. The Second Department held that the $1,000,000 coverage was no longer available. Only the $2,000,000 policy was in effect, and that was cancelled for failure to pay the additional $199 premium:

Garcia argues, and our dissenting colleagues would conclude, that, because of how the premiums were set out in the Amended Declarations, there is an ambiguity as to whether Rakowski received a policy for $2,000,000 or $1,000,000, or as to whether the policy was divisible or severable as to the amount of coverage. We disagree. The fact that the premium was separately stated for the increase in the coverage limit is irrelevant here. The $1,000,000 renewal proposal of the policy from the previous year had already been sent out before Rakowski asked for an increase in the amount of coverage to $2,000,000. The “Amended Declarations,” which, by their terms, “SUPERSEDE[D] ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION” for the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, were sent to Rakowski after she asked for the changes to her policy. Thus, the additional billing, which separated the original premium from the amount attributable to the increase, was unremarkable and did not give rise to an ambiguity in the policy that Rakowski had asked for and GEICO agreed to provide: a liability limit of $2,000,000 as of the beginning of the new policy period. Garcia is not seeking to divide Rakowski’s policy, but, in effect, to rewrite it to provide what Rakowski never asked for: a policy with coverage of only $1,000,000.

As Garcia points out, forfeiture is not favored in the law… , and, where cancellation of an entire policy would result in forfeiture, courts may be reluctant to hold that an insurance contract is not divisible … . There is, however, no forfeiture here. Rakowski asked for, and received, a $2,000,000 policy, and she had $2,000,000 in coverage from the outset of the policy period, October 10, 2005. Because she only paid part of the premium, her coverage was cancelled, upon notice, when the prorated premium for the coverage she contracted for was exhausted. In other words, Rakowski got everything she paid for, and she forfeited nothing. That Rakowski “just missed” being insured for the injuries caused to Garcia is unfortunate, but nonetheless irrelevant to this analysis. GEICO sent its cancellation notice more than six months before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia. We are not free to alter the meaning of the policy to avoid the result caused by Rakowski’s nonpayment of the premium for her $2,000,000 policy … . Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05202, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED THE REVOCATION OF THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREBY STOPPING THE RUNNING OF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department determined the lender had raised a question of fact whether it had revoked its election to accelerate the debt by withdrawing a prior foreclosure action. The six-year statute of limitations began to run when the debt was accelerated by the first foreclosure action. If the withdrawal of that action revoked the debt acceleration, the statute would have stopped running at that point rendering the instant action timely:

[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due, and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt'” … . A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action … .

… [T]he defendant submitted proof that, on August 16, 2011, [the lender] moved for, and on September 22, 2011, was granted, an order that discontinued the foreclosure action, canceled the notice of pendency, and vacated the judgment of foreclosure and sale it had been granted. The defendant thereby raised a triable issue of fact … as to whether [the lender’s] motion “constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” …  Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, this case is distinguishable from the cases in which, because “[t]he prior foreclosure action was never withdrawn by the lender, but rather, dismissed . . . by the court, [i]t cannot be said that [the] dismissal by the court constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” … . NMNT Realty Corp. v Knoxville 2012 Trust, 2017 NY Slip Op 05230, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father had been deprived of his right to counsel in mother’s relocation-petition proceeding. Father appeared for the hearing and told the court he had retained an attorney but the attorney could not attend that day. The court went ahead with the hearing:

After the court granted assigned counsel’s request to be relieved, it adjourned the hearing until June 24, 2016, so that the father could retain counsel. On June 24, 2016, the father told the court that he had retained an attorney but that the attorney could not be in court that day. The court, however, proceeded with the hearing after stating that it had no choice but to proceed.

We agree with the father’s contention that he was deprived of his statutory right to counsel … . Under the circumstances, instead of ordering the hearing to proceed, the Family Court should have granted an adjournment … . Accordingly, reversal is required, without regard to the merits of the father’s position, and we remit the matter … for a new hearing and new determination thereafter … . Matter of Charbonneau v Charbonneau, 2017 NY Slip Op 05221, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED BY FATHER, WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, AFTER MOTHER ASKED TO APPEAR AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of custody to father, which father had not requested, when mother asked to appear at a hearing by telephone was improper. The hearing was to determine father’s allegation mother had violated the visitation provisions of the consent order awarding custody to her. The child had appealed. The best interests of the child are paramount and don’t appear to have been considered by the court:

The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child … . “In order to modify a consent order granting sole custody to a parent, there must be a showing of a change [in] circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child'” … . “Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the [child], and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interests of the child” … . Reversal or modification of an existing custody order “should not be a weapon wielded as a means of punishing a recalcitrant” or contemptuous parent … . Moreover, where no party has moved for a change in custody, a court may not modify an existing custody order in a non-emergency situation absent notice to the parties, and without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to present evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly modified the consent order by changing custody from the mother to the father without the father having sought that relief in the petition, and without any apparent consideration of the child’s best interests … . The court’s award of custody to the father under the circumstances of this case also was improper in light of the father’s statements during the proceedings that he did not have a steady place to live with the child and that he did not wish to make an application for custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … , for further proceedings on the father’s violation petition. We caution the Supreme Court to be mindful that determining the best interest of a child is a weighty responsibility, and that it ordinarily should not make such a determination without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Matter of Noel v Melle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05226, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

THE RECORD SUPPORTED A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON FATHER’S ABUSE OF MOTHER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record supported a neglect finding based upon domestic abuse witnessed or overheard by the children:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Family Court credited the witnesses’ testimony, which the court found established that the father hit and choked the mother in the presence of two of the children, the eldest child was pushed by the father when he attempted to intervene, a third child was not in the room when the incident occurred but heard noise, and the three oldest children reported that they had witnessed the father engage in acts of domestic violence against their mother and had also witnessed the father under the influence of drugs. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the petitions on the ground that no physical impairment or risk of physical impairment of the children was established, nor was the mental state of the children explored. The petitioner appeals. * * *

Contrary to the Family Court’s conclusion, impairment or an imminent danger of impairment to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the subject children could be inferred from the father’s conduct … . A single act of domestic violence in the presence of a child … , or within the hearing of a child … , may be sufficient for a neglect finding. In this case, there was evidence of repeated acts of domestic violence while the children were present in the household … , which the eldest child attributed to the father’s drug use. Furthermore, the father did not testify, warranting the “strongest negative inference” against him … .

Under these circumstances, the Family Court’s findings that the subject children were not neglected are not supported by the record. Accordingly, we reverse the order, reinstate the petitions, find that the children are neglected within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012(f), and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing and determinations thereafter. Matter of Jihad H. (Fawaz H.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05224, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/

REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.

The Second Department determined that a review of plaintiff’s work at defendant’s home posted on Yelp was not actionable as libel per se. The review was an expression of opinion by a dissatisfied customer:

After the plaintiff installed a custom home theater system in the defendant’s home, the defendant posted a review of the services she received from the plaintiff on the Internet website Yelp.com. The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, among other things, that the review constituted libel per se. The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that cause of action. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion.

A “libel action cannot be maintained unless it is premised on published assertions of fact” … . Whether an allegedly defamatory statement constitutes actionable fact or nonactionable opinion is a question of law to be resolved by the courts … . In resolving that question, “[r]ather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” the courts should “consider the content of the communication as a whole,” and “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made” to determine ” whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the libel plaintiff'”… .

Here, given the context in which the challenged statements were made and viewing the content of the review as a whole, a reasonable reader would have believed that the writer of the review was a dissatisfied customer who utilized the Yelp website to express an opinion … . Crescendo Designs, Ltd. v Reses, 2017 NY Slip Op 05198, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, held Supreme Court did not err in excluding defendant from the SORA proceeding because of unruly behavior and proceeding with the hearing without a determination of defendant’s competency. Defendant’s competency had been called into question by defendant’s past behavior, his behavior at the SORA hearing, and defense counsel’s statements to the court. The opinion is comprehensive and includes an extensive discussion of the due process rights afforded defendants in SORA proceedings, parole revocation proceeding, and proceedings under the Mental Hygiene Law:

While the absence of a provision in SORA for a proceeding involving a defendant who is incapacitated is an issue which the Legislature may wish to address, we hold that if, and when, the defendant is mentally competent to understand the nature of the SORA proceeding, a de novo SORA risk assessment hearing may be held. Correction Law § 168-o(2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to SORA to petition the court annually for modification of his or her risk level classification … . Although the statute places the burden on a defendant seeking modification to prove the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence … , in light of the fact that an incompetent defendant is not “present” at the original hearing, the burden should remain with the People at the subsequent hearing at which the defendant is, for the first time, present. This approach fulfills the court’s mandatory obligations under SORA and ensures the statute’s goal of protecting the public, while, at the same time, affording the defendant the opportunity to be present and heard on the issue of his risk level designation when he is competent to do so. People v Parris, 2017 NY Slip Op 05252, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ ,

UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL NOT AUTHORIZED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the upward departure from the presumptive risk level was not authorized. The facts were not discussed but the applicable law was clearly explained:

Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if “special circumstances” warrant a departure … . An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, that there exists an aggravating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines … .

“Under SORA, a court must follow three analytical steps to determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score. At the first step, the court must decide whether the aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged by a party seeking a departure are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “At the second step, the court must decide whether the party requesting the departure has adduced sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof in establishing that the alleged aggravating or mitigating circumstances actually exist in the case at hand. If the party applying for a departure surmounts the first two steps, the law permits a departure, but the court still has discretion to refuse to depart or to grant a departure” (id. [citations omitted]). If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to upwardly depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Under the circumstances presented, the People did not meet their burden of proof with respect to the first two requirements. Therefore, an upward departure was not authorized … . People v Cassarly, 2017 NY Slip Op 05251, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

/ , ,

TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied because the issue could have been appealed. Defendant pled guilty to three counts charging robbery second. However the underlying factual allegations for two of the counts only supported robbery third. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive five year terms of imprisonment, one for each robbery second count. The issue was not raised on appeal and a writ of error coram nobis was denied:

FROM THE DISSENT:

I understand that we are constrained by CPL 440.10(2)(2), which provides that a court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the ground or issue raised upon the motion could have been raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and the defendant unjustifiably failed to do so … . Here, the defendant, although represented by appellate counsel, failed to raise, on his direct appeal, the meritorious issues he now raises on his CPL 440.10 motion … . The defendant filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. However, that application was summarily denied … . Under these unique circumstances, where the defendant has no other apparent avenue of relief in the New York State court system, it would be fundamentally unfair and unjust to apply the procedural bar set forth in CPL 440.10 to his claims.

Accordingly, while I understand the reasoning the majority applies in reaching its determination, I cannot join it, and must respectfully dissent. People v McKenzie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05243, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

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