You are here: / DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the “for cause” challenge to a juror should have been granted. Defendant was charged with offenses related to insurance fraud. The insurer was AIG. The prospective juror worked for AIG:

Here, during the first round of jury selection, prospective juror No. 16 indicated that she worked for AIG. Upon inquiry by the defendant, the prospective juror explained that her job involved analyzing the financial policies for three divisions at AIG: “[a]sset management, financial services, and domestic life.” We note that, in response to the defendant’s questions, the prospective juror did not provide a completely unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial. She thought that she could be fair and impartial, but conceded that there “may be” a conflict of interest from the defendant’s perspective, and that it might be better if she were on a different case so as to enable the defendant to feel “comfortable” that he “wouldn’t be prejudiced in any way.” Thereafter, the County Court denied the defendant’s for-cause challenge without asking the prospective juror any questions about her employment at AIG or how it might affect her ability to serve as a juror, notwithstanding that the court had an obligation to try and determine “[a]ll issues of fact or law arising on the challenge” (CPL 270.20[2]).

Contrary to the County Court’s determination, the prospective juror’s professional relationship with AIG, her employer, rendered her unsuitable for jury service and necessitated her removal for cause (see CPL 270.20[1][c]… ). We note that AIG drafted and funded the insurance check underlying several counts of the indictment, and AIG was the named complainant in the count alleging insurance fraud in the third degree. Under all the circumstances, there was a considerable risk that the prospective juror could unwittingly give undue credence to witnesses from AIG and her service would give rise to the perception that the defendant did not receive a fair trial … . People v Guldi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05459, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE,  DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

/

EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing (over a dissent) defendants' convictions in a gang assault case, and granting leave for the People to appeal to the Court of Appeals, determined it was reversible error to empanel an anonymous jury. The trial judge explained his reasoning for not revealing the jurors' names as follows: “I know the last five years an increasing number of jurors told me that A, they feel uncomfortable walking in and out of the courtroom to their cars; B, they feel really uncomfortable giving their names, especially in violent felonies. And after speaking to [the Commissioner of Jurors] about it, she told me that's exactly the same feedback she gets, that jurors are uncomfortable about those two things, especially having their names in the courtroom. Now, my intent is to get as many jurors as we can possibly get to serve. And I think that because of that, I think that it limits the number of jurors that we get because they don't want to go through that worry and stress . . . about this because these are violent felonies. You know and I know we deal with this stuff every day, jurors don't. And that's the reason. It's not specifically this case, but that's the reason it's happening more and more and more often. So that's the reason.” The Second Department held the empaneling of an anonymous jury violated the criminal procedure law and the error was not harmless (the dissent argued the error was harmless):

The best evidence of the Legislature's intent is the text of the statute itself … . Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, a court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used … .

CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides, in part, “the court shall direct that the names of not less than twelve members of the panel be drawn and called as prescribed by the judiciary law.”

CPL 270.15(1-a) provides:

“The court may for good cause shown, upon motion of either party or any affected person or upon its own initiative, issue a protective order for a stated period regulating disclosure of the business or residential address of any prospective or sworn juror to any person or persons, other than to counsel for either party. Such good cause shall exist where the court determines that there is a likelihood of bribery, jury tampering or of physical injury or harassment of the juror.”

Read together, these sections of CPL 270.15 prohibit a trial court from withholding the names of prospective jurors. The plain language of CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides that the names be called. CPL 270.15(1-a) allows for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of addresses. It does not allow for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of names. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 05457, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/ANONYMOUS JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)

/ ,

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined a notice of intention to file a claim for medical malpractice was valid. A notice of intention to file a claim, unlike a notice of claim, may be filed by any “interested person,” here the wife of decedent (who was not representing the decedent’s estate at the time):

The claimant’s husband (hereinafter the decedent) was treated at Stony Brook University Hospital (hereinafter Stony Brook) from February 13, 2005, through March 3, 2005. The decedent was later treated at Mount Sinai Hospital from March 18, 2006, until his death on October 30, 2006. On April 19, 2006, the claimant, “as Proposed Guardian for” the decedent, filed a notice of intention to file a claim against the defendant State of New York to recover damages for medical malpractice that allegedly occurred while the decedent was treated at Stony Brook (hereinafter the notice of intention). On January 3, 2008, the claimant was granted letters of administration for the decedent’s estate. On January 11, 2008, the claimant filed a claim against the defendant to recover damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and loss of services.

The Court of Claims should have denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 to dismiss so much of the claim as sought to recover damages for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering arising from medical malpractice. Contrary to the defendant’s contention and the court’s conclusion, the notice of intention filed by the claimant on April 19, 2006, was not invalid on the ground that the claimant lacked the authority to file it on behalf of the decedent, as the notice may be given by “any interested person” … . The Court of Appeals’ decision in Lichtenstein v State (93 NY2d 911) does not compel a different result, as that case involved the filing of a claim itself, as opposed to a notice of intention to file a claim. Matter of Dolce v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05434, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

COURT OF CLAIMS (NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT)/NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT)

/ ,

CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff, suing on behalf of condominium owners, had stated breach of contract causes of action against the defendant (KEPC) which had inspected the condominiums during construction on behalf of the developer (SDS). The complaint sufficiently alleged plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the oral contract between KEPC and SDS and was a successor-in-interest to the contract between KEPC and SDS:

A nonparty to a contract may maintain a cause of action alleging breach of contract only if it is an intended, and not a mere incidental, beneficiary of the contract … . However, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … . A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must allege: (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for its benefit, and (3) that the benefit to it is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate it if the benefit is lost … . “In determining third-party beneficiary status, it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement” … .

Here, taking the allegations in the complaint as true and affording the plaintiff every favorable inference, the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action against KEPC to recover damages for breach of contract on a third-party beneficiary theory… . Moreover, KEPC failed to come forward with competent documentary evidence that refuted, as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s allegation that it was a third-party beneficiary of its contract with SDS … .

Condominium unit owners may also be considered successors-in-interest to the condominium sponsor’s construction contracts under certain circumstances … . Whether a party is a successor-in-interest to the performance of a particular contract is generally a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of the case … . Board of Mgrs. of 100 Congress Condominium v SDS Congress, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05414, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT)/THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT)/SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST (CONTRACT LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT)/CONDOMINIUMS (CONTRACT LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FIRM WHICH INSPECTED THE CONDOMINIUMS DURING CONSTRUCTION 2ND DEPT)

/ , ,

TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s responses to an inconsistent verdict were inadequate and ordered a new trial , granting defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The jury, in this lead-paint poisoning case, found that the defendant property owner was negligent but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. However the jury went on to award plaintiff $250,000 in damages. The judge sent the jury back, instructing them that they could not award damages unless they found the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. The judge did not inform the jury they could adhere to their original finding on proximate cause. The jury returned a second verdict, this time finding defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries:

Here, the jury’s first verdict was internally inconsistent when it awarded damages to the plaintiff despite finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly directed the jury to reconsider the verdict. Notwithstanding, the record supports the conclusion that the second round of deliberations resulted in an unreliable verdict … . Specifically, the court failed to provide clear instructions to the jury regarding how to proceed with respect to the interrogatories concerning damages if it again found that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. This failure may have induced the jury to decide, out of confusion or frustration, to simply forgo the issue altogether by finding that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, the court’s response to the jury note to simply follow the instructions on the new verdict sheet was inadequate. ” Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors'” … . Under these circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to set aside the second jury verdict and directed a new trial … . Cleveland v Djeu, 2017 NY Slip Op 05417, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/LEAD PAINT (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)

/ ,

MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATION WHICH ALLOWS A LIFETIME DRIVING BAN TO BE IMPOSED UPON DRIVERS WITH MULTIPLE DWI CONVICTIONS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

The Fourth Department determined the regulation which allows the commissioner of motor vehicles to impose a lifetime driver’s license revocation for persons with multiple driving while intoxicated convictions was not unconstitutionally vague:

… [T]he regulation does not give respondent “unfettered discretion” to deny an application. Section 136.5 formalized the manner in which the Commissioner would exercise her discretion by “ensur[ing] that her discretion is exercised consistently and uniformly, such that similarly-situated applicants are treated equally” … . Additionally, the regulation puts the public on notice of respondent’s general policy with respect to relicensing a person whose driver’s license has been revoked for multiple alcohol- or drug-related transgressions … . In petitioner’s case, he faces a lifetime ban because he has at least five such convictions or incidents, as defined in the regulation … . Nevertheless, the Commissioner reserved the discretion to deviate from her general policy in “unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances” … . That exception ensures that respondent has the flexibility to grant an application for relicensing where extraordinary circumstances render the application of the general policy inappropriate or unfair … . Thus, reading the language of the challenged exception within the context of the regulation as a whole, we conclude that 15 NYCRR 136.5 (d) is not unconstitutionally vague. Matter of Gurnsey v Sampson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05350, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED NO PARTNERSHIP HAD BEEN FORMED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROPERLY GRANTED. ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this breach of a partnership agreement action. Defendant demonstrated no partnership had been formed:

“A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit” (Partnership Law § 10 [1]). Where, as here, there is no written partnership agreement between the parties, a court looks to the parties’ conduct, intent, and relationship to determine whether a partnership existed in fact … . The relevant factors are (1) the parties’ intent, whether express or implied; (2) whether there was joint control and management of the business; (3) whether the parties shared both profits and losses; and (4) whether the parties combined their property, skill, or knowledge … . No single factor is determinative; a court considers the parties’ relationship as a whole … .

… [W}e must consider whether the parties expressly or implicitly intended to become partners … . Evidence concerning the parties’ preliminary negotiations bears directly on their intent …  In support of his motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff, the affidavit of defendant, invoices, a lease, and the parties’ correspondence documenting their contract negotiations. That evidence establishes that the parties never shared the intent to become partners. In June 2004, defendant wrote an email to plaintiff suggesting that they discuss “how [they] might be able to work together.” Plaintiff responded that a partnership “might work” and expressed hope that the parties could come to a “workable agreement.” Thereafter, the parties met in person and plaintiff explained that he wanted a 50% share in a partnership. Plaintiff later testified at his deposition that, upon hearing that proposal, defendant had “a look on his face like maybe he wasn’t expecting that,” and did not respond.

Although plaintiff testified that he interpreted defendant’s silence as an agreement to an equal partnership, the documentary evidence undermines any such assumption. * * * … [T]he evidence demonstrates that the parties never shared the intent to enter into a partnership, although they initially had explored the possibility of one. Hammond v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 05337, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S LANE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR-END COLLISION, PLEA TO FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE ONLY IF THE VIOLATION IS UNEXCUSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant raised a question of fact whether the cause of the accident was plaintiff’s sudden lane change. The fact that defendant pled guilty to a traffic violation, following too closely, would constitute negligence per se only if unexcused:

Plaintiff … submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, who stated that he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle until immediately before the accident, when plaintiff moved from the middle lane to the right lane and slammed on his brakes in an instant or quickly, i.e., plaintiff’s action was not a slow and cautious movement to which defendant could react … . Defendant explained that he had not seen plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision because he had been paying attention to the road in front of him and, when plaintiff engaged in his maneuver (changed lanes), defendant slammed on his brakes and tried to steer into the shoulder to avoid the accident, which caused the back end of the trailer that was attached to the truck to swing out, and the left corner of the truck struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiff “failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch as he submitted the deposition testimony in which [defendant] provided a nonnegligent explanation for the collision,” namely, that plaintiff caused the collision when he suddenly changed lanes in response to slowing traffic in the middle and left lanes of the highway and abruptly stopped in the right lane in front of defendant … .

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that he established defendant’s negligence as a matter of law by submitting evidence of defendant’s guilty plea of following too closely (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). “It is well settled that the fact that [the] driver entered a plea of guilty to a Vehicle and Traffic Law offense is only some evidence of negligence and does not establish his negligence per se’ ” … . “Rather, it is the unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [that] constitutes negligence per se’ ” … . Here, upon defendant’s explanation, the trier of fact could excuse the violation on the ground that plaintiff cut in front of defendant and immediately stopped, thereby failing to provide defendant with adequate time to create the “reasonable and prudent” distance between the vehicles that is required by the statute … . Gardner v Chester, 2017 NY Slip Op 05336, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

/ ,

CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined conclusory allegations that the landlord (Miranda) was an owner of the business (Molly’s Pub)) in which plaintiff’s decedent was injured were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in this wrongful death action:

We agree with Miranda … that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The conclusory allegations in the complaint alleging liability on the same grounds as those alleged against the [pub] defendants based upon the alleged ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub are insufficient to state a cause of action against him. … Miranda submitted the lease, which provides that he shall not be liable for injury to persons or for any defects in the building. He also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he has no ownership interest in Molly’s Pub, that did he not exercise any control over the operation of Molly’s Pub … , that he had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition on the premises and that he was “merely an out-of-possession landlord.” …

‘[W]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support . . . Indeed, a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations” … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support his allegation that Miranda had an ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub. Sager v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05340, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

/ ,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR HUSBAND’S DERIVATIVE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim with respect to husband’s derivative claim stemming from wife’s injuries should have been granted. Because the county was deemed to have knowledge of the wife’s claim within 90 days, the county must also be deemed to have had timely knowledge of the derivative claim:

Here, respondent contends that it did not receive actual knowledge of the facts constituting the husband’s claim because it did not receive knowledge of the injuries or damages claimed by the husband. We reject that contention. “[C]ourts have granted leave to serve a supplemental or amended notice of claim to add a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium . . . where such claim results from the same facts as were alleged in a timely and otherwise admittedly valid notice of claim for personal injuries’ “… . Indeed, courts have generally recognized that derivative causes of action “[are] predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the injured party’s claims … . As a result, where it has been determined that the respondent received timely notice of the injured claimant’s claims, “there can be no claim of prejudice to respondent” resulting from a late notice of a derivative claim (id.).

Although we recognize that claimants did not file a timely notice of claim for the injuries sustained by claimant Melody L. Darrin (wife), the court’s determination to grant the application with respect to her suggests that the court determined that respondent had actual knowledge of the facts underlying her claim. Inasmuch as the husband’s derivative claim is “predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the wife’s claims … , we discern no rational basis upon which the court could have granted the application with respect to the wife but not the husband … . Matter of Darrin v County of Cattaraugus, 2017 NY Slip Op 05352, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

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