You are here: / EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.

Search Results

/

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.

The Court of Appeals determined the warrantless search of appellant's backpack when appellant was handcuffed and seated in the police car was justified by exigent circumstances. Prior to searching the backpack, the officer had determined the presence of a weapon by feel. It is not clear from the facts described how “exigent circumstances”—stemming from a legitimate concern for officer safety—arose after the appellant was handcuffed:

When the touching revealed the shape of a gun in the bag, appellant was arrested. Appellant became agitated and upset, and resisted being handcuffed, such that two officers were required to handcuff him. Notably, the officers knew that on the occasion of appellant's prior arrest he had started to walk away while being handcuffed. By this time, a crowd had gathered, yelling at the officers, who placed appellant in their police vehicle. Once in the vehicle, one of the officers opened and searched the backpack. He found what was later confirmed to be an air pistol. Significantly, the unmarked police vehicle had no partition, and the officer who searched the bag was seated next to appellant on the back seat.

In these circumstances, there is record support for the conclusion that the officers reasonably believed that appellant might gain possession of a weapon, so that exigent circumstances — a legitimate concern about the safety of the arresting officers — justified the warrantless search of appellant's backpack. Matter of Kenneth S., 2016 NY Slip Op 02123, CtApp 3-24-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BACKPACK)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BACKPACK)

/ ,

NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled a use variance granted to allow the construction of a car wash. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created” … .

With regard to the first element, “[i]t is well settled that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses'” … . * * * The … parties did not … submit any actual financial information, such as the original purchase price of the property, the expenses and carrying costs of the property, the present value of the property, the taxes, the amount of any mortgages or other encumbrances, the amount of income presently realized, if any, or an estimate as to what a reasonable return on the entire property or any portion should be … .

Entitlement to a use variance is not established merely by proof that the proposed use would be more profitable than a smaller scaled project not requiring a use variance .. . The … parties are entitled to a reasonable return, not the most profitable return … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the ZBA’s determination that the Splash parties established unnecessary hardship was arbitrary and capricious since it does not have a rational basis in the record … . Matter of DeFeo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Bedford, 2016 NY Slip Op 02082, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/LAND USE (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/USE VARIANCE (NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)

 

/ ,

FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

The Second Department determined a firefighter's General Municipal Law 205-a(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff firefighter was injured when he fell into a pit in defendants' garage while fighting a fire. The General Municipal Law allows a firefighter to sue for injury incurred due to a failure to comply with an applicable regulation. Plaintiff alleged the open pit violated an OSHA regulation. However, OSHA regulations apply only in employer/employee relationships:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides that a firefighter has a cause of action when he or she sustains an injury in the line of duty “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” The plaintiff contends that he sustained an injury in the line of duty as a result of the defendants' violation of OSHA regulation 29 CFR § 1910.23(a)(1). However, a cause of action predicated on the alleged violation of OSHA regulations can only be maintained against a plaintiff's employer … . This Court has noted that OSHA governs employee/employer relationships, and thus OSHA regulations do not impose a specific statutory duty on parties other than a plaintiff's employer … . Gallagher v 109-02 Dev., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02051, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/FIREFIGHTERS (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/OSHA REGULATIONS (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)

/ ,

WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION.

The Second Department determined defendant surgeon's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court noted that the doctor's proof addressed only the alleged departure from good and accepted practice and did not address any of the proximate cause allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff, in opposition to summary judgment, need only address the departure from good and accepted practice to defeat the motion:

Here, the expert affirmation submitted by the defendant established, prima facie, that his treatment of the decedent did not depart from good and accepted medical practice. However, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that any alleged departure from the standard of care was not a proximate cause of the decedent's death … . Thus, in order to defeat the defendant's motion, the plaintiffs only had to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the issue of departure from good and accepted medical practice … . The competing expert affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition was sufficient to do so … . Uchitel v Fleischer, 2016 NY Slip Op 02075, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)

/ ,

SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant oncologist, Khulpateea, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the “continuous treatment doctrine” did not apply to extend the statute. Plaintiff's decedent saw Khulpateea several times, after referral from decedent's gynecologist, and Khulpateea performed surgical procedures on decedent. It was only the last procedure which discovered the cancer. Each procedure was deemed to constitute a discrete event which did not anticipate ongoing treatment by Khulpateea:

“To establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applies, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate that there was a course of treatment, that it was continuous, and that it was in respect to the same condition or complaint underlying the claim of malpractice'” … . “Continuity of treatment is often found to exist when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient as manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during th[e] last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments which characterized the treatment in the immediate past'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show that there was a continuous course of treatment. The diagnostic services performed by Khulpateea were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing that the decedent and Khulpateea contemplated further treatment after the follow-up visit … . The decedent did not schedule another appointment with Khulpateea until she returned to see him in 2005, and she only did so then because [her gynecologist] referred her to him … . Nisanov v Khulpateea, 2016 NY Slip Op 02062, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

/

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall was trivial as a matter of law. The defendants submitted insufficient or conflicting evidence of the dimensions of the defect and the photographs were not dispositive:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

In support of its motion, [one of the defendants] failed to submit any measurements of the dimensions of the alleged defective condition.  * * *

… [The other defendant] submitted conflicting evidence as to the dimensions of the alleged defective condition, including the plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and measurements performed by its expert, and it is impossible to ascertain from the photographs submitted in support of the motion whether the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law … . Padarat v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 02064, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff limited liability company's failure to comply with the publication requirement of Limited Liability Company Law 2016[a] precluded the company from bringing the action:

Limited Liability Company Law § 206 requires limited liability companies to publish their articles of organization or comparable specified information for six successive weeks in two local newspapers designated by the clerk of the county where the limited liability company has its principal office, followed by the filing of an affidavit with the Department of State, stating that such publication has been completed … . Failure to comply with these requirements precludes a limited liability company from maintaining any action or special proceeding in New York … . Here, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the publication requirements of Limited Liability Company Law § 206, it is precluded from bringing this action … . Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Bldrs., L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 02071, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

LIMITWED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)/PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)

/

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to payment under his supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage. The SUM covered loss up to $100,000. The plaintiff recovered $100,000 from the other driver's insurance. Therefore nothing was due under the SUM provision of plaintiff's policy:

The SUM endorsement contained in the plaintiff's automobile insurance policy contained coverage limits of $100,000 per person, and further provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he maximum amount payable under SUM coverage shall be the policy's SUM limits, reduced and thus offset by motor vehicle bodily injury liability insurance policy or bond payments received from, or on behalf of, any negligent party involved in the accident.” Although the plaintiff's SUM coverage was triggered … , the plaintiff received $100,000 from the tortfeasor, which is equal to the limit of the SUM coverage that he purchased. Consequently, the amount that he was entitled to recover under the automobile insurance policy's SUM coverage was reduced to zero … . Nafash v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02061, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)/SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)

/

LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the complaint raised the reasonable possibility that plaintiff Cumberland Farms would be liable in a slip and fall case, even though the subject property had been leased to another. Therefore, Cumberland was entitled to summary judgment declaring the lessee's insurance carrier was obligated to defend Cumberland:

“A duty to defend is triggered by the allegations contained in the underlying complaint” … . “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . The duty remains “even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Nonetheless, “an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” … .

… [T]he complaint in the underlying action alleged that Cumberland was negligent in its ownership, operation, control, and maintenance of the subject gas station. However, the defendants' submissions in support of their motion included evidence that Cumberland leased the gas station to Noori as a franchisee. Since Cumberland's liability, if any, may hinge on the scope of its obligations under the agreements entered into with Noori that established their franchisor/franchisee relationship, the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage for Cumberland in the underlying action … . Cumberland Farms, Inc. v Tower Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02048, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment was properly granted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Attachment is a provisional remedy designed to secure a debt by preliminary levy upon the property of the debtor to conserve it for eventual execution, and the courts have strictly construed the attachment statute in favor of those against whom it may be employed … . In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a “plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … .  In addition to proving fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must show a probability of success on the merits … . Hume v 1 Prospect Park ALF, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02055, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/ATTACHMENT (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)

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