You are here: / SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COL...

Search Results

/ ,

SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY.

The First Department determined defendant's waiver of appeal was invalid because the oral colloquy was insufficient. The signed written waiver did not fix the inadequate colloquy:

… [T]he Court never advised defendant of the consequences of the appeal waiver, or spoke to defendant to ensure he understood the rights he was forfeiting by signing the waiver … . Although defendant signed a written waiver, this “was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . Furthermore, the written waiver says that defendant was “advised by the Court of the nature of the rights being waived,” but that never occurred. Rather, the court told defense counsel to explain the waiver of appeal to defendant, and following an off-the-record conference between defendant and his counsel, counsel indicated defendant had signed the waiver. Counsel's confirmation that he told defendant about the waiver cannot substitute for the court conducting its own inquiry. People v Harris, 2016 NY Slip Op 01741, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL, WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER ALLOWED TO REPLEAD DIRECT CLAIMS UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW AGAINST THE CORPORATION STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND PLAINTIFF.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined two causes of action which improperly alleged both direct and derivative claims by a shareholder against the corporation were properly dismissed but could be repled to make direct claims under Cayman Islands law. The dissent argued leave to replead was not warranted by the facts alleged:

Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to replead to remedy the pleading deficiencies … . Although a challenge to a decision to pay dividends would generally be derivative, plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that his claim is direct because the disproportionate payment of dividends is discriminatory and directly harmed him as a minority shareholder. Thus, rather than corporate mismanagement, plaintiff asserts unequal treatment in the form of an intentional, premeditated plan to pay the Investors huge windfall dividends while freezing out minority shareholders in order to induce them to sell their shares to the Investors at a steep discount. * * *

… [P]laintiff should [also] be given leave to replead to separate his direct claim of being induced by the Directors to part with his common shares … for less than their true value from his derivative claim alleging harm to the company … , and to set forth facts to establish the special circumstances necessary under Cayman Islands law to create a fiduciary duty between the Directors and plaintiff as a minority shareholder. Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 01756, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDER’S DIRECT CLAIMS STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BETWEEN SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTORS)/DIVIDENDS (DIRECT CLAIM AGAINST CORPORATION STEMMING FROM DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, DUTY OWED SHAREHOLDER BY DIRECTORS AS BASIS FOR DIRECT CLAIM)

/ , ,

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND (2) PLAINTIFF, AS A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT NOT MET.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed because (1) it was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, and (2), plaintiff, a sophisticated business entity,  could not be heard to rely upon alleged oral representations which contradicted the written contract.  In addition, the Third Department determined the requirements for attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3) were not met by plaintiff. There was insufficient proof defendant was secreting assets of frustrate a potential judgment:

A cause of action for fraud does not exist where the alleged fraudulent act is premised upon a breach of a contractual obligation … . * * * … [A] sophisticated business entity cannot justifiably rely on oral representations when it thereafter enters into a contract containing terms that directly contradict those oral representations … . Accordingly, plaintiff’s fraud cause of action is subject to dismissal, either as duplicative of the contract cause of action or, in the alternative, based on plaintiff’s own allegations that it relied on oral representations that were contradicted by the terms of the contract that it thereafter entered into. Northeast United Corp. v Lewis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01713, 3rd Dept 3-10-16

CONTRACT LAW (SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY CAN NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND BECAUSE PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT BE HEARID TO HAVE RELIED UPON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/ATTACHMENT (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)

/

USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION WAS NOT CREATED.

Affirming the judgment pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15, the Second Department determined plaintiff (Colin Realty) demonstrated the use of its land by neighboring property owners over the years was permissive, not hostile. Therefore no easement by prescription had been created and plaintiff could properly prohibit defendants’ use of the land:

“An easement by prescription is generally demonstrated by proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period” … . In general, “where an easement has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be open, notorious, continuous, and undisputed, it is presumed that the use was hostile, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the allegedly prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive” … . This presumption, however, does not arise “when the parties’ relationship was one of neighborly cooperation or accommodation” … . Similarly, the presumption of hostility is inapplicable when the use by the claimant is not “exclusive” … . In this regard, ” exclusivity’ is not established where [a claimant’s] use is in connection with the use of the owner and the general public” … .

Here, while … it appears undisputed that the defendants’ traversing of Colin Realty’s lot was open, notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period, the court properly determined that the presumption of hostility did not arise. Fred Colin, the manager of Colin Realty, testified that he permitted such use to [defendant] Fradler and the public at large as a matter of willing accord and neighborly accommodation. He further explained how he had, over the years, protected Colin Realty’s ownership interest when others had abused the permission he afforded. Colin Realty Co., LLC v Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01633, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

REAL PROPERTY (EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION NOT CREATED, USE WAS PERMISSIVE NOT HOSTILE)/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION NOT CREATED, USE WAS PERMISSIVE NOT HOSTILE)

/ ,

PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AFTER IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE/WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PHARMACIST AND PHARMACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pharmacist and pharmacy (the CVS defendants) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence/wrongful death causes of action against them. Plaintiff’s decedent was prescribed hydromorphone for pain (up to eight milligrams every three hours). The prescription was filled by defendant pharmacist. Shortly after returning home from the hospital and taking an eight milligram dosage of hydromorphone, plaintiff’s decedent gasped for air and died. The autopsy identified the cause of death as acute hydromorphone intoxication. Noting that the duty of care owed to a patient by a pharmacist had not been clearly articulated, the Second Department issued a comprehensive opinion tracing the historical role of pharmacists and several analogous standards of care. The court concluded the pharmacist has a duty to accurately fill a doctor’s prescription and need not inquire further unless there exists a clear-cut contraindication for use of the medication. No such contraindication was apparent here. The court described the pharmacist’s duty as follows:

… [W]e conclude that, when a pharmacist has demonstrated that he or she did not undertake to exercise any independent professional judgment in filling and dispensing prescription medication, that pharmacist cannot be held liable for negligence in the absence of evidence that he or she failed to fill the prescription precisely as directed by the prescribing physician or that the prescription was so clearly contraindicated that ordinary prudence required the pharmacist to take additional measures before dispensing the medication … . Abrams v Bute, 2016 NY Slip Op 01627, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED)/PHARMACISTS (DUTY OF CARE IN DISPENSING MEDICATION CLEARLY ARTICULATED)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in an action stemming from a high-speed police pursuit was properly denied. Before the pursued car went through a red light and collided with plaintiff’s decedent, there were several similar close calls as the pursuit proceeded through a residential neighborhood:

” The manner in which a police officer operated his or her vehicle in responding to an emergency may form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party if the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . ” The reckless disregard’ standard requires proof that the officer intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow'” … .

In this case, the County defendants, in moving for summary judgment, failed to establish, prima facie, that [the officer] did not act in reckless disregard for the safety of others in commencing, conducting, or failing to terminate the high-speed pursuit of [the] vehicle … . Among other things, there are triable issues of fact as to what occurred just moments before the accident and as to whether [the officer] pursued [the vehicle] in a manner that prevented [the pursued driver] from stopping for fear of a collision with [the officer’s] police vehicle. Furthermore, considering the testimony indicating that the pursuit was conducted at high speeds in a residential neighborhood, that [the pursued driver] disobeyed several traffic control devices, and that collisions with other cars at earlier intersections were narrowly avoided, there are triable issues of fact as to whether [the officer] should have terminated the pursuit. … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 01639, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/POLICE (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW  (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)

/ ,

CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.

In a legal malpractice action, plaintiffs alleged their trial attorneys in the personal injury action failed to inform them about a $12 million settlement offer made shortly before the $3.7 million verdict. Defendants-attorneys alleged the plaintiffs were informed of the offer, which was provided in writing, and plaintiffs rejected it. During the deposition of plaintiff-wife (Mrs. Doviak), she was handed the written offer. The plaintiffs argued that handing the offer to Mrs. Doviak constituted spoliation of evidence, because the document could have been tested for fingerprints, and the absence of her fingerprints would have demonstrated she was never provided with the written offer during the trial. The Second Department determined the criteria for spoliation of evidence had not been met:

“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to prove its claim or defense” … . “[T]he Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” and may, “under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction even if the destruction occurred through negligence rather than wilfulness, and even if the evidence was destroyed before the spoliator became a party, provided the spoliator was on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation” … . This Court will substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court only if that court’s discretion was improvidently exercised … .

Here, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed fingerprint evidence which was critical to their case. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they requested that the offer document be tested for fingerprints, or that it be preserved for forensic testing prior to Mrs. Doviak’s deposition, or otherwise informed the defendants of their desire to conduct fingerprint analysis. The plaintiffs’ boilerplate demand during discovery that they be permitted to examine original documents on request does not satisfy this requirement, nor is it reasonable to contend that the defendants should have anticipated the plaintiffs’ desire for forensic testing of the offer document … . Thus, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, in handing the original document to Mrs. Doviak at her deposition, the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed potential forensic evidence … . In any event, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, by failing to preserve the offer document for forensic testing, the defendants had fatally compromised the plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims … . Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 01636, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/EVIDENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/SPOLIATION (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)

/ ,

PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE INSURER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant insurer’s interpretation of the policy language was correct and plaintiff’s damages claim was below the deductible. Plaintiff’s facility was damaged during Hurricane Sandy. The damage claim was approximately $2.3 million. The question on appeal was whether the policy language supported the insurer’s position that the applicable deductible was 2% of the total value of the property, which amounted to more than $2.3 million. Or whether the policy language supported the insured’s position that the deductible was 2% of the $2.5 million sublimit for flood damage. The court concluded the insured’s interpretation was not viable because it rendered several other policy provisions superfluous: “In sum, there is only one reasonable interpretation of the relevant deductible provision of the policy. That interpretation supports [the insurer’s] contention that the applicable deductible was $2,494,020, and that the claim submitted by [the insured] did not meet the deductible.” Castle Oil Corp. v ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01632, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

 

NSURANCE LAW (PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE DEDUCTIBLE)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPREATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE DEDUCTIBLE)

/

REQUEST FOR THE NAME OF THE MOHEL WHO PERFORMED CIRCUMCISION ON AN INFANT WHO BECAME INFECTED WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined a reporter’s (Berger’s) request to the NYC Department of Health for the name of a mohel who performed a circumcision on an infant who became infected with herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) was properly denied. A person’s medical history is exempt from disclosure under the Public Officers Law. Revealing the mohel’s name would reveal his medical condition:

As relevant here, Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) expressly exempts from disclosure records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Public Officers Law § 89(2). Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) expressly includes “medical . . . histories” within the ambit of “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . In turn, the Court of Appeals has held that “medical history” is ” information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history'” … .

Here, inherent in Berger’s request for “the name of the mohel who infected an infant with HSV-1 during ritual circumcision in December 2012” is that the mohel is himself infected with, or a carrier of, the HSV-1 virus. Thus, the petitioners’ argument that they are not requesting the mohel’s “medical history,” but only his name, is without merit. Inasmuch as that information is undeniably ” information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of [the mohel’s] proper medical history'” … , it is “medical history” within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i). The conclusion is thus inescapable that disclosure of the record Berger sought would be an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) and Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). Matter of Berger v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 01667, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (REQUEST FOR NAME OF MOHEL WHO INFECTED INFANT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED)/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (FOIL, REQUEST FOR NAME OF MOHEL WHO INFECTED INFANT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED)

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ENABLE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion for an order making the findings to enable her child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) should have been granted;

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for SIJS, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law …, and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence … .

Here, the child is under the age of 21 and unmarried, and has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual . . . appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) … . Further, based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record supports the mother’s contention that the child’s reunification with her father is not viable due to abandonment … , and that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned to El Salvador … . Matter of Fatima J. A. J. (Ana A. J. S. — Carlos E. A. F.), 2016 NY Slip Op 01673, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

 

FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, MOTION FOR REQUISITE FINDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (MOTION FOR REQUISITE FINDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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