You are here: / PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM...

Search Results

/

PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.

The First Department determined the showup identification was not unduly suggestive, despite the presence of police officers and an officer’s statement to the victim they may have someone who matched the perpetrator’s description:

Police, who undisputedly had a sufficient basis for a common-law inquiry of defendant based on their investigation of a robbery, entered defendant’s apartment with the consent of another resident. After the resident who answered the door knocked on a bathroom door, defendant came out of the bathroom and complied with an officer’s request to move to a position between two officers. Meanwhile, an officer told the victim that the police might have someone who matched the description, and then brought him to the apartment. While defendant was flanked on both sides by two officers, and other officers were nearby, the victim identified defendant as one of the robbers. …

The showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, in light of the “close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery, as the result of a single unbroken chain of events,” and the fact that defendant was not physically restrained … . Notwithstanding the presence of several police officers in or near the apartment, and an officer’s statement to the victim that the police had someone who might match the description provided by the victim, “the overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup” … . People v Vizcaino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01811, 1st Dept 3-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant TCW’s motion for summary judgment in this residential-backed mortgage securities (RBMS) fraud action should have been granted. TCW represented it could select less risky RBMS’s and plaintiff invested $27,000,000 . The market subsequently collapsed. The First Department found the proof of “loss causation” lacking:

” Loss causation is the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff'” … . To establish loss causation a plaintiff must prove that the ” subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered'” … . Moreover, ” when the plaintiff’s loss coincides with a marketwide phenomenon causing comparable losses to other investors, the prospect that the plaintiff’s loss was caused by the fraud decreases’, and a plaintiff’s claim fails when it has not . . . proven . . . that its loss was caused by the alleged misstatements as opposed to intervening events'” … . Indeed, when an investor suffers an investment loss due to a “market crash [] of such dramatic proportions that [the] losses would have occurred at the same time and to the same extent regardless of the alleged fraud,” loss causation is lacking … . Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v TCW Asset Mgt. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01644, 1st Dept 3-2-17

SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/FRAUD (RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/LOSS CAUSATION (FRAUD, RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)

/

MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL.

The Third Department explained the meaning of mineral rights (as opposed to surface rights) as that term appeared in a 1917 deed. The court held that the term encompassed all inorganic material, including sand and gravel:

Supreme Court correctly determined as a matter of law that those mineral rights that plaintiffs owned and that were originally derived from a 1917 deed from a grantor, who was the common grantor of plaintiffs’ mineral rights and at least certain of [defendant’s]  surface rights, included the right to extract and remove sand and gravel. The Court of Appeals has directly passed on the meaning of the term “minerals” as used in a conveyance and concluded that the term “will include all inorganic substances [that] can be taken from the land” where the term’s meaning is not restricted “b[y] qualifying words, or language, evidencing that the parties contemplated something less general than all substances legally cognizable as minerals” … . Thus, unless qualifying and restrictive language related to the term minerals renders the term ambiguous in any particular conveyance, the meaning of minerals is determinable as a matter of law and is not subject to extrinsic proof … . The 1917 deed conveyed a minerals estate that included “all . . . minerals in, under and upon” the specified properties together with the right to “dig, mine and remove” those minerals from the land free from any liability for damage. Accordingly, given that the language in the 1917 deed does not qualify or restrict the term minerals, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation controls. Therefore, as sand and gravel are “inorganic substances [that] can be taken from the land,” they fall within the mineral rights conveyed by the 1917 deed … . Champlain Gas & Oil, LLC v People of The State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01610, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

REAL PROPERTY (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/MINERAL RIGHTS (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/SAND AND GRAVEL (REAL PROPERTY, (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/MINERAL RIGHTS (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)

/ ,

LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED.

The Third Department determined an action by a 28-year-old woman alleging lead paint poisoning was time-barred. Plaintiff was first diagnosed with high levels of lead in 1990. The statute of limitations runs from when the symptoms are first discovered, not when the cause of the symptoms is learned:

… [D]efendants’ submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff was cognizant of her claimed injuries, or, at a minimum, reasonably should have been, such that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Although CPLR 214-c (2) permits an action to proceed within three years from the “discovery of the injury,” this means the “discover[y of] the primary condition on which the claim is based” … , or, put differently, “the discovery of the manifestations or symptoms of the latent disease that the harmful substance produced” … . Here, accepting that lead was the causative harmful substance, plaintiff was aware of her injuries, which first manifested when she started public education in 1990 and, according to plaintiff, continued throughout her school years. Although plaintiff argues that her action is timely because she first discovered that she suffered lead poisoning when her attorney sent a solicitation letter to her mother in 2012, we disagree. Where, as here, a plaintiff is seeking the benefit of the discovery rule applicable to toxic torts, the statute runs from the date the condition or symptom is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, not the discovery of the specific cause of the condition or symptom … . Vasilatos v Dzamba, 2017 NY Slip Op 01615, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED/LEAD POISONING (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)

/ ,

CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined the certificate of merit filed in this medical malpractice action was inadequate. The complaint alleged malpractice by a surgeon. The certificate was based on the affidavit of plaintiff’s (Calcagno’s) physical therapist:

A certificate of merit “merely ensures that counsel has satisfied himself or herself that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of an action” … . The statute requires counsel to submit a certificate of merit declaring that he or she has consulted with at least one licensed physician who is knowledgeable regarding the relevant issues in the action, has reviewed the facts of the case, and has thus concluded that such a reasonable basis exists … .

We agree with Supreme Court that the certificate proffered by plaintiffs is inadequate. The allegations of malpractice arise from defendants’ diagnosis and surgical treatment, and the certificate of merit is based upon an affidavit of Calcagno’s physical therapist, who opined, “as a physical therapist,” that defendants’ actions were “departures from good and accepted medical practice.” However, by definition, a physical therapist cannot diagnose and is incompetent to attest to the standard of care applicable to physicians and surgeons … . Moreover, we find no merit in plaintiffs’ contention that the certificate of merit should be deemed adequate, as it was also based on certain medical reports, Calcagno’s testimony, and the pleadings. Review of these documents, standing alone, cannot suffice. Expert analysis is required to establish whether there was any departure from established standards of care, and whether any such departure was the proximate cause of injury to Calcagno … . Calcagno v Orthopedic Assoc. of Dutchess County, PC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01616, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)

/

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION SHE SAW A DENT IN A WAXY SUBSTANCE MADE BY HER SHOE AS SHE FELL WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant should not have been granted summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on a waxy substance on a marble floor and alleged she saw a “dent” in the substance made by her shoe when she fell. Defendant submitted evidence that the floor was never waxed:

Here, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a slippery substance on the bathroom floor that caused plaintiff to fall notwithstanding defendant’s assertion that it never used wax in that particular bathroom. Contrary to the motion court’s findings, plaintiff’s proof was not speculative and was sufficient to defeat the motion, because she set forth a specific reason for the slippery condition on the floor, namely a build-up of wax … . Indeed, as noted above, she “saw a big line, the dent of my shoe in the wax all the way that I fell,” suggesting that her shoe gouged out some of the waxy substance where she fell. This was more than just leaving a streak … , which would happen regardless of the condition of the floor. Villa v Property Resources Corp. (137 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2016]), recently decided by this Court, is also not dispositive. There, plaintiff merely felt a wetness on her pants and hands that smelled like wax or ammonia, while here, plaintiff saw the dent of her shoe in the waxy substance … . De Paris v Women’s Natl. Republican Club, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01625, 1st Dept 3-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION SHE SAW A DENT IN A WAXY SUBSTANCE MADE BY HER SHOE AS SHE FELL WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION SHE SAW A DENT IN A WAXY SUBSTANCE MADE BY HER SHOE AS SHE FELL WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

/

SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-months within which plaintiff was required to file his state action after dismissal in federal court (CPLR 205(a)) ran from the federal court’s ruling on plaintiff’s reconsideration motion, not from the initial dismissal in federal court:

Plaintiff was not required to commence a defamation action in state court while the reconsideration motion was pending, or to file a notice of appeal in federal court, in order to gain the benefit of the six-month extension … ; were our decision otherwise, the result would waste judicial resources by forcing a party to commence either a federal appeal or a new state court action while his or her case was still ongoing in federal court. Arty v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01626, 1st Dept 3-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)/RECONSIDER, MOTION TO (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)/RECOMMENCE ACTION (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)

/

LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL.

The First Department determined Labor Law 241(6) causes action based on the allegation plaintiff tripped on discarded concrete and rebar should survive summary judgment because plaintiff demonstrated the concrete and rebar were not integral to his work:

Plaintiffs established that the excess wet concrete discarded on the plywood on which plaintiff slipped was not integral to the work being performed by plaintiff at the accident site … . Plaintiff did not work with concrete and concrete was not a part of his responsibilities in constructing the tables and forms used to hold the rebar and other ironwork in place. Similarly, the rebar on which plaintiff tripped was not integral to the work he was performing, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) was correctly denied ,,, . Plaintiff presented evidence that he did not work with rebar and that rebar was not integral to any work being done on the day of the accident. Pereira v New School, 2017 NY Slip Op 01627, 1st Dept 3-2-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL)

/ ,

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.

The Third Department determined that, although none of the three children testified in this child neglect case, the children’s statements about the domestic violence witnessed by them were admissible because the statements were cross-corroborated:

“While the mere repetition of an accusation by a child is insufficient to corroborate the child’s prior account of abuse or neglect” … , “independent statements by children requiring corroboration may corroborate each other” … . * * *

… [W]e find that, although none of the children testified, their out-of-court statements sufficiently cross-corroborated one another … . Matter of Annarae I. (Jennifer K.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01605, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)

/ , ,

TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the termination of a teacher for submitting inaccurate time sheets was not warranted. The teacher had an unblemished record and the misconduct was precipitated by Hurricane Sandy, which flooded her home and the home of her disabled student:

Petitioner filled out the time sheets in question in advance of the dates to which those time sheets pertained. Although she did not, in fact, proceed to provide instruction to the disabled student on the days set forth in those time sheets, she submitted the time sheets without correction on a subsequent date. Because petitioner instructed other students on each of the dates in question, she would have received the same salary regardless of how many students she had instructed or how many hours she had spent with them, and thus derived no benefit from her actions. Petitioner’s misconduct is more a matter of lax bookkeeping than implementation of any venal scheme. There was no scheme to defraud or theft of services on petitioner’s part, and the harm to the public and to the DOE was mitigated. * * *

At the hearing, petitioner admitted that she was guilty of submitting reports stating that she had provided instruction to the disabled student on certain dates when she had not done so and that she had reported to various schools and libraries on certain dates when she had not done so. As petitioner acknowledges, her misconduct warrants punishment, since the disabled student was deprived of the services of a teacher for two months. Petitioner does not seek to set aside the findings of misconduct contained in the hearing officer’s opinion, but only to modify the penalty imposed on her. She has acknowledged her error in judgment and has pledged to change her practices and never to repeat the error. There is no evidence that “petitioner could not remedy her behavior” … . Matter of Beatty v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01628, 1st Dept 3-2-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDCUATION-SCHOOL LAW, TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDCUATION-SCHOOL LAW, TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)

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