You are here: / DISPUTES INVOLVING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WERE SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO...

Search Results

/

DISPUTES INVOLVING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WERE SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT; PLAINTIFFS’ RESORT TO LITIGATION AND THE RESULTING PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF ARBITRATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that the intrafamilial contractual disputes involving commercial real estate fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but that the plaintiffs, by litigating the disputes in the courts and thereby prejudicing the rights of the defendants, had waived arbitration:

… [T]he Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the FAA's reach is expansive. The idea that the intrafamilial nature of the agreements has some bearing on whether the FAA is applicable finds no support in the caselaw. Nor does the fact that these agreements do not themselves evidence the commercial transactions appear to be significant. The ultimate purpose of the agreements was to authorize participation in the business of commercial real estate and that is, in fact, what the entities did. In determining whether the FAA applies, the emphasis is meant to be on whether the particular economic activity at issue affects interstate commerce — and, here, it does.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs have waived their right to arbitrate this dispute. “'[L]ike contract rights generally, a right to arbitration may be modified, waived or abandoned.' Accordingly, a litigant may not compel arbitration when its use of the courts is 'clearly inconsistent with [its] later claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration'” … . While it is true that “[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate,” we are satisfied that the totality of plaintiffs' conduct here establishes waiver… .

Generally, when addressing waiver, courts should consider the amount of litigation that has occurred, the length of time between the start of the litigation and the arbitration request, and whether prejudice has been established … . The majority of federal courts have taken the position that waiver cannot be established in the absence of prejudice … .  * * *

Here, … prejudice … [has] been established. After vigorously pursuing their litigation strategy for approximately one year, plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration. Even more telling, the desire for arbitration only arose after Supreme Court made plain its view that plaintiffs' claims were vexatious and largely time-barred. Indeed, plaintiffs had expressly represented to Supreme Court that they did not want to go to arbitration. Plaintiffs' behavior is indicative of blatant forum-shopping and, under these circumstances, prejudice has clearly been established. Therefore, plaintiffs have waived the right to arbitration and the issue of timeliness should be determined by the court … . Cusimano v Schnurr, 2015 NY Slip Op 09232, CtApp 12-16-15

ARBITRATION (DISPUTES RE: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FELL UNDER JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT)/FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (DISPUTES INVOLVING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE)/ARBITRATION (WAIVER BY INVOLVEMENT IN LITIGATION AND PREJUDICE TO OPPOSING PARTY)/WAIVER OF ARBITRATION (INVOLVEMENT IN LITIGATION AND PREJUDICE TO OPPOSING PARTY)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality should have installed an all-way stop at an intersection where plaintiff was injured. A study of the intersection by the municipality, prompted by the number of accidents, was deemed inadequate:

A municipality owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, it is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . A municipality may be held liable only “when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” … . * * *

“Once [a municipality] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . “Moreover, after the [municipality] implements a traffic plan it is under a continuing duty to review its plan in the light of its actual operation'” … . Under these circumstances, the City’s submissions revealed triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of the … 2008 re-evaluation of its prior study which it undertook to complete, and the reasonableness of the City’s failure to install a stop sign … at the intersection under all of the attendant circumstances … . Langer v Xenias, 2015 NY Slip Op 09258. 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY, FAILURE INSTALL STOP SIGN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)/TRAFFIC PLAN (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)

/ ,

RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL: A PREREQUISITE FOR CORAM NOBIS RELIEF IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a partial dissent, determined that the applications for a writ of coram nobis in the two cases before the court were properly denied. The court found that the defendants were aware of their right to appeal but had not requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal. The cases, therefore, were factually distinct from cases where the defendants requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal but the attorneys failed to do so:

In People v Syville (15 NY3d 391), this Court considered whether defendants may be afforded an opportunity to file a notice of appeal, even beyond the one year and 30 days permitted under the CPL. In Syville, the defendants had made timely requests to their attorneys to file a notice of appeal on their behalf but their attorneys failed to comply. We held that when an attorney has failed to comply with a timely request for the filing of a notice of appeal and the defendant demonstrates that the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one-year period, the time limit imposed in CPL 460.30 should not categorically bar an appellate court from considering a coram nobis application to pursue an untimely appeal. Thus, coram nobis relief is not just another stop on a continuum of opportunities for a defendant to seek appellate relief. Rather, it is extraordinary relief only to be provided in “rare cases” “when a right to appeal was extinguished ‘due solely to the unconstitutionally deficient performance of counsel'” … . * * *

… [N]either defendant claims that he requested that his attorney file a notice of appeal and that his attorney failed to comply with that request. Rather, they claim that counsel did not advise them of the right to appeal and had defendants known about their right to appeal, they would have requested one. However, in both appeals, the only evidence proffered in support of the contention that defendants were not apprised of their appellate rights are self-serving affidavits. The records as a whole reveal that defendants knew about their right to appeal. Thus, to grant defendants relief here would be to broaden the Syville rule to apply to any case where a notice of appeal had not been filed within one year and 30 days of conviction. Such a rule would abrogate CPL 460.30. Simply put, defendants here failed to show that their attorneys were unconstitutionally ineffective and therefore they are not entitled to the relief they seek. People v Rosario, 2015 NY Slip Op 09230, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/CORAM NOBIS (NO RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST ATTORNEY TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

/ ,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

The Second Department determined no special relationship existed between plaintiff, a city sanitation worker, and the city (NYC). Therefore, the city was protected from plaintiff’s suit by the doctrine of governmental immunity. Plaintiff was attacked by a participant in a community service program with whom plaintiff was working. The gravaman of plaintiff’s complaint was the city’s failure to provide security. The provision of security is a governmental, not proprietary, function. Therefore, absent a special relationship between the plaintiff and the city, the city was immune from suit. Giordanella v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09251, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION)

/ ,

A CONTRACTUAL NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES AN OTHERWISE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATE’S LAW.

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Rivera concurred), the Court of Appeals determined the New York choice of law provision in decedent's retirement and death benefit plans required the application of New York law, even though, under the facts, an otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision required the application of Colorado law.  Decedent was enrolled in both retirement and death benefit plans. He made his wife the beneficiary of the plans and his wife's father the contingent beneficiary. Decedent and his wife divorced and decedent died in Colorado. If the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision applied, the effect of the divorce would be determined by Colorado law (where decedent died). Under Colorado law, the divorce removed both decedent's wife and her father as beneficiaries of the plans. Under New York law only the wife was removed and her father remained.  The choice of law provision in the retirement and death benefit plans was deemed to supersede the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision (which would have required analysis under Colorado law):

… [W]e should apply the most reasonable interpretation of the contract language that effectuates the parties' intended and expressed choice of law … . To do otherwise — by applying New York's statutory conflict-of-laws principles, even if doing so results in the application of the substantive law of another state — would contravene the primary purpose of including a choice-of-law provision in a contract — namely, to avoid a conflict-of-laws analysis and its associated time and expense. Such an interpretation would also interfere with, and ignore, the parties' intent, contrary to the basic tenets of contract interpretation. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v Snow, 2015 NY Slip Op 09186, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISON)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACTUAL PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY PROVISION)/CONFLICT OF LAWS (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)

/

INFORMATION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; THE APPEARANCE OF BURNT RESIDUE IN A GLASS PIPE, TOGETHER WITH ALLEGATIONS THE OFFICER HAD THE REQUISITE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE SUFFICIENT.

The Court of Appeals determined the heightened requirements for a misdemeanor information were met by the information charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance seventh degree:

Here, …  the information was facially sufficient because it contained adequate allegations that the officer had the requisite training and experience to recognize the substance in defendant's possession as a controlled substance and that the officer reached his conclusion about the nature of the substance based on its appearance and placement within a favored apparatus of drug users, a glass pipe.

That the substance at issue here was a burnt residue does not dictate a different result. …[A]n information's description of the characteristics of a substance combined with its account of an officer's training in identifying such substances, the packaging of such substance and the presence of drug paraphernalia, can support the inference that the officer properly recognized the substance as a controlled substance. People v Smalls, 2015 NY Slip Op 09188, CtApp 12-15-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION (SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION)

/ ,

SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Stein (in which Judge Rivera concurred), determined the record supported a finding that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve electronic evidence and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of the relevance of the lost evidence and a sanction, if deemed appropriate. The court noted that, even where spoliation is the result of simple negligence, an adverse inference jury instruction may be appropriate. The court explained the applicable law as follows:

A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” and “that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . Where the evidence is determined to have been intentionally or wilfully destroyed, the relevancy of the destroyed documents is presumed … . On the other hand, if the evidence is determined to have been negligently destroyed, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must establish that the destroyed documents were relevant to the party’s claim or defense … .

On this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the Appellate Division erred in reversing an order of Supreme Court that imposed a spoliation sanction on the defendants. We hold that it did, and remand the matter to the trial court for a determination as to whether the evidence, which the Appellate Division found to be negligently destroyed, was relevant to the claims asserted against defendants and for the imposition of an appropriate sanction, should the trial court deem, in its discretion, that a sanction is warranted. * * *

… [A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed … . Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 09187, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ADVERSE INFERENCE, NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

/

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff did not know the cause of his slip and fall.  Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [P]laintiff, who testified at his depositions through a Spanish interpreter, testified at his first deposition that upon exiting the convenience store he “stepped like on a hole,” and that he “stepped on something” on the defective ramp which caused his ankle to twist and him to fall to the ground. He further testified at that deposition that “[w]hen [he] stepped, it was that [he] felt like something — – that something was not right underneath,” “[l]ike [he] stepped on something not solid.” That plaintiff could not initially identify the location of his accident, based upon photographs he was shown at his first deposition that depicted only the bottom portion of a door with no other identifying features, is hardly surprising and not dispositive. Upon being shown, at his second deposition, additional photographs depicting the full entrance area and front of the convenience store, plaintiff was able to definitively identify and mark with an “X” the area on the ramp which was “not leveled” and caused him to fall … . Taveras v 1149 Webster Realty Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09192, 1st Dept 12-15-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW CAUSE OF HIS FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL)

/

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she headds … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

/

COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she heads … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

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