You are here: / DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED.

The Second Department sent the matter back because defendant was not informed of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The court explained the relevant law and procedure:

​

In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), the Court of Appeals held that, as part of its independent obligation to ascertain whether a defendant is pleading guilty voluntarily, a trial court must alert a noncitizen defendant that he or she may be deported as a consequence of the plea of guilty (see id. at 193). Although no particular litany is required, “[t]he trial court must provide a short, straightforward statement on the record notifying the defendant that, in sum and substance, if the defendant is not a United States citizen, he or she may be deported upon a guilty plea” (id. at 197).

​

Here, we agree with the defendant that the County Court did not provide him with such a statement on the record. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to reversal of the judgment of conviction at this juncture. In order to withdraw or obtain vacatur of a plea based upon a Peque error, “a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial had the trial court informed the defendant of potential deportation” (id. at 198). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the County Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order, and upon such motion, the defendant shall have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (id. at 176 ,,, ). In its report to this Court, the County Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall include its findings as to whether the defendant has made the requisite showing to entitle him to vacatur of the plea … . People v Lopez-Alvarado, 2017 NY Slip Op 03018, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)/GUILTY PLEA (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, THE ATTORNEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in this action against plaintiff’s attorney alleging violation of ethics rules in setting a contingency fee in an equitable distribution matter. However the attorney may be entitled to payment under a quantum meruit theory:

​

The plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, through the submission of the parties’ retainer agreement, that the defendant charged her a contingency fee in violation of rule 1.5(d)(5)(i) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). Because the defendant’s fee was to be “determined by reference to the amount of . . . equitable distribution” in the form of the money judgment and subsequent enforcement stipulation, the retainer agreement violated rule 1.5(d)(5)(i) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR § 1200.0). Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the enforcement of an equitable distribution award reduced to a money judgment is not exempt from rule 1.5(d)(5)(i) ,,, . The plaintiff also demonstrated prima facie that the defendant violated the rules set forth in 22 NYCRR 1400.3. In that respect, the retainer agreement did not specify how the defendant’s fee would be calculated if the plaintiff discharged the defendant “during the course of the representation” and did not specify how frequently itemized bills would be provided (22 NYCRR 1400.3). Additionally, the plaintiff did not receive itemized bills from the defendant … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Medina v Kraslow, 2017 NY Slip Op 02979, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

ATTORNEYS (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, SHE MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY)/FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, SHE MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY)/CONTINGENCY FEES (FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, SHE MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY)

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with a concurring opinion, determined the trial judge properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in this personal injury case because of the unacceptable behavior of defense counsel. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by a bus while crossing the street, injuring her back and knee. The jury found the defendant 70% at fault but found that the injuries were not permanent and awarded nothing for future pain and suffering. The First Department concluded the verdict was probably a compromise and the defense attorney’s conduct deprived plaintiff of a fair trial:

​

In ordering a new trial, the trial court concluded that defense counsel’s conduct was “so extreme and pervasive as to make it inconceivable that it did not substantially affect the fairness of the trial.” Also, such conduct “occurred in front of the jury, created a hostile atmosphere and persisted despite the court threatening to impose sanctions and to hold counsel in contempt.”

The court then cited the multiple instances of defense counsel’s misconduct: “frequent assertions of personal knowledge of facts in issue in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4(d)(2)”; his many speaking objections, with one of them flagrantly misstating the law; his motion for a mistrial twice in front of a jury; his unfair and false denigration of Dr. Davy as not being a “real surgeon”; his pattern of interrupting and speaking over the court despite the court’s directions to stop; and his interruption of the trial by demanding that plaintiff’s counsel move a chart she was showing to the jury to accommodate his refusal to move from his seat. The court further noted that, although not reflected in the record, defense counsel would use a “sneering, denigrating tone” while cross-examining Dr. Davy and plaintiff’s other witnesses. The court also noted as not reflected in the record the “tone of voice” directed at plaintiff’s counsel, witnesses, and the court, or the “volume of his voice”; the court noted that it had admonished counsel “not to scream” on several occasions. The court continued that not fully reflected in the record was the extent to which defense counsel would continue talking after being directed to stop. Smith v Rudolph, 2017 NY Slip Op 02957, 1st Dept 4-18-17

 

ATTORNEYS (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

/ ,

NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined New York law applied here where plaintiff and plaintiff’s employer, Nygard, a third-party defendant, are Canadian and further held plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was shocked by electric wires which were on the floor of the workplace:

​

​

To the extent, if any, Manitoba law, unlike New York law, might prohibit the third-party claims asserted by defendants (both domiciled in New York) against Manitoba-domiciliary Nygard, plaintiff’s employer, the availability of a third-party claim against plaintiff’s employer is governed by the law of the place of injury — here, New York — “where the local law of each litigant’s domicile favors that party, and the action is pending in one of those jurisdictions” … . The application of New York law on this issue is appropriate because this state, where the accident occurred, “is the place with which both [defendants and Nygard] have voluntarily associated themselves” … , and “comports with the reasonable expectations of [these] parties in conducting their business affairs” … .

​

Plaintiff was engaged in “construction” work at the time of the incident (Labor Law § 241[6]), and Owner’s attempt to isolate the activities in which plaintiff was involved at the moment of the incident ignores the general context of the work … . Further, the record established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4), which requires that workers who may come into contact with an electric power circuit be protected against electric shock “by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means.” That plaintiff was electrically shocked, as confirmed by another Nygard International employee, demonstrated that the circuit was not de-energized, grounded, or guarded by effective insulation. Plaintiff also established that the violation of the provision was a result of negligence … . Owner’s contention that an issue of fact exists as to plaintiff’s comparative negligence is unavailing. Plaintiff testified that he had objected to having the temporary lighting work performed in the manner that it was done, and that Nygard International’s principal overruled him. The principal’s insistence that plaintiff perform the temporary wiring work, despite plaintiff’s objections, established negligence by Nygard, for which Owner is vicariously liable … . O’Leary v S&A Elec. Contr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02888, 1st Dept 4-13-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/CHOICE OF LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/

TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

The Third Department determined a 2-2 tie vote by the zoning board of appeals on a special use permit was not a default denial because the board was exercising its original, not appellate, jurisdiction. Therefore a subsequent 3-2 vote in favor of the permit (after a new member was appointed) was valid:

​

Supreme Court accurately set forth the 2002 legislative amendments to Town Law § 267-a, aptly observed the impact of those amendments in relation to Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington (97 NY2d 86 [2001]) and correctly determined that a tie vote of a zoning board of appeals only results in a default denial when, among other things, it is exercising its appellate jurisdiction … . Inasmuch as it is undisputed that the ZBA was exercising its original jurisdiction here … , we agree with Supreme Court that the September 2014 tie vote did not result in a default denial. Matter of Alper Rest. Inc. v Town of Copake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 02871, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

ZONING (TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING IT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (TIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTE IS NOT A DEFAULT DENIAL WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING IT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

/

PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.

The First Department determined petitioner was entitled to a license to enter another’s property to make repairs on petitioner’s property (which was otherwise not accessible) but the respondent property owner was entitled to a license fee:

​

RPAPL 881 provides: “When an owner or lessee seeks to make improvements or repairs to real property so situated that such improvements or repairs cannot be made by the owner or lessee without entering the premises of an adjoining owner or his lessee, and permission so to enter has been refused, the owner or lessee seeking to make such improvements or repairs may commence a special proceeding for a license so to enter pursuant to article four of the civil practice law and rules. The petition and affidavits, if any, shall state the facts making such entry necessary and the date or dates on which entry is sought. Such license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires. The licensee shall be liable to the adjoining owner or his lessee for actual damages occurring as a result of the entry.”

“Although the determination of whether to award a license fee is discretionary, in that RPAPL 881 provides that a license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires,’ the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees”… . This is because ” the respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . . Equity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access'” … . Matter of Van Dorn Holdings, LLC v 152 W. 58th Owners Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02905, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE)/LICENSE FEE (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE)

/ ,

CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.

The Third Department determined defendant contractor owed a duty to plaintiff crane operator over and above any obligation running from a contract between them. The court further found there was a question of fact whether defendant was negligent in finding and setting up a staging area for the crane (the crane sank and fell into the pond):

​

In a case such as this one where the parties’ relationship stems from a contract, a “duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … . “In determining the scope of duty, courts examine, among other factors, whether the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … . Whether a duty exists in the first instance is a question of law for the courts … .

Here, neither the price quote nor the work order — the documents embodying the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant — contained terms regarding site safety or the placement of cranes at the site. The record nonetheless reveals that Daniel Morin, defendant’s president, scouted an area by the pond where the dredging would take place in order to construct a “staging area” that was to be used for daily activities and access for construction equipment. Southern Tier Crane Servs., Inc. v Dakksco Pipeline Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02859, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM)/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM)

/

BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The First Department determined defendant bar (BR Guest’s) was not vicariously liable for an assault on plaintiff by a security guard (DiPaola), who was an independent contractor:

The record establishes that DiPaola, a security guard, was an independent contractor when the incident occurred … . The evidence shows that DiPaola was not on BR Guest’s payroll, did not receive health insurance or other fringe benefits, and that BR Guest contracted for his services as a security guard from defendant Presidium, LLC … .

The record reveals nothing more than general supervisory control, which cannot form the basis for imposing liability against BR Guest or Hanson, who was the vice president of BR Guest Inc., for plaintiff’s injuries sustained as a result of DiPaola’s assault … . The fact that BR Guest decided the number of security guards needed on a particular night and where on the premises the guards should be posted at any given time, and gave them instructions relating to the manner in which they performed their work does not render the security guards working at the premises special employees … . McLaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02906, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INTENTIONAL TORTS (BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/SECURITY GUARDS  (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200).

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether defendant intended to reside in the two-family home plaintiff was working on (thereby triggering the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law liability) and whether defendant created a dangerous condition by providing a ladder that was too short. Therefore defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action were properly denied:

​

“Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 each ‘impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities . . .[,] the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'”… . The exemption stems from the legislative determination “that the typical homeowner is no better situated than the hired worker to furnish appropriate safety devices and to procure suitable insurance protection”… . The exemption does not “encompass homeowners who use their one or two-family premises entirely and solely for commercial purposes”… . In this regard, “renovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose” … . The relevant inquiry is “‘the homeowners’ intentions at the time of the injury underlying the action'” … .

Despite defendant’s submissions indicating that he intended to use the house, at least in part, as his own residence, defendant also submitted the deposition of plaintiff, who testified that defendant had told him that he planned to rent both halves of the two-family home. Thus, defendant’s submissions, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing his entitlement to the homeowner’s exemption … . …

​

Where, as here, the injured worker contends that the underlying “accident arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site, liability for a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence will be imposed if the property owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable amount of time”…  . According to plaintiff’s deposition testimony, defendant created the dangerous condition that caused his fall and failed to remedy it despite plaintiff’s complaints. More specifically, and according to plaintiff, defendant supplied plaintiff with a ladder that was too short for the fascia project that defendant had asked him to complete and, despite plaintiff voicing his concerns about the ladder, defendant told plaintiff that the project needed to be completed before plaintiff left that day. Plaintiff further testified that defendant thereafter held the same ladder that plaintiff had indicated was too short while plaintiff climbed it and then reached to attempt the fascia work before falling. Vogler v Perrault, 2017 NY Slip Op 02857, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200))

/ ,

ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact about the meaning of an exclusion in a flood insurance policy. The policy excluded coverage for property in (FEMA) Flood Zone A. The plaintiff’s property was located in (FEMA) Flood Zone AE:

​

When it comes to exclusions from coverage, the exclusion “must be specific and clear in order to be enforced” … and ambiguities in exclusions are to be construed “most strongly” against the insurer … . As this Court has recognized, there are circumstances where extrinsic evidence may be admitted prior to an exclusion being strictly construed against an insurer … , and “[w]here [] ambiguous words are to be construed in the light of extrinsic evidence or the surrounding circumstances, the meaning of such words may become a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, the language of FEMA’s flood zone regulations raises an issue of fact rendering the insurance policy’s exclusion of flood coverage ambiguous … . Heartland Brewery, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 02908, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)/EXCLUSION (INSURANCE LAW, ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)

​

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