You are here: / In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant...

Search Results

/ ,

In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)

In a case which was consolidated with the case summarized immediately above, the Second Department determined the defendant, J.D. Posillica, Inc., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because it had demonstrated that none of the three theories of “tort liability arising from a contract” applied. It is not clear from the decision whether the defendant was required, by the nature of the pleadings, to address all three theories in order to be entitled to summary judgment (to be safe, address all three?):

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . Here, the defendant J.D. Posillico, Inc. … , met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating, prima facie, that none of the exceptions were applicable as against it in this case… . Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06581, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

/

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Demonstrated Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault

The Second Department determined plaintiff-pedestrian, who was struck by defendant when in a crosswalk, was entitled to summary judgment.  The court explained plaintiff had demonstrated both required elements: (1) defendant was negligent; and (2) plaintiff was free from comparative negligence. Defendant’s opposing affidavit, which contradicted his deposition testimony, raised only “feigned” issues and did not, therefore, raise a question of fact:

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault …, since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Where a plaintiff has established his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party may defeat the motion by submitting sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault … .

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that, before entering the crosswalk at the southwest corner of 84th Street and 17th Avenue and during the course of crossing the street, he looked both ways for oncoming vehicles and that, as he was crossing 17th Avenue within the crosswalk, with the pedestrian control and traffic control devices in his favor, [defendant] failed to yield the right-of-way to him … . The evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated that [defendant] violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(a)(1) and that the plaintiff was not at comparative fault in the happening of the accident. In opposition, the defendants submitted [defendant-driver’s] affidavit, which contradicted his earlier deposition testimony, and merely raised what appear to be feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony. Thus, the affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact and was insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s motion… . Zhu v Natale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06586, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

/ ,

Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Which Was Alleged in the Pleadings

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in an action based upon the allegation defendant had “launched an instrument of harm,” thereby imposing liability in tort arising from a contract. Defendant demonstrated it did not launch and instrument of harm and plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in response. The court explained the applicable law, noting that defendant need only address the specific theory of contract-based liability which was raised in the pleadings:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . Here, the only exception alleged in the pleadings with respect to the defendant Wiley Engineering, P.C. (hereinafter Wiley), was that Wiley launched a force or instrument of harm … . Therefore, in moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, Wiley was only required to address this exception by demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm creating or exacerbating any allegedly dangerous condition … . Here, Wiley met its prima facie burden and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06580, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

/ , ,

Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met

The Second Department determined the city had failed to demonstrate that an unmapped roadway used since the 1970’s had become a public highway under the Highway Law, and the city failed to demonstrate an “easement in favor of public use” existed over the portion of the roadway which was on defendant’s land. The “Highway Law” statute invoked by the city applied only to towns, not cities. And the requirements for an easement in favor of public use had not been demonstrated. The court explained the easement requirements:

The City argues … that an easement in favor of the public was created over the defendant’s property pursuant to the common-law doctrine of dedication. This doctrine requires evidence of the owner’s intent to dedicate the property for public use and acceptance of the dedication by the public authorities … . Here, however, the City’s submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant’s land had been dedicated to the use of public travel by any prior owner or the defendant. City of New York v Gounden, 2015 NY Slip Op 06569, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

/ , ,

Arbitrator’s Ruling that, Under the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Bus Driver Could Not Be Disciplined for Sexual Harassment While He Was On Union-Paid “Release Time,” Violated the Public Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the facts of the case presented a rare instance when the arbitrator’s resolution of a matter covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) violated public policy. A bus driver, Aiken, was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker. Shortly thereafter the union requested of the Transit Authority that Aiken be placed on union-paid “release time” and the Transit Authority did so. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found the bus driver had violated the Transit Authority’s sexual harassment policy and recommended corrective action. Aiken did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings (which resulted in Aiken’s termination) on the ground that, under the terms of the CBA, the Transit Authority did not have the authority to impose discipline while he was on union-paid “release time.” An arbitrator ultimately agreed with Aiken and reinstated him. The First Department noted that the arbitrator’s award was supported by the terms of the CBA, but held the award violated the strong public policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace:

The scope of the public policy exception to an arbitrator’s power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow, and courts will only intervene in ” cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator'” … . In other words, under this analysis, we must focus on the result only, and can vacate the award if it intrudes into areas reserved for others to resolve; or if, because of its reach, the award violates an explicit law of this State. Moreover, “courts must be able to examine an arbitration … award on its face, without engaging in extended fact finding or legal analysis, and conclude that public policy precludes its enforcement” … . * * *

We … find it nececessary to intervene … because the arbitrator construed the CBA and fashioned a remedy in a manner that conflicts with a well-defined and dominant public policy. The public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace is well recognized. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex (42 USC § 2000e-2[a][1]). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC), which administers and enforces this provision, has promulgated a guideline that states:

Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Sec. 703 of Title VII. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when … such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment (29 CFR 1604.11[a][3]).

Moreover, Title VII places upon an employer the responsibility to maintain a workplace environment free of sexual harassment. The EEOC Guidelines make employers liable for sexual harassment between fellow employees of which it knew or should have known, “unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action” (29 CFR § 1604.11[d]). The EEOC Guidelines indicate that employers should take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring in the employment setting, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment under Title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned (29 CFR § 1604.11[f]). The EEOC Compliance Manual further provides that employers should create a procedure for resolving sexual harassment complaints that encourages victims of sexual harassment to come forward …  “It should ensure confidentiality as much as possible and provide effective remedies, including protection of victims and witnesses against retaliation” … .

New York has similar legislation and rules … . Furthermore, the protections afforded employees under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) are more expansive than those provided under analogous provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964… . Matter of Phillips v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06564, 1st Dept 8-18-15

 

/

Plaintiff, a Monitor in a Golf Program, Assumed the Risk of Injury in a Golf-Cart Accident

The First Department determined that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of riding in a golf cart driven by defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant were participating in a golf program. Defendant, 17-year-old Andrew Jiminez, was driving a golf cart with plaintiff as a passenger when he allegedly made a “full speed” sharp turn, throwing plaintiff out of the cart. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury from defendant’s operation of the golf cart. The fact that plaintiff was not performing her golf-program duties at the time of the accident was deemed irrelevant:

A plaintiff who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational event generally is held to have consented to those commonly-appreciated risks that are inherent in, and arise out of, participation in the sport … . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . A nonparticipant may also be subject to a defense based on the doctrine of assumed risk … .

“[G]olfers …. must be held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts on a fairway which is inherent in and aris[es] out of the nature of the sport generally and flow[s] from participation in it” … . Here, plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily rode in a golf cart operated by Jimenez, a 17 year old participant in the AGY program, on a golf course, during a golf tournament in which she was assigned to monitor a par-three hole for any player that got a hole in one. While plaintiff contends that she did not know that Jimenez was an unlicensed driver, she knew that he was a minor yet made no attempt to determine whether he had a license or whether he should be operating a golf cart.

The fact that plaintiff was not actively performing her duties of monitoring the hole at the time of her injury does not render the doctrine inapplicable. “[T]he assumption [of risk] doctrine applies to any facet of the activity inherent in it” … . The salient point is that the accident involved a sporting or recreational activity that “occurred in a designated athletic or recreational venue” … . Valverde v Great Expectations, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06561, 1st Dept 8-18-15

 

/ , , ,

Sexual Harassment Findings Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed the State Division of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) determination that respondent corrections officer had been subjected to sexual harassment (creating a hostile work environment) and was entitled to economic and noneconomic damages. The court noted that its review powers were “narrow” and were confined to whether the Commissioner of Human Rights’ rulings were rational in light of the evidence. The court further noted that the Commissioner should not have offset the award based upon past and future workers’ compensation benefits, and the commissioner should have considered respondent’s loss of pension benefits. In explaining its review criteria, the court wrote:

When reviewing a determination made by the Commissioner in a matter such as this one, our purview is “extremely narrow” and must focus not on whether we would have reached the same result as did the Commissioner, but instead on whether the Commissioner’s determination was rational in light of the evidence presented … . Such deference is due given SDHR’s expertise in evaluating discrimination claims … . A violation of Executive Law § 296 based on a hostile work environment must be supported by proof that the “workplace [was so] permeated [by a] discriminatory” atmosphere that it “alter[ed] the conditions of the [complainant’s] employment” … . “Where, as here, there is a finding of a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment, the evidence in the record must establish the pertinent elements, including proof that the discriminatory conduct occurred due to the complainant’s gender”… . Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2015 NY Slip Op 06551, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

/ , ,

Proof of Inability to Control Sexual Behavior (Over and Above Proof of Antisocial Personality Disorder [ASPD]), Deemed Sufficient to Justify Confinement as a Dangerous Sex Offender

After the Court of Appeals determined that Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) was not a sufficient ground for a finding of a “mental abnormality” requiring confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, Supreme Court vacated its prior adjudication that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the confinement. The majority concluded there was sufficient evidence of mental disorders (over and above ASPD) which rendered respondent unable to control his sexual behavior. The dissenters found the evidence insufficient. Both the majority and the dissent went through the evidence in detail. The majority explained the general analytical criteria:

In order “[t]o demonstrate that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, petitioner was required to prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence that . . . respondent has a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control [his] behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility'” … . Respondent takes issue with the finding that he suffered from a mental abnormality, i.e., “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [his] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]…).

Substantive due process requires that evidence of a mental abnormality reflect a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” that, “when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, . . . [is] sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him [or her] to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” … . As such, “the New York statutory structure does not run afoul of substantive due process because it requires [petitioner] to prove that the individual is dangerous, and the dangerousness must be coupled with a mental abnormality, which — by definition — incorporates the additional requirement that the offender have serious difficulty with behavioral control” … . The Court of Appeals has determined that a diagnosis of ASPD, without more, does not meet that requirement, as it “establishes only a general tendency toward criminality, and has no necessary relationship to a difficulty in controlling one’s sexual behavior” … . Matter of State of New York v Richard TT., 2015 NY Slip Op 06557, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

/ , ,

Where the State Is a Potential Joint Tortfeasor Which Cannot Be Joined In the Supreme Court Action with the Other Defendant (Because the State Must Be Sued in the Court of Claims), the Jury in the Supreme Court Trial Should Be Allowed, If Appropriate, to Apportion Damages Between the Defendant and the State

Plaintiff was injured when a tree limb fell and struck her car while she was driving on a state highway. Plaintiff sued both the defendant (the property owner) and the state. However, the state could be sued only in the Court of Claims, so two separate actions were brought against the two potential tortfeasors. The Third Department, in a case of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a partial dissent, determined that evidence of both the defendant’s and the state’s liability could be presented in the Supreme Court trial and the jury should, if appropriate, be allowed to apportion damages between the defendant and the state:

“Under CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor whose culpability is 50% or less is not jointly liable for all of [a] plaintiff’s noneconomic damages, but severally liable for its proportionate share” … . The provision was promulgated as a modification of the common-law theory of joint and several liability, the purpose of which was to “remedy the inequities created by joint and several liability on low-fault, ‘deep pocket’ defendants” … . However, where potential tortfeasors are not joined in an action, the culpability of a nonparty tortfeasor may be imposed upon the named defendant if the plaintiff can show that he or she is unable to obtain jurisdiction over the nonparty tortfeasor (see CPLR 1601 [1]). Here, plaintiffs do not face a jurisdictional limitation in impleading the State as a codefendant, but instead cannot do so due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity … . Plaintiffs’ only recourse against the State is to pursue an action in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). Likewise, if defendant is found liable in Supreme Court, it could seek indemnification from the State relative to its share of actual culpability as an additional claimant in the subsequent Court of Claims action … .

CPLR 1601 (1) is silent in regard to whether the State’s proportionate share of liability should be considered in calculating a defendant’s culpability in an action like the one at bar, and we have never decided the issue. * * *

Although we recognize the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as to the apportionment of fault in Supreme Court and in the Court of Claims, we note that this risk arises regardless of whether or not the jury is entitled to apportion liability between defendant and the State … . Given the statutory purpose of CPLR 1601 (1) to “limit[] a joint tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic losses to its proportionate share, provided that it is 50% or less at fault” …, we find that juries in this scenario should be given the option to, if appropriate, apportion fault between defendant and the State. Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06556, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

/ ,

Purported Deed Was Actually an Usurious Mortgage—All Related Transfers and Encumbrances Void

The Second Department determined a deed purporting to transfer property was actually an usurious mortgage and therefore void.  All further attempted transfers of the property were therefore a nullity.  The deed was provided in return for a $200,000 loan requiring repayment of $220,000 in 90 days. The transaction was therefore an illegal mortgage with a 40% annual interest rate:

Real Property Law § 320 provides, in pertinent part, that a “deed conveying real property, which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage” (Real Property Law § 320…). In determining whether a deed was intended as security, ” examination may be made not only of the deed and a written agreement executed at the same time, but also [of] oral testimony bearing on the intent of the parties and to a consideration [of] the surrounding circumstances and acts of the parties'” … . Thus, ” a court of equity will treat a deed, absolute in form, as a mortgage, when it is executed as a security for a loan of money. That court looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction; and when that is shown to be one of security, and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties'”… .  * * *

Real Property Law § 245 provides that a “greater estate or interest does not pass by any grant or conveyance, than the grantor possessed or could lawfully convey, at the time of the delivery of the deed.” Thus, “conveyances of land to which the grantors had no title convey no interest to the grantees” … . Likewise, “[i]f a document purportedly conveying a property interest is void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide encumbrancer for value receives nothing”… . Bouffard v Befese LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07925, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

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