You are here: / Plaintiff’s Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation...

Search Results

/ ,

Plaintiff’s Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Were Not Sufficient As a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined that plaintiff’s action against her employer (UPS) alleging sexual harassment, rising to the level of a hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaining about it, was properly dismissed. Although the complaint alleged several instances of crude and improper language and physical contact, the allegations did not, as a matter of law, describe a “hostile work environment.” Nor were the allegations of retaliation sufficient as a matter of law:

A party alleging the existence of a sexually hostile work environment must demonstrate that “‘the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment'” … . To determine whether a hostile work environment exists, we must consider “all the circumstances, including ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance'” … . The test is both subjective and objective; that is, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conditions of his or her employment were altered as a result of the conduct he or she perceived to be abusive and that the conduct created an environment that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive … . * * *

A valid claim for retaliation under the Human Rights Law exists where a party demonstrates “that (1) [he or] she has engaged in protected activity, (2) [his or] her employer was aware that [he or] she participated in such activity, (3) [he or] she suffered an adverse employment action based upon [his or] her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action”… . Minckler v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07882, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

/ , ,

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

 

/ ,

Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant’s absenteeism did not amount to disqualifying misconduct (because it was related to his diabetes) was supported by substantial evidence. The court also explained its review powers in this context:

While continued absenteeism, despite previous warnings, may rise to the level of misconduct disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits …, “termination of employment attributable to symptoms of a diagnosed medical condition will not constitute disqualifying misconduct”… .  Whether an absence is justified so as to remove it from disqualifying misconduct is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its resolution of this issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, claimant testified that he suffers from type 1 diabetes and that he experienced a diabetic episode, consisting of shakiness, nausea and headaches, that caused his absence on August 8, 2013. He submitted medical documentation confirming his diabetic condition and indicating that it is being treated but has been “difficult to control.” Although the employer was aware that he was a diabetic, claimant admittedly failed to inform his superiors that he was experiencing health problems related to his diabetes or that this was the cause of his August 8, 2013 absence. The Board, as the final arbiter of factual issues and credibility, was free to credit claimant’s testimony concerning the reason for his absence and was not bound by the contrary conclusion reached by the ALJ … . Pursuant to our limited review, “this Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or substitute its own judgment, and if, as here, the findings turn on the credibility of witnesses, we may not substitute our perceptions for those of the agency” … . Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant’s loss of employment was not due to disqualifying misconduct … . Matter of Suchocki (St. Joseph’s R.C. Church–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07899, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

/

Instructor at Community College Entitled to Unemployment Benefits, No Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment

The Third Department determined claimant, an adjunct instructor at a community college, was properly awarded unemployment insurance benefits because he did not receive reasonable assurance of continued employment during the following term:

Labor Law § 590 (10) precludes a professional employed by an educational institution from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic terms if the educational institution has provided the professional with a reasonable assurance of continued employment … . A “reasonable assurance,” in turn, is a representation by the educational institution “that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” … . This is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, although the department chair mentioned that claimant could teach potentially four courses during the spring 2014 semester, which exceeded the number that he taught during the fall 2013 semester, this was never confirmed during any subsequent conversations nor in the letter sent to claimant. Significantly, the letter did not specify the details of the spring 2014 semester teaching assignment and conditioned claimant’s further employment upon “enrollment and/or budget constraints.” In cases where educational institutions have failed to set forth the terms or conditions of continued employment or have made such employment contingent upon certain conditions, courts have found that a reasonable assurance was lacking … . Matter of Upham (Dutchess Community Coll.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07898, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

/

Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined unemployment insurance benefits should not have been denied claimant.  Claimant cared for a coworker’s child but was not paid for doing so. The board’s finding that claimant’s lack of employment was not “total” was not, therefore, supported by substantial evidence:

Resolution of this case turns on whether claimant’s activities in caring for her coworker’s child without compensation while she was laid off constitute a lack of total unemployment rendering her ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Labor Law § 591 (1) limits eligibility for benefits to those claimants who are “totally unemployed” … , which has been defined as “the total lack of any employment on any day” … . In this context, the term employment contemplates that a claimant will potentially receive some type of monetary payment or future benefit in exchange for services rendered… .

Here, it is undisputed that claimant did not receive any compensation for caring for her coworker’s son and there is no evidence in the record that she was likely to obtain a future financial benefit for doing so. Consequently, we must conclude that the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities in this regard amounted to a lack of total unemployment is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Connerton (Thousand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07892, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

/ ,

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