You are here: / Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enfo...

Search Results

/ , ,

Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enforceable

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forum selection and time limitation clauses in a “Carnival” cruise ship ticket were enforceable. The passenger’s personal injury complaint was dismissed:

A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket is generally enforceable as long as it has been reasonably communicated to the passenger and does not violate notions of fundamental fairness, and the submission thereof constitutes documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Here, Carnival’s submissions established that the plaintiffs’ contract of carriage included a clause requiring that any disputes between the parties “shall be litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country.” Furthermore, the contract provided that an action to recover damages for personal injuries “shall not be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury.” Carnival also established that the plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to review their tickets, and there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching … . Fritsche v Carnival Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , , ,

No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student

The Second Department determined the absence of a special relationship between the city/school district and a teacher injured by a student required dismissal of the teacher’s action. Although a special relationship exists between a school district and the minor students, a special relationship exists between a school district and a teacher only in limited circumstances:

A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured … . Although a school district owes a special duty to its minor students, that duty does not extend to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises … .

With regard to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises, a special relationship with a municipal defendant can be formed in three ways: ” (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … .

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the school defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty… . Brumer v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07611, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , ,

Negligent Supervision and Retention and Respondeat Superior Causes of Action Against City Department of Education (DOE) Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Complaint Alleged Sexual Abuse of Student By Teacher

The Second Department determined the causes of action against the City of New York Department of Education (DOE) alleging negligent supervision and retention of a teacher, as well as liability based upon respondeat superior, should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the sexual abuse of a student by a teacher, Watts, over the course of two years. The DOE failed to demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of the teacher’s propensity for sexual abuse. Although the respondeat superior theory did not apply to the teacher (who acted outside the scope of employment) other employees, who were acting within the scope of employment, may have been negligent:

“Schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the school knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required” … . Similarly, in order to establish a cause of action based on negligent retention of an employee, “it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the moving defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the DOE had no specific knowledge or notice of Watts’ propensity to engage in the misconduct alleged in the complaint … . * * *

The Supreme Court also should have denied that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging liability based upon a theory of respondeat superior insofar as asserted against the DOE. “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … . Here, the DOE may not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior for the alleged misconduct committed by Watts, as it is undisputed that those acts were not committed in furtherance of the DOE’s business and within the scope of Watts’ employment … . However, as the plaintiffs correctly contend, the complaint adequately alleged that other employees of the DOE were negligent in the performance of their respective duties, and that such negligence constituted a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the moving defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that these other employees were not acting within the scope of their employment …, that they were not negligent, or that any such negligence was not a proximate cause of the alleged injuries … . Nevaeh T. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07642, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , ,

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the zoning board of appeals (ZBA’s) determination was not supported by the evidence and lacked a rational basis. The petitioners were denied permission to operate a concrete aggregate recycling business in an area where the processing of raw materials was prohibited. The zoning board denied the application on the ground that petitioners were going to process raw materials. However petitioners denied that they would process raw materials and there was no evidence, other than rumor, to the contrary. The court explained the criteria for review of a zoning determination:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”… . Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4] …).

* * * The key determination made by the ZBA … was that the petitioners intended to engage in activities that included the processing of raw materials on the site, despite the petitioners’ repeated statements and assurances otherwise. The record is replete with instances where the petitioners disputed, as nothing more than baseless rumor and suspicion, the claim that they intended to engage in activities other than concrete aggregate recycling on the site. The record is also devoid of any evidence supporting the ZBA’s conclusion that the petitioners would engage in activities other than those which were explicitly approved or permitted as of right under the zoning and planning ordinance in force prior … . Matter of Green Materials of Westchester v Town of Cortlandt, 2015 NY Slip Op 07659, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , ,

Criteria for Whether Public Employer/Employee Dispute Is Arbitrable Explained

The Second Department determined the village’s petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. The firefighters’ union filed a grievance when the town decided to lay off six bargaining unit members and assign bargaining unit work to nonbargaining unit volunteers. Supreme Court determined the parties had agreed to arbitrate these matters in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court explained the criteria for determining whether a public employer/employee dispute is arbitrable:

” The determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to [a] two-prong test'” …” Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance'”  … . “If there is no prohibition against arbitrating, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … .

Here, the petitioner argued that arbitration of layoffs of union-member firefighters is prohibited by public policy. Regarding a violation of public policy, “a dispute is not arbitrable if a court can conclude “without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis” that a law “prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided’ by arbitration”‘ … . The petitioner failed to point to any law or public policy that would prohibit arbitration of the grievance. * * *

The grievances were reasonably related to the general subject matter of the CBA and, therefore, the petitioner’s management rights granted under Article XVII, and “the question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA [are] a matter of contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator” … . Matter of Village of Garden City v Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 07672, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/

Complaint Did Not Sufficiently Allege Demand for Board’s Action Would Be Futile, Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint did not sufficiently allege efforts to have the board initiate the action or the reasons for not making that demand:

Such “[d]emand is futile, and excused, when the directors are incapable of making an impartial decision as to whether to bring suit” … . Demand is excused because of futility when a complaint alleges with particularity (1) “that a majority of the board of directors is interested in the challenged transaction,” which may be based on self-interest in the transaction or a loss of independence because a director with no direct interest in the transaction is “controlled” by a self-interested director, (2) “that the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances,” or (3) “that the challenged transaction was so egregious on its face that it could not have been the product of sound business judgment of the directors” … . However, “[t]o justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that they made a sufficient demand, or that any demand would have been futile … . Taylor v Wynkoop, 2015 NY Slip Op 07643, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/

Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly amended a decision and order which initially granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on “speedy trial” grounds. The amended decision and order, which was issued a day after the initial decision and order, denied the motion with respect to three counts:

A court possesses “inherent authority to rectify a prior error in dismissing an indictment” … , and “where there is a clearly erroneous dismissal of an indictment or count thereof, it is unreasonable to foreclose a court from reconsidering its previous determination” …, even in the absence of a formal motion for leave to reargue by the People … . Furthermore, under the facts of this case, there was no constitutional or statutory impediment to the court’s power to promptly modify its prior determination to dismiss the indictment and to thereby correct the previous error … .

Here, the Supreme Court recognized the error only one day after issuing the initial decision and order, well within the time period during which, for example, a motion for leave to reargue could have been made and before the People even had a reasonable opportunity to make such a motion. Moreover, while any present challenge to the court’s determination of the statutory speedy trial issue in the amended decision and order was forfeited by the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty …, we note, in any event, that the error in initially dismissing counts seven, eight, and nine based on an alleged statutory speedy trial violation was clearly apparent from the documents in the court file. Accordingly, the prompt issuance of the amended decision and order correcting the prior mistake in this case was not improper or jurisdictionally defective. People v Francis, 2015 NY Slip Op 07679, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , , ,

Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination

In an extensive opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of civil contempt re: an order in a matrimonial matter. The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court properly drew a negative inference from defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that “wilfulness” is an element of civil contempt:

… [N]owhere in Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3] is wilfulness explicitly set forth as an element of civil contempt (Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]…). Indeed the only mention of wilfulness for civil contempt is in § 753 [A] [1], which is not at issue in this case as it applies only to “[a]n attorney, counsellor, clerk, sheriff, coroner,” or someone otherwise selected or appointed for judicial or ministerial service. In contrast, Judiciary Law § 750, the criminal contempt provision, permits a court to impose punishment for criminal contempt only for “wilful disobedience to its lawful mandate” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]…). This statutory language makes clear that where the legislature intended to require wilfulness, it knew how to do so, and any omission of such element is intentional … . …

Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt… . El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 2015 NY Slip Op 07579, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ ,

Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor

The Court of Appeals determined that the “number of victims” risk factor (risk factor 3) under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) properly included “sexual conduct” that did not amount to SORA level sex offenses and which involved “webcam chats:”

Given that the Guidelines do not mention a SORA level offense in risk factor 3, but instead address the more general term, “sexual conduct,” we agree with the People that the conduct does not have to amount to a SORA level offense in order to be considered. Furthermore, the child can still be a victim under risk factor 3 even though the defendant and the child were not in the same room, but were communicating through a webcam … . People v Izzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07576, CtApp 10-20-15

 

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