You are here: / MECHANISMS FOR SEEKING DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE EXPLAINED.

Search Results

/

MECHANISMS FOR SEEKING DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE EXPLAINED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined, where a sentence of incarceration exceeds 60 days,  a sentencing judge does not have the power to waive the mandatory surcharge. The only mechanism available to such a defendant who seeks to demonstrate the inability to pay the surcharge is a motion for resentencing:

… [T]he relevant statutes prohibit judicial waiver of a mandatory surcharge, require collection of any unpaid amounts from an inmate’s funds as of the moment of confinement and throughout the period of incarceration, and provide for deferral under limited circumstances, namely an inability to pay that is not solely due to incarceration. A person subject to a mandatory surcharge may seek to defer payment at any time after sentencing, by way of a motion to resentence under CPL 420.10 (5). In addition, persons sentenced to confinement of 60 days or less, may avoid filing such motion, and instead present information in support of a request to defer on the appearance date set forth on a summons issued pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 (8). Under either procedural mechanism, if the court grants a deferral it must place its reasons on the record … , and issue a written order, which shall be treated as a civil judgment in accordance with CPLR 5016 … . This statutory scheme is structured to further the legislative goals of raising revenue and ensuring payment of the mandatory surcharge by persons convicted of crimes. People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01208, CtApp 2-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/SENTENCING (DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/MANDATORY SURCHARGE (DEFERRAL)

/ ,

DELEGATION CLAUSES, PLACING THE DETERMINATION OF ARBITRABILITY IN THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT, ENFORCEABLE UNDER FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined “delegation clauses” in insurance-related contracts were enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The “delegation clauses” required that the initial determination whether a dispute is arbitrable is to be made by the arbitrator, not the court. Before reaching the merits, and after explaining the history of the FAA and the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Court of Appeals decided, under the facts, the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the FAA:

 

… [A] review of the record reveals that [the insureds] did not specifically direct any challenge to the delegation clauses empowering the arbitrators to determine gateway questions of arbitrability … . Those delegation provisions, which state that the arbitrators “have exclusive jurisdiction over the entire matter in dispute, including any question as to its arbitrability,” are valid because the parties “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to arbitrate arbitrability … . As the delegation clauses are severable from the remainder of the agreements to arbitrate, we must enforce them according to their terms and, under these circumstances, the question of arbitrability is one for the arbitrators … . …

… [W]e hold that the FAA applies to the [contracts in issue] because it does not “invalidate, impair, or supersede” … any insurance regulations and, consequently, the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not triggered … . Further, because the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability and enforceability of the arbitration clauses to the arbitrators — in provisions that were not specifically challenged by the insureds — the FAA mandates that the arbitration provisions be enforced as written. Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2016 NY Slip Op 01209, CtApp 2-18-16

 

ARBITRATION (DELEGATION CLAUSES IN INSURANCE-RELATED AGREEMENTS, PLACING THE DECISION WHETHER A MATTER IS ARBITRABLE IN THE ARBITRATOR, ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT)/FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (DELEGATION CLAUSES IN INSURANCE-RELATED AGREEMENTS, PLACING THE DECISION WHETHER A MATTER IS ARBITRABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARBITRATOR, ENFORCEABLE)/INSURANCE LAW (DELEGATION CLAUSES IN INSURANCE-RELATED AGREEMENTS, PLACING THE DECISION WHETHER A MATTER IS ARBITRABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARBITRATOR, ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT)

/

FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant, a fitness instructor at a senior living facility (Classic Riverdale), was not an employee, and was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

After learning from a client that Classic Riverdale was seeking an exercise instructor, claimant contacted the facility’s executive director and offered his services. Claimant and the director negotiated a flat fee for each class and set a schedule for the classes. Classic Riverdale did not provide any training or require claimant to wear a uniform. He was not required to punch in or out on the employee time clock, did not use the employee facilities, such as the locker room or cafeteria, and was not invited to attend employee meetings. Claimant alone determined the content of the classes and method of instruction … . There was no limitation placed on the amount of time that claimant could miss from work and his attendance was not monitored. He was never given a performance evaluation and was not subject to any form of discipline … . Claimant also maintained his own liability insurance … . Notably, in addition to providing classes at the facility, claimant also provided services to other clients and solicited the facility’s residents for private, one-on-one classes without any objection from Classic Riverdale … . Matter of Cohen (Classic Riverdale, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01222, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

/

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL.

The First Department determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case because the sidewalk defect was trivial:

 

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped and fell on a long crack between pavement flags in a walkway that was between two buildings owned by defendants. Defendants submitted evidence, including deposition testimony, an affidavit of an inspector who measured the crack as 1/4″ deep, and photographs, demonstrating that the subject defect was trivial and thus, not actionable … . The photographs show that the crack was in the middle of the walkway, in a well-illuminated location, and was not hidden or covered in any way so as to make it difficult to see and identify as a hazard … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the crack in the walkway constituted a dangerous condition under the circumstances. She provided no affidavit of a person who had measured the crack, but only her own and her daughter’s estimates of its depth. Garcia v 549 Inwood Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01249, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/SLIP AD FALL (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SIDEWALK CRACK)

/ ,

LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT.

The First Department determined the landlord’s failure to procure a rental permit in accordance with the Town Code did not provide the tenant, Fairfield, with a defense to the landlord’s action to collect rent:

 

… [P]laintiff does not dispute that it failed to comply with the provisions of the Town of Southampton Code that, as enacted in 2008, require an owner to obtain a $200 biennial rental permit before the rental period commences or within 30 days after receiving actual notice from the Town of the failure to comply (see §§ 270-5[A][1]; 270-8[A]; 270-13). However, under the circumstances, the Town Code does not provide a defense to plaintiff’s claims against the Fairchild defendants, because it “does not provide expressly that its violation will deprive the parties of their right to sue on the contract, and the denial of relief is wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy or appropriate individual punishment” … . While the Town Code addresses matters affecting public welfare, it does not expressly preclude [*2]an owner from bringing a lawsuit to collect rent, it imposes relatively minor sanctions to redress violations, and it allows the owner to cure a default after receiving actual notice of a violation (Town Code §§ 270-5; 270-13; 270-19). We conclude that the Fairchild defendants, having occupied the premises and raised a patently inadequate forgery defense, should not be permitted to rely on the provisions of the Town Code “as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the public good,” i.e., to avoid payment of rent due under the lease … or enforcement of the absolute and unconditional guaranty given by Fairchild to induce plaintiff to enter into the lease … . 1424 Millstone Rd., LLC v James B. Fairchild, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01250, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE A TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE A TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT)

/

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN NOT FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim, noting that comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff is not a defense. Plaintiff alleged he was operating a forklift lifting bricks to be placed on a scaffold when the forklift pitched forward and catapulted him over the front of the machine:

 

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 claim. Plaintiff was using the prime mover to hoist a load; if the prime mover pitched forward due to the force of gravity, it failed to offer adequate protection and Labor Law § 240(1) applies … . Similarly, if the accident occurred because either the prime mover or scaffold could not support the weight of the brick load, the accident also resulted from the application of the force of gravity to the load during the hoisting operation, and Labor Law § 240(1) applies … . * * *

“[T]he Labor Law does not require a plaintiff to have acted in a manner that is completely free from negligence” … . On the contrary, that plaintiff may have negligently lowered the pallet, as the dissent posits, makes no possible difference to the outcome here, as “[n]egligence, if any, of the injured worker is of no consequence” … . Rather, the law is clear that “if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it” … . Here, the failure to provide a proper hoisting device to protect plaintiff violated Labor Law § 240(1). Somereve v Plaza Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01236, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN NOT FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE)

/

1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINATY PLAT APPLICATION; HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES MADE TO THE PROJECT, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

The Second Department determined that a 1987 negative declaration with respect to a preliminary plat application had not expired and was still valid. Therefore, the planning board’s determination that a new State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review was necessary was annulled. However, since changes had been made to the project, the planning board has the power to amend or rescind the original negative declaration:

 

…[I]n light of … the changes to the project, the Planning Board has the responsibility to assess whether the 1987 negative declaration should be amended (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[e][1]) or “must” be rescinded (6 NYCRR 617.7[f][1]) under the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) … . The provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) specifically authorize an agency to take into account changes in projects, new information, and changed circumstances affecting a project.

The Planning Board erroneously concluded that the amendment and rescission provisions were, by their terms, inapplicable. Rescission and amendment are authorized “[a]t any time prior to [the lead agency’s] decision to . . . approve an action” (6 NYCRR 617.7[e], [f]). Here, the Planning Board has never given final approval for subdivision of the entire parcel or for subdivision of the portion of the parcel the plaintiffs/petitioners now seek to develop. Accordingly, contrary to its conclusion otherwise, the Planning Board is still authorized to assess possible adverse environmental impacts with respect to the proposed East Mountain North subdivision pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f). Leonard v Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 2016 NY Slip Op 01156, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/STATE ENVIRONMENT QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/LAND USE (SEQRA, 1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)

/

A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ONLY THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAS THAT POWER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a trial judge who renders a guilty verdict on an indictment count in a bench trial cannot thereafter conduct a weight of the evidence analysis and dismiss the count. Here, the judge reserved decision on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal, found the defendant guilty, and then dismissed the count pursuant to the motion for a trial order of dismissal based up a weight of the evidence analysis:

 

“A Trial Judge who has rendered a guilty verdict after a nonjury trial has neither inherent power nor statutory authority to reconsider his [or her] factual determination. Although he [or she] may correct clerical or ministerial errors, he [or she] is without authority to reassess the facts and change a guilty verdict to not guilty” … . “After formal rendition of a verdict at a bench trial, a trial court lacks authority to reweigh the factual evidence and reconsider the verdict” … . “The term verdict’ is defined as the announcement . . . by the court in the case of a non-jury trial, of its decision upon the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the charges . . . considered by it'” … . Thus, “[t]rial judges are prohibited from setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence. This power is reserved to the Appellate Division, which essentially sits as a thirteenth juror” … . * * *

Here, the defendant moved pursuant to CPL 290.10, at the close of evidence, for a trial order of dismissal, and the court reserved decision, as permitted by CPL 290.10 (1)(b), until after the verdict was rendered. We conclude that, where a defendant has moved for a trial order of dismissal pursuant to CPL 290.10 and the court has held all or part of that motion in abeyance, a court conducting a nonjury trial likewise may not render a verdict and then reconsider its factual determination; instead, the court must consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence in support of its original verdict … . Accordingly, in this matter, the Supreme Court’s order vacating its verdict of guilty as to count two of the indictment and dismissing that count must be reversed.  People v Dobson, 2016 NY Slip Op 01198, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)/BENCH TRIAL (TRIAL JUDGE, IN A BENCH TRIAL, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AFTER ISSUING A GUILTY VERDICT)

/

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE; HERE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE “NEW” EVIDENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew an application for an order of reference in a mortgage foreclosure action should have been granted. The court noted that the criteria for a motion to renew is flexible, there is no time-limit for bringing the motion, and the motion can be granted even when movant should have been aware of the “new” evidence:

 

Generally, “a motion for leave to renew is intended to bring to the court’s attention new or additional facts which were in existence at the time the original motion was made, but unknown to the movant” … . However, the requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon new or additional facts unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may also grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made … . Except where a motion to renew is based upon a change in the law, which is not the case here, CPLR 2221 does not impose a time limit for making a motion for leave to renew … . Here, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference, as it submitted documentary proof that the defendants failed to answer the complaint within the time allowed, that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, that the defendants defaulted, “and that, as a preliminary step in obtaining a judgment of foreclosure, the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due on the . . . mortgage would be proper” … . Although the plaintiff should have been aware of the durable power of attorney at the time it initially sought an order of reference, the Supreme Court, under the circumstances, improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, where the plaintiff, having otherwise established its entitlement to an order of reference, submitted, inter alia, the durable power of attorney in support of its renewal motion and the motion was unopposed. Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 2016 NY Slip Op 01148, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, FLEXIBLE CRITERIA, NO TIME-LIMIT, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE NEWLY PROFERRED EVIDENCE)/MOTION TO RENEW (FLEXIBLE CRITERIA, NO TIME-LIMIT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE NEWLY PROFERRED EVIDENCE)

/

IN A FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF-ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department determined, in a fee dispute, plaintiff-attorney’s failure to give notice to his client of the client’s right to arbitrate required dismissal of the complaint without prejudice:

 

Except in limited circumstances, where an attorney commences an action to recover a fee, the attorney must provide written notice by certified mail or by personal service of the client’s right to elect to arbitrate and must allege in the complaint that the client received notice of his or her right to pursue arbitration and did not file a timely request to arbitrate or that the dispute is not otherwise covered by the rules governing the resolution of attorney-client fee disputes by arbitration (see 22 NYCRR 137.6…). A plaintiff’s failure to provide the defendant with written notice of his or her right to elect to submit the fee dispute to arbitration, and the failure to allege in the complaint that the defendant received such notice and did not file a timely request for arbitration, or that fee dispute arbitration is inapplicable to the matter for specified reasons, requires dismissal of the complaint … . Pascazi Law Offs., PLLC v Pioneer Natural Pools, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01160, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

ATTORNEYS (FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF- ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT)/ATTORNEY’S FEES (FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF- ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT)

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