You are here: / INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT...

Search Results

/

INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS.

The Second Department dismissed defendant's indictment on speedy trial grounds. The court found (1) defendant did not consent to the 121-day delay to obtain DNA test results, (2) the defendant did not seek the DNA test results in discovery, and (3) the People did not exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA test results:

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not consent to a 121-day period of delay …, while the People were awaiting the DNA test results … , and the People did not establish that the defendant expressly sought the DNA test results as part of a discovery request … . In addition, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining DNA evidence, that period of delay was not excludable on the ground that their need to obtain the DNA test results constituted excusable, exceptional circumstances (see CPL 30.30[4][g] …). Adding this period of time to the periods of delay correctly conceded by the People, the People exceeded the six-month period in which they were required to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). People v Cox, 2016 NY Slip Op 04070, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS)

/

LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that liability should not have been found on the part of the corporate principals who committed oppressive acts against the complaining (plaintiff) shareholder:

The Supreme Court also should not have found liability on the part of [the] corporate principals of the corporate defendants, because one of the primary legitimate purposes of incorporating is to limit or eliminate the personal liability of corporate principals … , and the court did not find that they “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form”… . Qadan v Tehseldar, 2016 NY Slip Op 04036, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CORPORATION LAW (LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER)

/

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

The Second Department noted that the doctrine of assumption of the risk no longer applies in any context other than athletic or recreational activities. Defendant attempted to apply the doctrine to a breach of contract action:

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against her. Relying on Turcotte v Fell (68 NY2d 432), she contended that the plaintiff, by agreeing to enter into the joint annuity contract, necessarily assumed the risk of pecuniary injury. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The defense of assumption of risk was abolished in 1975 with the adoption of CPLR 1411 … . Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals has explained “that a limited vestige of the assumption of the risk doctrine—referred to as primary’ assumption of the risk—survived the enactment of CPLR 1411 as a defense to tort recovery in cases involving certain types of athletic or recreational activities” … .

Here, as the allegations in the amended complaint have nothing to do with athletic or recreational activities contemplated by the primary assumption of risk doctrine … , it follows that the defendant’s reliance on Turcotte v Fell (68 NY2d 432) is misplaced, and her purported assumption of risk defense is barred by CPLR 1411. Ballow v Lincoln Fin. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04009, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES)

/ ,

TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank's taking timely steps to proceed to judgment after a default in this foreclosure action were sufficient to avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” However, “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference” to establish that it “initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default” for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . “[A]s long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal” … . This is so even where, as here, the timely motion for an order of reference was subsequently withdrawn … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Traore, 2016 NY Slip Op 04022, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/FORECLOSURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.

The Second Department determined the verdict in this personal injury case should have been set aside because of an evidentiary error. The injured plaintiff’s sister, who was also her guardian, was wrongly questioned about her criminal history and bad acts:

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court “may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence [or] in the interest of justice” (CPLR 4404[a]…). “A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . In considering such a motion, “[t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in permitting the defendants to impeach the credibility of the injured plaintiff’s sister on direct examination by questioning her with respect to her criminal history and prior bad acts … . “Indeed, it is well established that an adverse party or a hostile witness may not be impeached on direct examination by evidence of his or her criminal conviction[s]” … . Morency v Horizon Transp. Servs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04029, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)

/ ,

BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet its burden on its motion to change venue. The court noted that, although one of the arguments in opposition was not raised below, the argument met the criteria for an issue which may be raised for the first time on appeal. The court further noted that reply papers could not be used to meet the defendant's burden. The relevant law was explained as follows:

” [T]o prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiff's choice of venue is improper, and also that the defendant's choice of venue is proper'” … . “Only if a defendant meets this burden is the plaintiff required to establish, in opposition, that the venue selected was proper” … . * * *

Although the plaintiff did not point out [the] deficiency in proof in opposing the motion to transfer venue, ” questions of law which appear on the face of the record and which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture may be raised for the first time on appeal'” … . Pinos v Clinton Cafe & Deli, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04035, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED)/APPEALS (CIVIL, CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED)/VENUE (BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED)

/ ,

RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined rabbinical arbitrators were immune from suit in the absence of an allegation the rabbinical court acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. The fact that a court previously determined the rabbinical court acted in excess of its authority did not destroy the arbitral immunity:

Here, the factual allegations of the complaint merely asserted conduct by the rabbinical defendants in their capacity as arbitrators … . It is well established that arbitrators are immune from liability for acts performed in their arbitral capacity … . Such immunity also applies to acts taken in excess of authority … . As the plaintiffs failed to allege how any of the acts of the rabbinical court defendants were undertaken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, these defendants enjoy arbitral immunity from civil liability … . Pinkesz Mut. Holdings, LLC v Pinkesz, 2016 NY Slip Op 04034, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

ARBITRATION (RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY)/RABBINICAL COURTS (RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY)/ARBITRAL IMMUNITY (RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY)

/ ,

CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

The Second Department determined a letter from counsel, together with other correspondence, established an enforceable settlement agreement of a real property dispute:

CPLR 2104 governs the enforceability of settlement agreements … . Pursuant to CPLR 2104, a settlement agreement is binding upon a party if it is in a writing subscribed either by the party or by his or her attorney. To be enforceable, a settlement agreement must set forth all material terms, and there must be clear mutual accord between the parties … .

Here, the material terms of the settlement agreement were set forth in a letter by the plaintiff's then attorney, who had apparent authority to settle the case on her behalf based on the plaintiff's actions … . The exchange of correspondence between the attorneys for the parties, in conjunction with the defendants' completion of the tasks demanded in the settlement without any objection by the plaintiff, was sufficient to constitute an enforceable settlement agreement between the parties … . Martin v Harrington, 2016 NY Slip Op 04027, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT)/CONTRACT LAW (CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT)

/

AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined the arbitration award made by the rabbinical court was properly vacated. After making a final award, the rabbinical court, based on new information, made a second award:

“An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power” … . After an arbitrator renders an award, he or she is generally without power to render a new award or to modify the original award … . Here, because the arbitration award dated May 5, 2011, was final and definite within the meaning of CPLR 7511 … , the rabbinical court exceeded its authority in modifying the original award by rendering the new arbitration award dated July 22, 2013… . Matter of Pinkesz v Wertzberger, 2016 NY Slip Op 04060, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

ARBITRATION (AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/RABBINICAL COURT (AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)

/ ,

RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION.

The First Department, applying contract interpretation principles to a release, determined the release, narrowly interpreted by its precise terms, applied to the Cabrini Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, but did not apply to a private attending physician (Nicolescu) at Cabrini:

Assuming arguendo that defendant Nicolescu, a private attending physician at Cabrini, could be considered a “staff” member of Cabrini, the release is unambiguously limited only to “causes of action” that plaintiffs had against Cabrini, and does not release any other tortfeasors not expressly named therein from liability for causes of action asserted against them (General Obligations Law § 15-108[a]…). Interpreting the release as urged by defendant Nicolescu to release him from liability for causes of action asserted against him individually would return to the common law rule in effect before enactment of General Obligations Law § 15-108(a), when general releases were “a trap for the average man who quite reasonably assumes that settling his claim with one person does not have any effect on his rights against others with whom he did not deal” … . Linn v New York Downtown Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03992, 1st Dept 5-24-16

NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION) RELEASES (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)

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