You are here: / INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION...

Search Results

/ ,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS)

/ ,

STIPULATION WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OLDEST CHILD WOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a stipulation which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce did not call for the reduction of child support upon emancipation of the older child. The dissent argued that, applying standard principles of contract interpretation, it was clear the parties intended emancipation of the older child would result in the reduction of child support, despite the absence of a formula for the reduction in the stipulation:

There is no evidence, other than plaintiff’s testimony, that the parties had agreed to a reduction in child support on account of any purported emancipation of the older child. Indeed, their agreement, freely entered into, does not allocate plaintiff’s child support obligation as between the children or provide a formula for a reduction in the event of one child’s emancipation … . “When child support has been ordered for more than one child, the emancipation of the oldest child does not automatically reduce the amount of support owed under an order of support for multiple children” … . Schulman v Miller, 2015 NY Slip Op 09603, 1st Dept, 12-29-15

FAMILY LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/STIPULATION, DIVORCE (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)

/

FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY, STEMMING FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined Morgan Stanley’s motion to dismiss fraud and fraudulent concealment causes of action was properly denied.  The action stemmed from residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and the collapse of subprime mortgages. In essence, Morgan Stanley argued the plaintiff, Basis Yield, a mutual fund, did not allege justifiable reliance on the ratings of the investments and did not allege it exercised due diligence in researching the quality of the investments. With respect to the “failure to allege the exercise of due diligence” argument, the court wrote:

… Morgan Stanley … argues that the fraud claims are legally insufficient because Basis Yield does not allege that it conducted, or sought to conduct, a due diligence investigation into the allegedly misrepresented matters. This argument relies on the well-established principle that a plaintiff suing for fraud (and particularly a sophisticated plaintiff, such as Basis Yield) must establish that it “has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception” … . * * *

If accepted, Morgan Stanley’s position would require the prospective purchaser of a credit instrument to assume that the instrument’s credit rating is fraudulent until the rating has been verified through a detailed retracing of the steps of the underwriter and credit rating agency. This would largely negate the utility of the credit ratings of negotiable bonds and notes that are published by accredited rating agencies. Morgan Stanley does not draw our attention to any New York decision holding that the due diligence obligation of even a sophisticated investor extends so far as to require it to seek to verify the accuracy of an accredited agency’s credit rating of a note or bond through an investigation of nonpublic information. Basis Yield Alpha Fund Master v Stanley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09645, 1st Dept 12-29-15

FRAUD (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY, STEMMING FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY)/MORGAN STANLEY (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy beam being lowered by two other workers struck him in the chest and leg when the workers lost control of it. The court noted an expert opinion that no safety devices were needed was insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law 240 (1) violation:

The court properly found a “causal connection between the object’s inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” … . By submitting an expert affidavit, plaintiff met his initial burden of showing that the beam “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … , and that statutorily enumerated safety devices could have prevented the accident … . It is undisputed that no enumerated safety devices were provided, and the testimony and expert opinion that such devices were neither necessary nor customary is insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation ”’ . The “height differential cannot be described as de minimis given the amount of force [the beam was] able to generate over [its] descent” … . Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, which were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which the other two workers lowered the beam; comparative negligence is no defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium, 2015 NY Slip Op 09632, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY BEAM LOWERED BY TWO WORKERS)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION NO SAFEY EQUIPMENT NECESSARY DID NOT DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (OPINION THAT NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)

/

SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE USED BY THE LANDLORD AS AN OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT, BUT CAN BE USED BY THE TENANT TO REDUCE AMOUNT OWED TO THE LANDLORD.

In finding the special referee exceeded the scope of the reference from Supreme Court, the First Department explained the consequences of a landlord’s failure to place a security deposit in a separate account pursuant to General Obligations Law 7-103:

Section 7-103 prohibits landlords from commingling security deposits with their own funds. Violation of the statute gives rise to an action in conversion and the right to immediate return of the funds … . A landlord who violates Section 7-103 of the General Obligations Law cannot use the security as an offset against unpaid rents. This is so because a landlord is considered to be a trustee with respect to those funds deposited as security. To allow the landlord to set off the rent against the deposit would be to treat the deposit as a debt and the landlord as a debtor, the situation the statute was enacted to change … .The same logic does not pertain where a tenant seeks to apply the security deposit to reduce amounts found owing to the landlord.  23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp. v 23 E. 39th St. Dev., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09605, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LANDLORD-TENANT (SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE USED AS OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SECURITY DEPOSIT CAN BE USED TO REDUCE AMOUNT TENANT OWES LANDLORD)/SECURITY DEPOSIT (LANDLORD CANNOT USE AS OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT)/SECURITY DEPOSIT (CAN BE USED TO REDUCE AMOUNT OWED LANDLORD BY TENANT)

/

FAILURE TO NAME INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS, OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED IN THE COMPLAINTS.

The First Department affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of an action against the police department and several named individual police officers because the notice of claim named only the New York City Police Department as a defendant and did not name any individual officers or any “john doe” officers. Justice Sweeney explained his reasoning for affirming in a concurring memorandum. Two justices dissented in a memorandum by Justice Manzanet-Daniels. Justice Sweeney argued that the underlying purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipality to make a timely investigation into the allegations. By failing to name individual officers, the municipality was not given sufficient notice. The dissent argued that the General Municipal Law does not require the naming (in a notice of claim) of individual employees of a municipality to state a valid claim against employees of a municipality:

Plaintiffs here did not put the City on notice that it would seek to impose liability upon specific employees of the NYPD. Indeed, as the action progressed, more and more police officers were added as individual defendants, the last of which over three years removed from the incident in question, thus rendering a timely investigation into and assessment of the claims impossible. To permit such a result raises questions of fundamental fairness for the individual defendants, since they were not put on notice, even in a generic way by way of “Police Officer John Doe” or similar language, that they were going to become defendants. Moreover, the prejudice accruing to both the municipal and individual defendants from such a delay is obvious, since memories fade over time, records that could have easily been obtained early on may have been archived, lost or discarded, and witnesses may have relocated, just to name a few of the potential obstacles. Delay in investigating and evaluating a claim defeats the purpose of GML § 50-e. Alvarez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09601, 1st Dept 12-29-15

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/POLICE OFFICERS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)

/

PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department determined couriers for a pharmaceuticals warehouse (SDS) were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, SDS advertised for couriers and screened interested parties. Couriers are assigned routes by SDS, set up geographically by SDS’s clients, worked an agreed upon set weekly schedule at a pay rate negotiated between the couriers and SDS and were required to either pick the pharmaceuticals up at an SDS warehouse or at the SDS client’s location. SDS would have an on-site coordinator present when pickups were made at the client’s location. Couriers were provided a daily manifest bearing SDS’s name that identifies the stops for their routes. Couriers were required to obtain proof of delivery signatures on the manifests and return a copy of them to SDS. Couriers also provided invoices to SDS in order to get paid and SDS would bill its clients, and couriers were paid whether or not SDS was paid by its clients … . Couriers were required to wear SDS uniforms and were provided badges identifying themselves as being contracted through SDS. SDS also provided scanners to couriers to be used in order to electronically track their pickups and deliveries. Matter of Gill (Strategic Delivery Solutions LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 09576, 3rd Dept 12-24-15

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

/ ,

EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED; JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY FROM FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS; NOTHING CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS’ COLLECTIVE SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE’S QUESTION WHETHER THEY COULD BE FAIR.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial after finding that defendant’s motion to suppress statements and evidence should have been granted. The police entered defendant’s apartment without permission. The People argued that the entry was proper under the so-called emergency exception to the warrant requirement. However, the facts indicated the police entered the apartment solely because of defendant’s refusal to open the door. The Fourth Department further noted that five prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they all indicated not hearing from the defendant would be problematic for them. The judge explained that the defendant had no responsibility to put on any proof, but failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance from each of the jurors that they could render an impartial verdict. The judge simply asked all the jurors collectively whether they had a problem sitting as fair and impartial jurors and the jurors remained silent:

… [B]ased on our review of the record, we conclude that “the evidence at the suppression hearing [did] not establish that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there [was] an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property’ ” … . Indeed, the People did not present any evidence that the police observed anything unusual once they arrived at defendant’s apartment. Although the record indicates that defendant and the victim may have been previously involved in domestic disputes, both police officers testified at the suppression hearing that they did not have direct, personal knowledge of any previous domestic violence or any indication that defendant and the victim were engaged in a domestic dispute at the time they arrived at the apartment. The police officers testified only that they knew that defendant was inside the apartment but would not answer the door. In our view, such testimony is insufficient to support a determination that the “emergency exception” applied to justify the warrantless entry.

… Here, the record establishes that five out of the six prospective jurors clearly expressed concerns that not hearing from defendant or someone on behalf of defendant would affect, inter alia, their ability to be fair and impartial. In response, the court instructed the jury panel that defendant has no responsibility to put on any proof, that he may or may not call witnesses, that he may or may not take the witness stand, and that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the elements of the crimes of which defendant is accused. The court then asked the jury panel whether anyone had “a problem sitting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?” The five prospective jurors at issue remained silent.

In our view, the statements of the five prospective jurors cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict … . The court erred in not obtaining thereafter an “unequivocal assurance . . . from each of those potential jurors” to the effect that he or she could render an impartial verdict … . Furthermore, “we can infer nothing from the [collective] silence of the challenged jurors” … . People v Casillas, 2015 NY Slip Op 09454, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED)/EVIDENCE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT (MISAPPLIED)/SUPPRESSION (EMERGENCEY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT MISAPPLIED)/CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)/JURIES (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)

/ ,

SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR WAS AN ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCH.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined what amounted to a strip search at a traffic stop was illegal. The officer searched defendant’s underwear and seized drugs which were inside defendant’s underwear:

… [B]ecause the officer intended to transport defendant to the police station to charge him with the traffic infractions, he was justified in conducting a pat search for weapons before placing defendant in the patrol vehicle … . We note that a person’s underwear, “unlike a waistband or even a jacket pocket, is not a common sanctuary for weapons’ ” …  and, in any event, the officer did not pat the outside of defendant’s clothing to determine whether defendant had secreted a weapon in his underwear after defendant leaned forward. Instead, he conducted a strip search by engaging in a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body … . …  We conclude that a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body on a city street was not based upon reasonable suspicion that defendant was concealing a weapon or evidence underneath his clothing… . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 09517, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)

/ ,

IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court, in a visitation-modification proceeding, properly found that the daughter’s out-of-court statements about alleged sex abuse were not reliably corroborated:

“It is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody [and visitation] cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’ . . . , where . . . the statements are corroborated” … . “Although the degree of corroboration [required] is low, a threshold of reliability’ must be met” … . “The repetition of an accusation does not corroborate a child’s prior statement’ . . . , although the reliability threshold may be satisfied by the testimony of an expert” … . “Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated . . . , and its findings must be accorded deference on appeal where . . . the . . . [c]ourt is primarily confronted with issues of credibility” … .

Here, there is no direct or physical evidence of abuse, and thus “the case turns almost entirely on issues of credibility” … . Although the mother correctly notes that some corroboration may be provided through the consistency of a child’s statements and that a child’s out-of-court statements may be corroborated by testimony regarding the child’s increased sexualized behavior … , the court determined here that the mother’s witnesses—who provided the corroborative testimony regarding the daughter’s purportedly consistent statements and sexualized behavior—were not credible. Matter of East v Giles, 2015 NY Slip Op 09466, 4th Dept 12-23-15

FAMILY LAW (CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/EVIDENCE (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/HEARSAY (IN VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)

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