You are here: / JURY CONFUSION, STEMMING FROM THE WORDING OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET,...

Search Results

/ , ,

JURY CONFUSION, STEMMING FROM THE WORDING OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET, MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.

The First Department, in three, two-justice concurring opinions, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict should have granted on “jury confusion” grounds. Plaintiff had a kidney removed for his father’s transplant procedure. A “knot pusher device” was left inside plaintiff, and he underwent a second surgery to remove it. The jury, based on the special verdict sheet, indicated leaving the “knot pusher device” inside plaintiff was not the proximate cause of his injury, but the jury sent out a note stating the plaintiff should be awarded $50,000 for having to undergo the second procedure:

 

An examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was “unclear and confusing” …, because it did not provide for an award of damages caused by the need to undergo a second surgery. The confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet caused the jurors to experience substantial confusion in reaching their verdict … . While “[t]he ambiguity had been brought to the attention of the trial Justice before the jury was discharged and could have been corrected or at least clarified at that time” …, the court did not do so and a new trial  … is required to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Srikishun v Edye, 2016 NY Slip Op 00315, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT BECAUSE OF JURY CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE VERDICT SHEET SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURIES (NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DUE TO CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET)/VERDICT SHEET (CONFUSING SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL)

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO SHOW ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE FRAUDULENT-INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint alleging fraudulent inducement was properly dismissed for failure to allege out-of-pocket damages. Plaintiff was hired as an at will employee to develop a ramen cuisine for defendant restaurant chain (Chipotle). Plaintiff subsequently learned defendant had entered an agreement with another chef to develop ramen cuisine, the deal had fallen apart and would probably end in litigation. Plaintiff alleged, had he known about the undisclosed agreement with another chef he would not have entered the agreement with Chipotle. Although it was anticipated at the outset plaintiff would work for defendant for three years, and thereafter be entitled to certain specified additional compensation, plaintiff was an at will employee and had been compensated for the work he completed before he was terminated. Therefore, the First Department held, plaintiff could not demonstrate the out-of-pocket loss required for a “fraudulent inducement” cause of action:

 

The facts alleged, even when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, do not give rise to a reasonable inference that he sustained calculable damages based on defendants’ actions. Plaintiff’s employment was at will, and he has no claim of reasonable reliance on representations concerning continued employment … . Any claim that he was deprived of the promised Chipotle stock cannot succeed, given that is undisputed that the express terms of the parties’ agreement required him to be an employee for three years. Nor can he seek damages based on the alleged profits that would have been realized had there been no fraud. When a claim sounds in fraud, the measure of damages is governed by the “out-of-pocket” rule, which states that the measure of damages is “indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . In other words, damages are calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained in the absence of fraud … . Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that he would have received better remuneration had he partnered with a different entity is inherently speculative and would require any factfinder to engage in conjecture … . Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00273, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

FRAUD (OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES REQUIREMENT)/DAMAGES (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OF OUT OF POCKET LOSS)/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDUENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OF OUT OF POCKET LOSS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, AT WILL EMPLOYEE CANNOT RECOVER AS DAMAGES COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN THE FUTURE BUT FOR THE FRAUD)

/ ,

LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of several complaints stemming from the defendants’ alleged involvement with investments managed by Bernard Madoff, the First Department determined New York jurisdiction did not extend to a firm in the UK (KPMG UK) which allegedly negligently audited Madoff Securities, and further determined conversion causes of action failed because the funds allegedly converted were not sufficiently identifiable after they had been invested:

 

The motion court correctly found that New York lacks personal jurisdiction over KPMG UK pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii). While plaintiffs allege that KPMG UK committed a tort outside the state (negligently auditing nonparty Madoff Securities International, Ltd. [MSIL] in the United Kingdom), and their causes of action arise out of that tort, KPMG UK’s act did not cause injury to a person or property within the state. “[T]he situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred”… .  * * *

Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges that a defendant converted money, the money “must be specifically identifiable and be subject to an obligation to be returned or to be otherwise treated in a particular manner” … . [Plaintiff] sent her money to Beacon Associates, which sent it to Madoff, who deposited it at JPMorgan. Even if, arguendo, [plaintiff’s] money was specifically identifiable when she sent it to Beacon Associates, there is no indication that Beacon Associates segregated it when it sent investors’ money to Madoff. By the time Madoff deposited investors’ money at JPMorgan, [plaintiff’s] investments would not have been specifically identifiable. McBride v KPMG Intl., 2016 NY Slip Op 00306, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH UK FIRM ALLEGED TO HAVE NEGLIGENTLY AUDITED MADOFF SECURITIES)/CONVERSION (ALLEGEDLY CONVERTED FUNDS MUST BE IDENTIFIABLE, FUNDS NO LONGER IDENTIFIABLE AFTER INVESTMENT)

/ ,

PLENARY ACTION UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGING ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN DECEITFUL AND COLLUSIVE CONDUCT DURING A PRIOR CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined plaintiff (Melcher) properly brought a plenary action for fraud and deceit against a law firm pursuant to Judiciary Law 487. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys engaged in deceitful and collusive conduct in a prior contract action (the Apollo action) which had been settled. Plaintiff alleged the party-defendant in the prior contract action forged an amendment to the contract and then deliberately damaged the original instrument to obfuscate the forgery. The court rejected “claim-splitting” and “collateral estoppel” arguments because the precise issues raised in the Judiciary Law 487 complaint were not addressed in the prior Apollo action:

 

… [W]e find that under the circumstances presented, it was proper for Melcher to assert a Judiciary Law § 487 claim in a separate action, rather than seeking leave to assert a claim against the attorney defendants in the Apollo action.

Judiciary Law § 487(1) provides, among other things, that an attorney who is “guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” A plaintiff may bring an action to recover damages for attorney deceit regardless of whether the attorney’s deceit was successful … . Further, the plaintiff in a section 487 case may recover the legal expenses incurred as a proximate result of a material misrepresentation in a prior action … . Melcher v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 00274, 1st Dept. 1-19-16

ATTORNEYS (PLENARY ACTION FOR DECEITFUL AND COLLUSIVE CONDUCT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/FRAUD (PLENARY ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS ALLEGING DECEITFUL AND COLLUSIVE CONDUCT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/JUDICIARY LAW (PLENARY ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS ALLEGING DECEITFUL AND COLLUSIVE CONDUCT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

/

INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, was an employee of Language Services Associates, Inc. (LSA), not an independent contractor:

 

The record establishes that LSA advertises for interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation services to its clients. Interpreters are screened for their experience and, if approved by LSA following an interview, they are placed on a roster for future assignments. Clients contact LSA directly to request the services of an interpreter, at which point LSA decides who to call from its pool of interpreters. Although interpreters are free to decline assignments, there was testimony that they are not permitted to substitute someone else in their place once an assignment is accepted. LSA provides interpreters with the requisite information for accepted assignments, and interpreters are advised by LSA, not the client, of any changes in assignments. Moreover, interpreters are prohibited from accepting future assignments from a client without obtaining LSA’s permission and are subject to penalties for arriving late or failing to appear for an assignment without providing LSA with notice and a reasonable explanation. LSA requires interpreters to submit invoices detailing the hours worked for each in-person interpretation assignment, pays interpreters directly and reimburses them for transportation expenses associated with assignments.

The record further reflects that LSA records and monitors telephone interpretation services to ensure that interpreters are adequately performing their services. To that end, LSA assigned interpreters, including claimant, to evaluate other interpreters’ telephone services. Claimant herself received feedback and instructions from LSA on how to improve her services, and she conducted, at LSA’s request, numerous evaluations of other interpreters’ services. Based upon these evaluations, interpreters are given a rating that could affect whether an interpreter receives future assignments from LSA. Matter of Soo Tsui (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00229, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE)/INTERPRETERS (UNEMPLOYEMENT INSURANCE, INTERPRETERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.

The Third Department affirmed the denial of the hotel defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was severely injured and her husband was killed when the snowmobile they were using was struck by a car. The hotel promoted snowmobile tours. All the arrangements for the tour were made by the plaintiffs and hotel personnel. The actual tour was conducted by Adirondack Snowmobile Rental (ASR). The tour guide, driving the lead snowmobile, crossed a road without waiting for plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent, who were following. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent were struck by a car when they attempted to cross the road. The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against the hotel defendants, alleging the hotel defendants were vicariously liable for the negligence of ASR under an apparent agency theory:

 

… “[I]t is fundamental to the principal/agent relationship that [a principal] is liable to a third person for the wrongful or negligent acts . . . of its agent when made within the general or apparent scope of the agent’s authority” … . To establish a negligence claim based upon an apparent agency theory, a plaintiff must show evidence of “words or conduct of the principal . . . communicated to a third party, which give rise to a reasonable belief and appearance that the agent possesses authority to [act on the principal’s behalf]” … .

Here, the evidence includes a screenshot of the resort’s website that can be read to suggest that snowmobiling is a service provided by defendants’ agents or employees, as it is listed among the winter activities available on the premises. … [P]laintiff stated that she and decedent only dealt with the resort staff in organizing the tour and had never heard of ASR prior to the tour’s commencement. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence claim based upon the doctrine of apparent agency. In our view, defendants’ promotional materials, together with the testimony regarding the overall experience that defendants and their staff strive to provide for guests of the resort, create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff could have reasonably believed that ASR possessed the authority to conduct the snowmobile tour as defendants’ agent … . Taylor v The Point at Saranac Lake, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00247, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

NEGLGENCE (TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, AND INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS EXPLAINED)/INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

/

MOTION TO VACATE THE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department, over an extensive concurrence by Justice Saxe, determined Civil Court properly granted tenant’s post-eviction motion to vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession. The tenant was disabled and had trouble securing the emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears. Eventually the landlord was paid in full and the costs of the eviction were reimbursed. The concurrence expressed concern over the validity of the relevant precedent and the need for landlords to essentially lend money at no interest to low-income tenants “who rely on the slow process of obtaining grants and supplemental payments to cover their rent.” With respect to the authority to vacate an executed warrant of eviction, the court wrote:

We reject the landlord’s contention, premised on RPAPL 749(3), that the Civil Court lacked the authority to grant the tenant’s post-eviction motion … . “[T]he Civil Court may, in appropriate circumstances, vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession even after the warrant has been executed” … . Here, the Civil Court providently exercised its discretion, as the record shows that the long-term, disabled tenant “did not sit idly by[,]” but instead made appreciable payments towards his rental arrears and “engaged in good faith efforts to secure emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears” … . Moreover, the tenant has paid the rental arrears for the unit and the landlord’s costs for the underlying proceeding …, and the record shows that the delays in payment were, to a certain extent, attributable to others, including the landlord … . Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 2016 NY Slip Op 00253, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (MOTION TO VACATE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVICTION (MOTION TO VACATE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

/

STACKED SCAFFOLDING FRAMES WHICH TOPPLED ONTO PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ELEVATION RISK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFE, STABLE STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS, PROPERLY SURVIVED.

Scaffolding frames had been stacked vertically against a column on ground level. Plaintiff, Hebbard, was injured when he attempted to move a frame and other frames toppled onto him. The Third Department determined the accident was not the result of an “elevation risk” and therefore would not support a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. However the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was supported by an industrial code provision requiring safe, stable storage of building materials:

 

Here, Hebbard was six feet tall. The frames were about the same height as Hebbard and they were located on the same level as him. He was engaged in moving them from one place on the garage floor to another place on the same floor and did so by carrying one at a time. As he picked up one frame, other frames also located on the same level tipped over. Under the circumstances and in light of recent precedent, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed.

… Elements of a viable Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action include “the violation of a regulation setting forth a specific standard of conduct applicable to the working conditions which existed at the time of the injury and that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury” … . “The Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … .

The relevant regulation provides: “All building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner. Material piles shall be stable under all conditions and so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” (12 NYCRR 23-2.1 [a] [1]). Hebbard v United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00248, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

LABOR LAW (STACKED FRAMES WHICH FELL OVER NOT AN ELEVATION RISK)/LABOR LAW (STACKED FRAMES WHICH FELL OVER SUPPORTED LABOR LAW 246 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/

THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive concurring memorandum, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when he was jolted by contact with an electric wire and the ladder fell over as plaintiff held on to it. There was no evidence the ladder was defective. The majority held the fact the ladder was not secured to something, and therefore fell over while plaintiff was hanging on to it, demonstrated the failure to provide plaintiff with an adequate safety device. The concurring memorandum argued plaintiff’s fall from a non-defective ladder was not enough to justify summary judgment, but rather the fall from the ladder after contact with electricity raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the safety devices provided. The majority wrote:

 

Here, plaintiff was injured when he was jolted by the electrical charge and although he hung onto the ladder, because it was not secured to something stable, it and he fell to the ground … . The lack of a secure ladder is a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and is a proximate cause of the accident … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00251, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

/ ,

PETITIONERS, WHO HELD CATERED EVENTS, INCLUDING WEDDINGS, AT THEIR FARM, COMMITTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WHEN THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE FARM.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) properly found petitioners (the Giffords) discriminated against respondents (the McCarthys) by refusing to hold the McCarthys’ same-sex marriage at the Giffords’ farm (Liberty Ridge). The Giffords held catered events on their farm, including weddings. The Third Department held the farm was “a place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law (Executive law 290 [3]) and was therefore subject to the statutory prohibition of “unlawful discriminatory practice[s]” in “a place of public accommodation.” The federal and state constitutional arguments raised by the owners of the farm  (free exercise of religion, free speech, compelled speech and expressive association) were discussed in detail and rejected. SDHR’s award of $1500 each to the respondents, and the imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty on the Giffords was upheld. With respect to the definition of “a place of public accommodation,” the court explained:

Executive Law § 292 (9) “defines ‘place of public accommodation, resort or amusement’ inclusively and illustratively, not specifically, and sets forth an extensive list of examples of places within the statute” … . Such term includes “establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind” and “any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises” (Executive Law § 292 [9]). Over the years, the statutory definition has been expanded repeatedly, “provid[ing] a clear indication that the Legislature used the phrase place of public accommodation ‘in the broad sense of providing conveniences and services to the public’ and that it intended that the definition of place of accommodation should be interpreted liberally” … .

Here, Liberty Ridge’s wedding facilities fall comfortably within the broad definition of “place of public accommodation.” It is undisputed that petitioners open Liberty Ridge to the public as a venue for wedding ceremonies and receptions and offer several wedding-related event services in connection therewith. Indeed, the only wedding-related service that Liberty Ridge does not provide is an officiant for the wedding ceremony. The couples who contract to wed at Liberty Ridge’s facilities are members of the general public who, like the McCarthys, may be attracted to the farm by its broadly disseminated advertisements and website. The fact that the wedding ceremonies occur on private property and pursuant to a written contract does not, as petitioners contend, remove Liberty Ridge’s facilities from the reach of the Human Rights Law; the critical factor is that the facilities are made available to the public at large… . Matter of Gifford v McCarthy, 2016 NY Slip Op 00230, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

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