You are here: / DEFAMATION CRITERIA FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE DESCRIBED; APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFAMATION CRITERIA FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE DESCRIBED; APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC FIGURE DEFAMATION ACTIONS EXPLAINED.

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict in a defamation action, the Second Department explained the law as it relates to public figures (here plaintiff was a school superintendent) and the unique powers of the appellate courts in this context. The defamation verdict related to a remark on a website stating plaintiff had procured enhanced grades for his daughter:

 

The Constitution, as interpreted in the New York Times case, bars the plaintiff “from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” … . Actual malice must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[t]he usual deference paid by courts to jury verdicts is inapplicable in cases subject to the New York Times Co. v Sullivan rule” … . “[T]he appellate court must make a de novo review of the entire record, and determine whether the proof before the trial court supports the finding of actual malice with convincing clarity” … . Eastwood v Hoefer, 2016 NY Slip Op 00674, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

DEFAMATION (CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC FIGURES EXPLAINED)/DEFAMATION (APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC-FIGURE DEFAMATION CASES)/APPEALS (APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC-FIGURE DEFAMATION CASES)

/ , ,

LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PRECLUSION OF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES ACTION WHICH DUPLICATE BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS, AND CRITERIA FOR A RICO MAIL FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH.

In an action against a limited liability company alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement relating to the design, construction and marketing of a condominium, the Second Department included substantial discussions of, inter alia, the liability of members of limited liability companies, including the criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this context, the preclusion of fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action which are duplicative of breach of contract allegations, and the criteria for a RICO mail fraud cause of action. With respect to the liability of members of limited liability companies, the court explained:

 

… [A] member of a limited liability company will not be held liable for the liabilities of the company solely by reason of being a member of the company or acting in such capacity or participating in the conduct of the business of the company (see Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). “[M]embers of limited liability companies, such as corporate officers, may be held personally liable if they participate in the commission of a tort in furtherance of company business” … . * * *

A member of a limited liability company “cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of his [or her] status as a member thereof” … . “[A] party may seek to hold a member of an LLC individually liable despite this statutory proscription by application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil” … .

To state a cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the “plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the shareholder exercised complete domination and control over the corporation [or LLC] and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate [or LLC] form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice'” … “Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or LLC form include the failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds” … . Board of Mgrs. of Beacon Tower Condominium v 85 Adams St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00692, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

CORPORATION LAW (LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY OF MEMBERS)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES)/CONTRACT LAW (PRECLUSION OF DUPLICATIVE FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION)/MAIL FRAUD (RICO PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)/RICO (CIVIL, MAIL FRAUD PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A MEETING OF THE MINDS AND WHETHER WRITINGS, INCLUDING AN EMAIL, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The Second Department, in a contract action, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in a contract action. The court explained the black letter law re: a “meeting of the minds” and writings, including emails, sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds:

 

” In determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look . . . to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds'” … . While it is the responsibility of the court to interpret written instruments, where a finding of whether an intent to contract is dependent as well on other evidence from which differing inferences may be drawn, a question of fact arises … . Here, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether there was a meeting of the minds sufficient to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract. …

To satisfy the statute of frauds, an agreement “need not be contained in one single document, but rather may be furnished by piecing together other, related writings” … . Further, all of the terms of the contract “must be set out in the various writings presented to the court, and at least one writing, the one establishing a contractual relationship between the parties, must bear the signature of the party to be charged” … . “An e-mail sent by a party, under which the sending party’s name is typed, can constitute a [signed] writing for [the] purposes of the statute of frauds” … . Here, the terms of the alleged agreement were set forth in various writings, including an email and an assignment signed by the plaintiff … . Agosta v Fast Sys. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00699, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND PASSING FALSE INFORMATION TO THE PROSECUTOR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS)/FALSE ARREST (QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS)

/

DOG-BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED, DOG-OWNER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

In this dog-bite case, defendant dog-owner’s cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

 

Aside from the limited exception … regarding a farm animal that strays from the place where it is kept …, which is not at issue here, “New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal” … . Thus, “[t]o recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” … . Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

In support of their cross motion, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, via their affidavits, that they were not aware, and should not have been aware, that their dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior prior to the subject attack … . The defendants averred that they had no knowledge that their dog had ever acted in a hostile or an aggressive manner, and that it had never attacked, bitten, scratched, or otherwise acted in a violent or a belligerent manner towards any human or towards another dog prior to the subject incident … . Bueno v Seecharan, 2016 NY Slip Op 00706, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED)/DOG-BITE (DOG-OWNER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LAW EXPLAINED)

/ ,

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

The Second Department annulled the determination by the Department of Motor Vehicles that petitioner’s license was properly revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical blood-alcohol test. Petitioner had an accident while riding his motorcycle which, he alleged, was caused by a coyote running into his bike. No other vehicles were involved. The trooper who charged petitioner with driving while intoxicated did not witness the accident or conduct any sobriety tests. The trooper based the charge solely on detecting the odor of alcohol on petitioner’s breath two hours after the accident at the hospital. The Second Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Department’s finding the trooper had reasonable grounds to believe petitioner was operating the motorcycle while under the influence:

 

As a prerequisite to the chemical test, the Trooper had to have reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was operating his motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol (see Vehicle Traffic Law § 1194[2]). Reasonable grounds are to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][a][3]). Here, the Trooper did not witness the circumstances leading to the accident or the accident itself, and his report states that no field sobriety tests were conducted at the scene. Other than the statement in the report that there was a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on the petitioner’s breath, there was no evidence that would suggest the petitioner operated his vehicle in an intoxicated state … . Accordingly, the totality of circumstances did not warrant the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 by refusing to submit to a chemical test and to revoke the petitioner’s driver license. Matter of DeMichele v Department of Motor Vehs. of N.Y. State, 2016 NY Slip Op 00652, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/CHEMICAL TEST (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)

/ ,

RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT, IT IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL.

The First Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that defendant was not deprived of a right to testify before the grand jury when his attorney, against defendant’s wishes, withdrew the notice of intent to testify. The right to testify before the grand jury is not among the rights reserved to a defendant:

 

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury when, against defendant’s wishes, his counsel withdrew defendant’s notice of intent to testify. We decline to revisit our prior holdings … that the right to testify before the grand jury is not among the rights reserved to a defendant, but is among the rights whose exercise is a strategic decision requiring “the expert judgment of counsel” … . People v Cintron, 2016 NY Slip Op 00618, 1st Dept 2-2-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS NOT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT)/GRAND JURIES (RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS NOT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT)

/

CLAIMANT PROPERLY COMPENSATED FOR WORK-RELATED STRESS.

The Third Department determined claimant was properly awarded workers’ compensation benefits for work-related stress. The employer argued the stress was related to warning letters about claimant’s performance, which would not be compensable. One of the warning letters was deemed not to have been issued in good faith. And claimant submitted proof her stress-related symptoms appeared before the warning letters were issued. Claimant was a licensed clinical social worker who had been attacked by a client:

 

Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) precludes claims for mental injuries based upon work-related stress “if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer.” “Whether the employer’s actions constituted a lawful personnel decision undertaken in good faith is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board”  … . * * *

“According deference to the Board’s resolution of witness credibility issues” … , and in light of the evidence that claimant suffers from a mental injury stemming from work-related stress and that she was being treated for the condition prior to the issuance of the warning letters, the Board’s determination that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . Further, based upon the foregoing, we find that the Board’s determination that the stress that caused claimant’s injury was greater than that of other similarly situated workers also is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Haynes (Catholic Charities), 2016 NY Slip Op 00560, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (AWARD FOR WORK-RELATED STRESS PROPER)/STRESS, WORK-RELATED (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED)

/ ,

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES DOING THE SAME WORK, EMPLOYING SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE, AND OPERATING FROM THE SAME ADDRESS.

The Third Department determined that the unemployment insurance experience ratings of businesses which had ceased operation and then reopened under new names were properly transferred to the new businesses:

 

Labor Law § 581 (7) (a) (1) states that “[i]f an employer transfers its organization, trade or business, or a portion thereof, to another employer and, at the time of the transfer, there is at least a ten percent common ownership, management or control of the two employers, then the unemployment experience attributable to the transferred organization, trade or business shall be transferred to the employer to whom such organization, trade or business is so transferred,” and “[f]or purposes of this subdivision ‘organization, trade or business’ shall include the employer’s workforce.” Matter of Prod. Processing Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00565, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES)/LABOR LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES)

/

CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of RMC, an educational research firm which contracted with the NYC Department of Education. Pursuant to a “consultancy agreement,” claimant was hired to evaluate teachers who had been given unsatisfactory ratings:

 

… [C]laimant was required as part of RMC’s hiring process to submit an application, undergo an interview and provide references. Once hired and after signing the consultant agreement, he received six hours of training, was paid a hourly rate set by RMC, was expected to work three to four hours per week for a total of 36 weeks during the 10-week assignment and submitted a voucher provided by RMC on the 15th of each month to receive payment for hours worked. Notably, claimant was paid for services rendered regardless of whether RMC received payment from the client. Moreover, RMC’s name appeared at the top of the documents that claimant was required to prepare and it determined their format. Furthermore, during the course of his assignment, claimant interacted with RMC’s project director who reviewed his observation reports for comprehensiveness, clarity, spelling and grammar. Any complaints about claimant’s performance or that of the other peer observers were directed to RMC, and it arranged for a replacement if an assignment could not be completed. Matter of Strauss (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00561, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CONSULTED HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

/

PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a part-time aerobics instructor at a fitness club (Synchronicity) was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

Here, the evidence in the record reflects that Synchronicity established the fees that members of its fitness club were required to pay for their membership and claimant’s aerobics classes. Members would pay those fees to Synchronicity directly; claimant never collected money from any of the club’s members or charged them for attending her aerobics classes. While there is evidence that claimant’s rate of pay was negotiated, the record also reflects that all instructors at the fitness club were paid the same amount and were directly paid by check from Synchronicity once a week. While claimant would bring some of her own fitness equipment for her classes, including music and Pilates equipment, Synchronicity also provided her with an instruction room and made certain fitness equipment available to her, such as steps and free weights. Further, claimant was not allowed to solicit members of the club to attend classes that she offered at other fitness clubs. Matter of Raynor (Commissioner of Labor) 2016 NY Slip Op 00558, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

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