You are here: / Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on...

Search Results

/ ,

Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) Not Me

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a concurring opinion arguing the matter had already been determined by Surrogate’s Court, determined a letter sent by decedent to Merrill Lynch did not meet the requirements of the Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) such that the securities account passed to the beneficiary outside the estate:

In order to take advantage of New York’s [TODSRA] law, certain categories of owners may request that a security be registered in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.2). The institution holding the securities account, however, is not required to either offer or accept a request to register a security in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.8). It is only if the owner requests that a security be held in beneficiary form and the entity holding the security accepts the designation, that an enforceable contractual relationship is created between the owner and that registering entity, requiring the registering entity to act in accordance with the designation (EPTL 13-4.9). Under TODSRA, the registering entity has the sole right to establish the terms and conditions under which it will receive and implement requests to register securities in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.10), and TODSRA statutorily mandates that the registering entity have certain protections in the process (EPTL 13-4.8).

A registering entity is not the owner of the security, but rather the person or entity that originates or transfers title to a security by registration, which includes a broker such as defendant (EPTL 13-4.1[i]). Thus, under the statute, it is perfectly clear that a unilateral action by an owner of a securities account to designate a beneficiary in the event of death is not by itself sufficient. Arroyo-Graulau v Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07774, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

/ ,

Police Did Have Sufficient Suspicion to Justify Telling Defendant to Drop a Bag He Was Holding—Suppression Should Have Been Granted

The First Department determined the police did not have a founded suspicion criminal activity was afoot when they directed defendant to drop a bag he was holding. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted:

The police officers’ initial approach and their intrusion upon defendant’s freedom by directing that he drop the bag were unsupported by a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot necessary to the exercise of the common-law right to inquire … . The officers approached defendant based solely on their observation of him carrying a shopping bag or gift bag that seemed rigid. While one officer testified that, based on his experience, he thought it might be a “booster bag” used for shoplifting, he essentially described an ordinary shopping bag. Further, it was conceded that defendant was not free to leave at the time he was ordered to drop the bag and its use as a booster bag became apparent. Defendant’s innocuous behavior in walking in and out of a store with the bag and his ensuing behavior did not justify further interference to obtain explanatory information … . People v Ties, 2015 NY Slip Op 07753, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

/ ,

Zoning Board Applied an Incorrect Definition of a Term in a Zoning Ordinance—Court Has the Power to Impose Its Own Interpretation as a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined that the town’s zoning board of appeals did not apply the correct definition of a “neighborhood place of worship” when it denied petitioner’s application to convert a day spa to a “mikvah” in an area zoned for “neighborhood places of worship.” Submitted papers demonstrated that immersion in the waters of a mikvah is a basic religious ritual for Orthodox Jews and involves the recitation of blessings or prayers. Because the matter necessitated the interpretation of the terms of a zoning ordinance, the court need not defer to the zoning board’s interpretation:

The parties agree that the term “neighborhood place of worship” is neither defined in the Town’s zoning law, nor does it appear elsewhere in the Town’s ordinances. The zoning law does provide, however, that “[w]ords not specifically defined shall have their ordinary dictionary meanings” (Town of Mamakating Zoning Code § 199-6 [A]). Thus, the pertinent inquiry distills to whether petitioner’s proposed mikvah comports with the dictionary definition of a neighborhood place of worship. Although courts will ordinarily defer to a zoning board’s interpretation of a local ordinance, when “the issue presented is one of pure legal interpretation of the underlying zoning law or ordinance, deference is not required” … . The issue posed is susceptible to resolution as a matter of law by interpretation of the ordinance terms. Matter of Winterton Props., LLC v Town of Mamakating Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 07734, 3rd Dept 10-221-5

 

/ ,

Hearsay Alone Will Not Support Revocation of Probation/Failure to Pay Restitution Will Not Support Revocation of Probation If Due to an Inability to Pay

In reversing the judgment revoking defendant’s probation, the Third Department noted that hearsay alone cannot be the basis for revocation and failure to pay restitution will only support revocation if defendant has the ability to pay:

It is settled that, “in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay” … . “If the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority” … . If, on the other hand, “the probationer could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment” … .

Here, there was neither an adequate inquiry into defendant’s ability to pay nor a determination that his failure to pay was willful … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to determine whether defendant’s failure to make the required monthly restitution payments was willful and, if so, whether such failure, standing alone, serves as a valid basis for revocation of his probation and the imposition of a sentence of incarceration … . People v Songa, 2015 NY Slip Op 07704, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

/

Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was induced by County Court’s promise to impose a sentence of shock incarceration. At sentencing, County Court refused to order shock incarceration. Because the plea was induced by the broken promise, the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The fact that neither the People nor County Court could guarantee defendant’s participation in the shock incarceration program was deemed irrelevant:

We start with the principle that a trial court always “retains discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing” … . However, when the court wishes to depart from a promised sentence, it must either honor the promise or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea … . Accordingly, “[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … .

Here, prior to defendant’s guilty plea, County Court indicated its belief that defendant was eligible for shock incarceration and then unequivocally promised that it “would order him into it.” When defendant specifically asked if shock incarceration was guaranteed, the court stated that it “would order it absolutely” and that a failure on the part of prison authorities to admit him would “defy an order of the [c]ourt.” Furthermore, defense counsel stated that he was recommending that defendant accept the plea agreement “especially with a shock commitment.” Thus, regardless of the fact that “neither County Court nor the People possessed the authority to guarantee [defendant’s] participation” in the shock incarceration program … , the record reflects that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied upon County Court’s promise to do exactly that. Consequently, we find that defendant’s plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that, because County Court’s promise to defendant cannot be honored as a matter of law, he is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea … . People v Muhammad, 2015 NY Slip Op 07702, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

/ ,

Community College Retaliated Against Union for Its Advocacy

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s finding that a community college (petitioner) retaliated against the union (NIEU) in violation of the Civil Service Law by refusing to hire union employees for second jobs (for which union members received overtime pay). The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

To prove its claim that petitioner [community college] engaged in an improper practice, NIEU was required to establish that it was engaged in activities protected by the Taylor Law (see Civil Service Law § 200 et seq.), that petitioner knew of these activities, and that it took the challenged action because of the activities … . “If the charging party proves a prima facie case of improper motivation, the burden of persuasion shifts to the party charged to establish that its actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons” … . Here, the parties agree that NIEU’s advocacy on the overtime issue was a protected activity and that petitioner was aware of NIEU’s advocacy. Their dispute focuses on whether petitioner’s decision to stop hiring NIEU members for second jobs was improperly motivated. Matter of Hudson Val. Community Coll. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 07731, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

/ , ,

Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enforceable

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

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

 

/ , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

/ , ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

/ , ,

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis

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

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

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

 

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