You are here: / Cause of Action Based Upon a Dispute About the Correct Rent-Increase Computation...

Search Results

/ , ,

Cause of Action Based Upon a Dispute About the Correct Rent-Increase Computation Accrues on the First Use of the Disputed Computational Methodology

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from a dispute about the proper rent computation in an ambiguous contract was time-barred. The lawsuit was started in 2009. However, the rent computation problem was apparent in 1999. That is when the statute of limitations started running and it does not start anew every year the problem persisted:

In Goldman Copeland [260 AD2d 370], this Court squarely held that a claim for breach of contract based on an allegedly erroneous computation of rent accrues upon the first use of that computational methodology, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run anew each time the same formula is used. * * *

Goldman Copeland is a precedent of this Court, and we adhere to it as a matter of stare decisis. Its holding applies to this case, as Tenant consistently paid, and Landlord accepted, rent based on two successive 50-cents-per-square-foot escalations from 1999 through 2009, when this action was commenced. Further, when the first rent escalation went into effect in late 1999, Landlord could have determined, through the use of simple arithmetic, that the lease’s rent illustrations for the initial 25-year term were not based on 10% increases. When Landlord subsequently discovered in 2001 that it had not been billing rent based on a 10% escalation since 1999, the discovery was not based on any information that Landlord had not possessed in 1999. K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07905, 1st Dept 10-29-15

 

/

Public Adjuster Provided “Valuable Services” and Was Entitled to Compensation, Even Though Its Efforts Did Not Lead Directly to Settlement with the Insurer

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined a public adjuster (PAB), who initially aided the insured (Seward’s Park) in making its claim against the insurer, was entitled to compensation, even though its efforts did not lead directly to a settlement. After the initial settlement negotiations failed there was a trial at which the insured prevailed. That verdict was vacated and a new trial ordered. The matter settled before the second trial. PAB sought payment based upon the amount of settlement (per the initial contract with the insured). After a jury trial, PAB was awarded compensation, but the trial judge issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The First Department reversed finding there was a valid line of reasoning supporting the award of compensation to PAB based upon its provision of “valuable services” to Seward’s Park when the claim was first made:

A public adjuster is defined by statute as one who, “for money, commission or any other thing of value, acts or aids in any manner on behalf of an insured in negotiating for, or effecting, the settlement of a claim or claims for loss or damage to property of the insured” (Insurance Law § 2101[g][2]). Insurance regulations not only require a compensation agreement for a public adjuster to be entitled to payment (11 NYCRR 25.6), but also prescribe the form of such an agreement (11 NYCRR 25.13[a], form 1), and limit a public adjuster’s right to a fee to circumstances in which “valuable services” were performed: “If a public adjuster performs no valuable services, and another public adjuster, insurance broker … or attorney subsequently successfully adjusts such loss, then the first public adjuster shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever” (11 NYCRR 25.10[b]). However, there is no clear definition of “valuable services,” or what portion of the ultimate settlement must be attributable to the services of the public adjuster for its services to be deemed “valuable” … . * * *

Viewing the foregoing evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that there are valid lines of reasoning that could lead rational jurors to find that although PAB was not directly involved in the trial against the insurance company, it had provided “valuable services” in connection with the ultimate settlement of Seward Park’s insurance claim. These services could have included the preparation of the initial claim forms, the retention of a firm to investigate the damage and repairs, meeting with that firm and with architects, engineers, and counsel to discuss the claim, communicating with the insurance company regarding those repairs, and making Scheer — who was deposed — available to testify at the trial. From this, the jury could have rationally concluded that PAB’s work before trial constituted a valuable contribution to the trial and to the ultimate settlement, if only by preserving Seward Park’s claims and aiding in the damages assessment and investigation. Public Adj Bur., Inc. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07942, 1st Dept 10-29-15

/ , , ,

Expert Who Evaluated Sex Offender As Part of the Initial Case Review Team Was Properly Allowed to Testify at the Civil Commitment Hearing

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the psychologist/psychiatrist (Barnes), who was part of the sex offender’s (respondent’s) case review team which recommended civil commitment, was properly allowed to testify at the Article 10 hearing. The respondent had sought to prevent Barnes from testifying because another psychiatrist (for the state) had been appointed for the hearing. The Third Department held that nothing in the Mental Hygiene Law prevented both experts from testifying for the state, and nothing in the Mental Hygiene Law prevented Barnes from having access to relevant diagnostic information generated after he had completed his evaluation for the case review team:

The degree to which Mental Hygiene Law article 10 authorizes a psychiatric examiner who has evaluated a respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e) to continue to participate in subsequent proceedings involving the same respondent appears to be a question of first impression. However, nothing in the statute affirmatively precludes such continued participation, and the Court of Appeals has held that relevant evidence may be admissible in article 10 proceedings when “no statute prohibits its use” (Matter of State of New York v John P., 20 NY3d 941, 943 [2012]). As for whether a psychiatric examiner may supplement his or her evaluation report by investigating records of the respondent’s progress following completion of the report, and then rely on such updated information in testifying on the question of confinement, as Barnes did here, Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e) provides the case management team and assigned psychiatric examiner with extensive access to relevant records as part of the initial evaluation. To limit the psychiatric examiner’s subsequent access to relevant information would be inconsistent with the statutory provisions that permit the parties to offer additional evidence on the question of a respondent’s dangerousness at the dispositional hearing and further direct that, “[i]n making a finding of disposition, the court shall consider . . . all available information about the prospects for the respondent’s possible re-entry into the community” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f] [emphasis added]).

Contrary to respondent’s argument, petitioner was not required to demonstrate that Barnes’ testimony was “necessary.” Instead, in the absence of any rule prohibiting such evidence, the test for admissibility is whether the testimony is material and relevant to the issues posed … . Here, Barnes possessed knowledge of respondent’s pathology that was clearly material and relevant on the issue of whether he required confinement. * * *

Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of respondent’s motion for the appointment of a second expert. Matter of State of New York v James K., 2015 NY Slip Op 07874, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

/

Children’s Remaining in Foster Care Until Father’s Release from Prison Was Not a Sufficient Plan for the Children’s Future, Permanent Neglect Finding Proper

The Second Department determined a permanent neglect finding was proper. Children’s remaining in foster care until father’s release from prison was not a sufficient plan for the children’s future:

A parent’s incarceration does not obviate the obligation to develop a “realistic and feasible” plan for the children’s future … . A plan for children to remain in foster care throughout a parent’s incarceration and for a period of time thereafter as necessary to establish suitable living arrangements for the children is not a viable plan to secure permanency for the children … . Thus, “[t]he failure of an incarcerated parent to provide any realistic and feasible’ alternative to having the children remain in foster care until the parent’s release from prison . . . supports a finding of permanent neglect” … .

Here, the father failed to provide any feasible plan for the subject children other than continued foster care until after he was released from prison and had time to “get on [his] feet.” Accordingly, despite the petitioner’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the father failed to adequately plan for the children’s future, and the Family Court’s finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence … . Matter of Jenna K. (Jeremy K.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07843, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/ , ,

Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Alone Will Not Support Civil Commitment of Sex Offender

The Second Department noted that the diagnosis that a sex offender suffers from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) is insufficient to justify civil commitment:

A diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder (hereinafter ASPD) “has so little relevance to the controlling legal criteria of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) that it cannot be relied upon to show mental abnormality for [Mental Hygiene Law] article 10 purposes” … . Since ASPD was the sole diagnosis underlying the jury’s finding that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), the finding was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and the petition must be dismissed … .  Matter of State of New York v Odell A., 2015 NY Slip Op 07851, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/

Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority to Exercise Control Over Conduct of Man Who Injured Plaintiff/Therefore Church Did Not Owe Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Second Department determined the defendant church was properly granted summary judgment in a case stemming from an altercation between, Edward,  the husband of a church employee (Rhonda), and plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public sidewalk (presumably outside the church). It was alleged that Rhonda encouraged and facilitated an assault on plaintiff by Edward. The respondeat superior cause of action was properly dismissed because Rhonda was not acting within the scope of her employment during the altercation. And the negligence cause of action was properly dismissed because there was no special relationship between the church and the plaintiff, and, therefore, the church did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

” For a defendant to be held liable in tort, it must have owed the injured party a duty of care'” … . “The existence and extent of a duty is a question of law” … .

“Generally, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others,’ even where, as a practical matter, the defendant could have exercised such control … . A duty to control the conduct of others requires a special relationship: “a relationship between defendant and a third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require the defendant to attempt to control the third person’s conduct; or a relationship between the defendant and plaintiff requiring defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

Here, the church made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence, insofar as asserted against it, by establishing that owed no duty to the plaintiff. Its submissions demonstrated that it had no relationship with the plaintiff, who was a pedestrian on a public sidewalk … . Further, the church established that it did not have the necessary authority or ability to exercise the requisite control over Edward’s conduct so as to give rise to a duty to control his conduct for the protection of off-premises pedestrians … . Rodriguez v Judge, 2015 NY Slip Op 07828, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/ ,

Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained in the Police Accident Report, Should Have Been Admitted in Evidence

The Second Department reversed a defense verdict in a vehicular accident case because an admission and prior inconsistent by the defendant-driver, included in a police accident report, was not admitted in evidence:

On appeal, the plaintiff contends, among other things, that the Supreme Court erred in precluding her from admitting into evidence that portion of the police accident report which contained [defendant-driver’s] statement that he never observed the plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the accident. This statement was admissible against the defendant as an admission, since it tended to inculpate the defendant in connection with a material fact … . Moreover, that same statement in the police accident report was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement … . Under the circumstances presented her, the error in precluding the admission of that portion of the police accident report into evidence cannot be considered harmless, as it bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury … . Brown v URS Midwest, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07809, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained

Plaintiff alleged he was injured when tackled by police officers. The officers were named in the complaint as “john does.” After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to name the officers involved. The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied because plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in discovering the officers’ names:

In order to employ the procedural “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” mechanism made available by CPLR 1024, a plaintiff must show that he or she made timely efforts to identify the correct party before the statute of limitations expired … . “[W]hen an originally-named defendant and an unknown Jane Doe’ [or John Doe’] party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to the relation-back’ doctrine of CPLR 203(f), based upon postlimitations disclosure of the unknown party’s identity” … . The moving party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine to a later-identified “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” defendant has the burden, inter alia, of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they exercised due diligence to discover the identity of the John Doe defendants prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiffs engaged in any pre-action disclosure or made any Freedom of Information Law requests … . Moreover, there is no indication that the plaintiffs sought assistance from either the Criminal Court or the Supreme Court to learn the identities of the individual officers before the statute of limitations had run … . Although the plaintiffs maintain that, due to a pending investigation by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, they did not learn the identities of the subject officers until the injured plaintiff’s criminal trial, the plaintiffs’ submissions failed to show that they diligently sought to gain access to the records contained in the file for the criminal proceeding prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Holmes v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07819, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/

Criteria for Property Owner’s Liability for an Assault by an Intoxicated Guest Explained

The Second Department noted that the owners of property were not liable for injuries stemming an assault by an intoxicated guest at a party hosted by the property owners’ daughter.  The property owners demonstrated they were out of town when the party was held and did not know their daughter held such parties:

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest …, although liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . “Without the requisite awareness [of the risk or threat], there is no duty” … .

Here, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against them. The evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion demonstrated that they were out of town when the party took place at their home, that they had not authorized their daughter Monica to have a party, and that they were unaware of its occurrence. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that they had no knowledge that, prior to the subject party, their daughter had thrown any parties while they were out of town at which individuals under the age of 21 were drinking alcohol. Thus, the appellants had no opportunity to control [the assailant’s] conduct, nor were they aware of the necessity therefor, both of which are prerequisites to imposing liability upon a landowner in these circumstances … . Heyman v Harooni, 2015 NY Slip Op 07818, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

/

Plaintiff’s Own Negligence Broke Any Causal Chain Between Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Injury

The Second Department determined that, under the facts, proximate cause could be determined as a matter of law and plaintiff’s negligence was the superseding cause of his injury. When plaintiff was unable to access second floor offices defendant suggested that plaintiff go to the third floor and drop down to the second floor balcony. Plaintiff was injured doing so. The court held that plaintiff’s own negligence broke any causal chain between the defendant’s negligence and the injury:

“Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . “However, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the … defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the injured plaintiff’s negligence in dropping himself down from the third floor balcony to the terrace on the second floor. Even assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations that the … defendants were negligent and that [a defendant] suggested that the injured plaintiff try to gain entry to the second floor offices by climbing down from the third floor balcony, the injured plaintiff’s reckless act of dropping down from a balcony to a terrace on the floor below broke any causal chain stemming from the Han defendants’ alleged negligence, and was itself the superseding cause of the injured plaintiff’s harm … . Sang Woon Lee v Il Mook Choi, 2015 NY Slip Op 07829, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

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