You are here: / COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT...

Search Results

/ ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL.

The Third Department determined County Count did not have the authority to amend a defective conspiracy count by allowing the People to add an overt act. The court entertained the issue even though it was not preserved and it was not raised on appeal. The Third Department had made the same ruling in the codefendant’s (Placido’s) appeal:

​

In connection with Placido’s appeal, this Court has held that count 2 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective and that County Court lacked the authority to grant the People’s motion to amend that count … ). In light of the fact that count 2 of the indictment was identical in respect to Placido and defendant, it necessarily follows that this Court’s holding in People v Placido … applies with equal force to defendant. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not raise this issue before County Court and does not raise it on appeal, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse defendant’s conviction for conspiracy in the fourth degree. People v Deleon, 2017 NY Slip Op 02848, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/INDICTMENTS (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)

/

STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The First Department determined the statute prohibiting criminal possession of a weapon as an act of terrorism was not preempted by federal law and was not unconstitutional:

​

Defendant has not met his burden of showing a “clear and unambiguous” congressional intent to preempt state legislation in the field of counterterrorism … . The statute is not expressly preempted by 18 USC § 2338, which states that federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought under 18 USC part I, chapter 113B. Although Penal Law § 490.25(1) uses language substantially identical to the federal definition of “domestic terrorism” (18 USC § 2331[5]), the Penal Law provision is a separate statute limited to the commission of enumerated state offenses.

Defendant also fails to establish implied federal preemption of state counterterrorism laws. Since a local community will typically be the most directly affected by a terrorist attack there … , the “federal interest” in counterterrorism is not “so dominant” as to “preclude” local enforcement of state laws against attempts to commit terrorist attacks … . Moreover, Congress has not enacted “a framework of regulation so pervasive” as to leave “no room for the States to supplement it” … . This is evident from the strong federal policy of cooperating with state and local governments to combat terrorism … .

The statute is not unconstitutionally vague in proscribing the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” … , in light of the Court of Appeals’ construction of the emphasized phrase in People v Morales (20 NY3d 240, 247-249 [2012]). Defendant’s arguments that the statute is unconstitutionally vague in using the phrase “unit of government” among other terms are likewise unpersuasive … .

We also reject defendant’s challenges to the statute under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that the statute amounts to an impermissible content-based restriction of speech by increasing the felony level and sentencing range imposed on those who commit an enumerated criminal offense with the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping” … . Such heightened punishment for defendant’s admitted intent of, among other things, influencing the United States government’s foreign policy by building and possessing a pipe bomb does not infringe his right to free speech … . Moreover, defendant’s argument that the statute is overbroad in chilling political speech is unavailing, since any overbreadth is not “substantial . . . in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep” … of prohibiting criminal conduct perpetrated with an intent commonly associated with terrorism … . People v Pimentel, 2017 NY Slip Op 02891, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/TERRORISM, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM  (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

/ , ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE.

The First Department determined plaintiffs raised sufficient questions about whether defendant Starwood was an apparent or ostensible agent of the property owner, Sheraton, to justify further discovery and denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion as premature. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on a hotel walkway alleged to be defective. Plaintiff sued Starwood. Starwood moved for summary judgment arguing the hotel was owned by Sheraton and the walkway maintenance was under the exclusive control of an independent contractor, ZLC. Plaintiffs demonstrated there was evidence Starwood held itself out as the owner of the property on its website:

​

Starwood demonstrated that it did not own or control the hotel, and that, under the terms of the license agreement with Sheraton, ZLC was an independent contractor and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the hotel. Under these circumstances, even if Starwood were a party to the license (or franchise) agreement, the mere existence of a franchise relationship would not provide a basis for the imposition of vicarious liability against Starwood for the negligence of the franchisee, ZLC … .

However, in opposition, plaintiff submitted evidence that Starwood’s reservations website holds the hotel out to the public as a Starwood property, and that plaintiff relied on the representations on Starwood’s website in choosing to book a room at the hotel. This evidence of public representations and reliance may support a finding of apparent or ostensible agency, which may serve as a basis for imposing vicarious liability against Starwood … . Although the license agreement required ZLC to disclose that it was an “independent legal entity operating under license” from Sheraton and to place “notices of independent ownership” on the premises, Starwood did not provide any evidence that ZLC complied with those requirements.  Stern v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02882, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)/AGENCY  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)/NEGLIGENCE  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendants were subject to long-arm jurisdiction in New York. The dissent argued jurisdiction was obtained through the activities of defendants’ New York agents. The majority held that the conclusory allegations concerning the purported agency relationship were insufficient to survive the motion to dismiss:

​

To establish that a defendant acted through an agent, a plaintiff must “convince the court that [the New York actors] engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to [the] transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of [the defendant] and that [the defendant] exercised some control over [the New York actors]” … . “[T]]o make a prima facie showing of control, a plaintiff’s allegations must sufficiently detail the defendant’s conduct so as to persuade a court that the defendant was a primary actor’ in the specific matter in question; control cannot be shown based merely upon a defendant’s title or position within the corporation, or upon conclusory allegations that the defendant controls the corporation” … . Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v Gasarch, 2017 NY Slip Op 02876, 1st Dept 4-13-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/AGENCY (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/AGENCY (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)

/

BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS.

The Second Department, remitting the matter to the zoning board of appeals, noted that Supreme Court should not have considered the merits of petitioners’ application for renewal of a variance because the board did not address the merits. The board denied the application under the doctrine of res judicata which the parties agreed was not applicable:

​

The Supreme Court improperly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding after reviewing the merits of the subject portion of the petitioners’ application. In considering the petitioners’ request to renew the use variance allowing the subject property to be used as a two-family dwelling without the condition that the subject property be owner-occupied, the Board did not reach the merits of that portion of the application. Instead, the Board relied upon the doctrine of res judicata to deny the petitioners’ request for renewal of the use variance without an owner-occupied condition and stated that, as a result, it was not engaging in an analysis of the merits of imposing an owner-occupied condition, which had been rendered academic. On appeal, the parties do not challenge the court’s determination that the Board’s reliance upon the doctrine of res judicata was improper.

However, upon concluding that the Board improperly invoked the doctrine of res judicata, the Supreme Court should not have then analyzed the merits of the subject portion of the petitioners’ application. “Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency in making its decision” … . “If the grounds relied upon by the agency are inadequate or improper, a reviewing court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Matter of Rodriguez v Weiss, 2017 NY Slip Op 02794, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

 

ZONING (BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY OPTED TO SUE EMPLOYER FOR WORKPLACE INJURY, EMPLOYER DID NOT CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s personal injury action against his employer (Montalvo) should not have been dismissed. The employer did not have Workers’ Compensation insurance and plaintiff properly opted to sue:

​

Generally, “Workers’ Compensation benefits are [t]he sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against his employer for injuries in the course of employment” … . “This precludes suits against an employer for injuries in the course of employment” … . Here, however, the plaintiff properly elected his remedy of pursuing this action against Montalvo under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 50, since Montalvo did not carry Workers’ Compensation coverage at the time of the accident … , a fact conceded by Montalvo’s counsel in a statement that constituted a judicial admission … . Accordingly, the trial court should not have granted Montalvo’s trial motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Rosario v Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Ctr., Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 02837, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY OPTED TO SUE EMPLOYER FOR WORKPLACE INJURY, EMPLOYER DID NOT CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY OPTED TO SUE EMPLOYER FOR WORKPLACE INJURY, EMPLOYER DID NOT CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)

/ ,

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment in the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 action to set aside the deed and mortgages which were the bases for foreclosure by defendant Wells Fargo bank. Plaintiff demonstrated the initial deed was a forgery. Wells Fargo argued the proper procedure required that plaintiff move to vacate the judgment of foreclosure:

​

RPAPL 1501(1) provides that any person who “claims an estate or interest in real property” may “maintain an action against any other person . . . to compel the determination of any claim adverse to that of the plaintiff which the defendant makes, or which it appears from the public records, . . . the defendant might make.” A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid … .

Contrary to Wells Fargo’s contention, the plaintiff, who, like the decedent, was not a defendant in the foreclosure action… , properly commenced the instant action … .

Wells Fargo otherwise failed to carry its prima facie burden on its motion by demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject deed was valid … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting Wells Fargo’s motion … . Deramo v Laffey, 2017 NY Slip Op 02772, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

REAL PROPERTY (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE)/FORECLOSURE (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE)/DEEDS (FORGED, REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE)

/

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the defendant manufacturer of a Bobcat skid loader was not entitled to a jury instruction on the so-called Scarangella defense in this products liability case. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a small tree which entered the open cab of the Bobcat. The Bobcat was rented without a door on the cab. A door was available as a safety device. The Scarangella defense, in limited circumstances, places the ultimate decision whether to employ an available safety device on the buyer rather than the manufacturer. In Scarangella the safety device was a back-up alarm for school buses. The purchaser of the buses opted not to have the alarms installed. Only the buyer’s employees operated the buses and all were aware of the blind spot behind the buses:

​

The Court of Appeals [in Scarangella] determined that a departure from the rationale for imposing strict liability against the bus seller was warranted because the plaintiff’s employer was a “highly knowledgeable consumer,” the risk of harm was not substantial because the buses were only operated in reverse in the parking yard, and the plaintiff’s employer was in the best position to assess the dangers of not having the alarm (id. at 661). The Court held that a product is not defective and a manufacturer or seller is not liable as a matter of law if it establishes that (1) the buyer was thoroughly knowledgeable about the product and its use and was aware that the safety feature was available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional feature; and (3) the buyer was in a position to balance the benefits and risks of not having the optional safety device “in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . Where all three prongs are satisfied, the “buyer,” not the manufacturer or seller, is in a better position to assess the safety of the product without the optional safety feature, and a court should not submit a defective design claim against a manufacturer or seller to the jury, as there is no justification for the accepted rationale imposing strict liability upon the manufacturer or seller … . If one or more of the three prongs is not satisfied, however, the manufacturer or seller is in a better position than the buyer to discover design defects and, therefore, liability can be imposed. * * *

​

The circumstances of this case demonstrate that the Supreme Court properly determined that the Scarangella exception is inapplicable. When the loader was sold to Taylor, the Bobcat defendants knew that Taylor would rent it out to consumers for their personal use. In other words, the Bobcat defendants knew that Taylor would be renting the loader to persons over whom Taylor had no control, and who might lack any experience operating heavy equipment. This is in sharp contrast to Scarangella, where the individuals at risk from the absence of back-up alarm equipment were almost exclusively the buyer’s employees, and it was readily inferable that these employees were fully aware of a bus driver’s blind spot in backing up a bus and the resultant hazard, and could be expected to exercise special care whenever positioned in proximity to the rear of any bus that was idling or moving in reverse in the yard. Where, as here, the buyer is purchasing the product for use not by its employees but by the general public, over whom the buyer will exercise no control once the product is rented, it would be inappropriate to apply an exception to liability that is premised on the buyer being in a superior position to make the risk-utility assessment. Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02777, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/BOBCAT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SKID LOADER, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/SKID LOADER  (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, BOBCAT TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/SCARANGELLA DEFENSE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, LOADER, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendant podiatrist in this malpractice action. The defendant’s expert did not address the precise claims of malpractice made in the pleadings and did not demonstrate plaintiffs gave informed consent to the procedure. On the issue of informed consent, the court wrote:

​

To succeed on a cause of action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the failure of the podiatric practitioner providing the professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient the alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved that a reasonable podiatric practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation, and (2) that a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position would not have undergone the treatment or diagnosis if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury or condition for which recovery is sought … . Here, the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony indicates that they were not fully advised of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the surgical procedure. Further, the generic consent form signed by the infant plaintiff’s mother did not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not disclose the risks specific to the surgical procedure performed, and the defendants’ expert failed to aver that the consent form complied with the prevailing standard for such disclosures applicable to reasonable podiatrists performing the same kind of surgery ,,, , Parrilla v Saphire, 2017 NY Slip Op 02803, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)

/ , , , ,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.

The Second Department, in a lawsuit stemming from the flooding of plaintiffs’ land, explained the differences between contribution and indemnification and noted that corporate officers may be personally liable for torts committed in their performance of corporate duties:

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the Village of East Hills after they experienced flooding on their property from rainwater. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action sounding in tort, alleging that the flooding resulted from the development of land near their property, which was authorized by the Village. The Village commenced a third-party action seeking indemnification and contribution against A to Z Transit Contracting Corp., the project manager that constructed the plaintiffs’ home, as well as its principal, David Ferdinand, architect Carl Majowka, who prepared plans for the construction of the plaintiffs’ home, and Scott Anderson, the principal of Scott Anderson Design, Inc., which performed landscaping work for the plaintiffs’ home. * * *

“[C]ontribution arises automatically when certain factors are present and [does] not requir[e] any kind of agreement between or among the wrongdoers'” … . ” Indemnity, on the other hand, arises out of a contract which may be express or may be implied in law “to prevent a result which is regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory”‘” … . “Further, “[w]here one is held liable solely on account of the negligence of another, indemnification, not contribution, principles apply to shift the entire liability to the one who was negligent.” . . . Conversely, where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy'”… . “Whether indemnity or contribution applies depends not upon the parties’ designation but upon a careful analysis of the theory of recovery against each tort-feasor'”       * * *

Although “[c]orporate officers may not be held personally liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts” … , “corporate officers may be held personally liable for torts committed in the performance of their corporate duties'” … . Eisman v Village of E. Hills. 2017 NY Slip Op 02775, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CORPORATION LAW  (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)

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