You are here: / Question of Fact Re: Whether Dog Had Exhibited Vicious Propensities Prior...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact Re: Whether Dog Had Exhibited Vicious Propensities Prior to Plaintiff’s Injury Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined questions of fact about whether the dog exhibited vicious propensities prior to plaintiff’s injury precluded summary judgment in a dog bite case.  The court explained the relevant law, noting that no negligence cause of action for a dog bite exists in New York:

Aside from the limited exception …, regarding a farm animal that strays from the place where it is kept …, which is not at issue here, “New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal” … . Thus, “[t]o recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” … . Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendant’s liability. In support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted her deposition testimony that, although the dog had barked “aggressively” at her prior to the incident, she had never observed the dog attack any person or another pet prior to this incident. The plaintiff also submitted the deposition testimony of a neighbor who, on two separate occasions prior to the instant attack, observed the dog growl, bark, bare its teeth, and jump at a person. Significantly, the neighbor testified that the defendant was present during both of the prior incidents. However, in support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of the defendant, who maintained that, prior to the attack on the plaintiff, the dog had never attacked any person or any other dog, and had never acted threateningly toward anyone. The defendant further testified that, although the dog might have barked at times, no one had ever complained to her about the dog or reported to her that they felt threatened by the dog. This evidence demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the dog displayed vicious propensities prior to the plaintiff’s attack, or if it did, whether the defendant was aware of such propensities … . Ostrovsky v Stern, 2015 NY Slip Op 05654, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

/

Parking Lots Owned by a Federal-Income-Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization Formed to Facilitate Commercial Development Were Not Entitled to a Charitable Exemption from Real Property Taxes—The Parking Lots Were “Used” to Increase Commerce Which Is Not a Charitable Use Under the Real Property Tax Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined that parking lots owned by “Greater Jamaica” were not entitled to a charitable exemption from real estate taxes.  “Greater Jamaica” is an organization formed for the purpose of facilitating Jamaica’s commercial development.  It is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to 26 USC 501 (c) (3).  The NYC Department of Finance (DOF) revoked Greater Jamaica’s exemption from real estate taxes which the DOF had previously granted. Supreme Court upheld the revocation. The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court. And the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals noted that the criteria for a charitable exemption under the IRS code is different from the criteria under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 420-a and, although a court may consider the IRS exemption in a RPTL 420-a proceeding, the IRS exemption is not determinative. The Court of Appeals concluded the parking lots were primarily used to facilitate the commercial growth of Jamaica, which was not a charitable purpose under the RPTL:

The City revoked the tax exemption on the ground that it was erroneously awarded in the first instance. It met its burden in this regard by demonstrating that the “use” of the parking facilities was not for “charitable” purposes but rather for economic development, and that the use of the parking facilities were not “incidental to another recognized charitable [*6]purpose.” Specifically, the City’s revocation letter explained that the City reached its determination after reviewing documents submitted to it by Greater Jamaica and case law from this Court. The City also explained why it believed that the status granted Greater Jamaica by the IRS had no bearing on the issue of “charitable use” of the parking facilities under section 420-a. The letter stated that although the parking facilities may have served “an important public purpose and support[ed] development of a community,” those factors did not qualify the facilities for a charitable exemption. Indeed, according to the City’s review of the ownership structure of the lots along with other documentation, it appeared that Jamaica First collected monies that exceeded the carrying, maintenance and depreciation charges attributable to the premises and that Jamaica First utilized those excess proceeds to fund other additional operations, such as the purchase of an additional parking lot. * * *

Although we do not disturb the Appellate Division’s holding that petitioners met the “organized or conducted exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes” prong of the tax exemption test, we part company with the Appellate Division relative to its holding that “petitioners demonstrated that the use of their public parking facilities was consistent with their exempt purpose, as expressly noted by the IRS in granting such operation tax exempt status” … . By so holding, the Appellate Division utilized the petitioners’ organizational status’ under Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) § 501 (c) (3) to support its holding that petitioners’ demonstrated that the use of the parking facilities was for an exempt purpose. This was error. …

… [T]he IRS’s definition of what constitutes an exempt “charitable” purpose is exceedingly broad, including, among other things, “the lessening of the burdens of [g]overnment” (26 CFR 1.501 [c] [3]-1 [d] [2]), while the second prong of section 420-a (1) (a) requires a court to review “the actual or physical use of the property when it exempts from taxation property ‘used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more’ exempt purposes” … . Thus, our analysis under section 420-a is concerned with the “use” of the parking facilities as a whole, and whether the facilities are “used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of [section 420-a’s] purposes.” * * *

We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that the parking facilities are charitable in and of themselves because they fulfill the primary purpose of economic development. The economic benefit conveyed by below-market rate parking, however, inures to the benefit of private enterprise and cannot be said to further any charitable purpose. It lessens the burden of local businesses, obviating any need for them to make their own parking arrangements for prospective customers. The below-market rates that the facilities charge provide an incentive for the public to patronize those businesses, providing a dual benefit for local business and a benefit to prospective customers of those businesses. While these goals may be laudable, they are not charitable. Matter of Greater Jamaica Dev. Corp. v New York City Tax Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 05620, CtApp 7-1-15

 

/ ,

Constructive Trust Properly Imposed—Sister, Who Was Not Included on the Original Deed Because of Credit Problems, Contributed One-Third of the Downpayment Based Upon a Promise She Would Be Added to the Deed at a Later Time

The Second Department determined a constructive trust was properly imposed on property for which the plaintiff provided one-third of the downpayment.  Plaintiff Reynida Diaz was not included on the original deed with her two sisters because of her credit history. There was an agreement among the sisters that Reynida would be added to the deed at a later time. Defendant sister refused to add Reynida to the deed. The court explained the requirements for a constructive trust:

In general, the imposition of a constructive trust is appropriate in situations when ” property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The elements of a constructive trust are (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment … . A party must establish the elements of a constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence … .

There is no dispute that the first element, a confidential relationship, exists among the sisters …, a fact conceded by the defendant. As to the second element, the testimony of the two plaintiff sisters, the defendant, and a family friend, as well as the documentary evidence, established the existence of an express agreement among the parties at the time the subject property was purchased that Reynida Diaz would be added to the deed at some later date … . The plaintiffs also established the transfer in reliance element in that, at the time of the purchase of the subject property, Reynida Diaz had given the defendant $13,000, the same amount contributed by the defendant and the other plaintiff, in exchange for the promise of being added to the title as a co-owner at a later date … . The fourth element, that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the constructive trust was not imposed, was also established in that the defendant had received the $13,000 from Reynida Diaz, as well as payments from her toward the monthly mortgage and maintenance of the property equal to the amounts contributed by the defendant and the other plaintiff who was on the deed to the subject property … . Diaz v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 05635, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

 

 

/ , ,

Local Law, Which Regulates the Conduct of Attorneys Who Regularly Engage in (Nonlegal) Activities Traditionally Performed by Debt Collectors, Not Preempted by the Judiciary Law

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined that New York City’s Local Law 15, which regulates debt-collection practices, including some debt-collection practices used by attorneys, was not preempted by the Judiciary Law. The Local Law only reaches attorneys who regularly engage in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors. The court found no conflict between the Local Law and the Judiciary Law (no “conflict” preemption). And the court found that the Judiciary Law does not evince an intent to preempt the field of regulating nonlegal services performed by attorneys (no “field” preemption):

Local Law 15, enacted in 2009, amended the debt collection legislation in several ways. Significantly, it expanded the definition of “debt collection agency” to “include a buyer of delinquent debt who seeks to collect such debt either directly or through the services of another by, including but not limited to, initiating or using legal processes or other means to collect or attempt to collect such debt” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a]). The amendments continued a limited exemption for attorneys or law firms that were “collecting a debt in such capacity on behalf of and in the name of a client solely through activities that may only be performed by a licensed attorney” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a][5]). The exemption, however, did not cover “any attorney-at-law or law firm or part thereof who regularly engages in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors, including, but not limited to, contacting a debtor through the mail or via telephone with the purpose of collecting a debt or other activities as determined by rule of the commissioner” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a][5]). * * *

Plaintiffs assert both conflict and field preemption in connection with the argument that Local Law 15 is preempted by the Judiciary Law. The Local Law, by its terms, governs the conduct of debt collection agencies. Although attorneys that are acting in a debt collecting capacity may fall within its penumbra, it does not purport to regulate attorneys as such. In fact, it clearly states that it does not pertain to attorneys who are engaged in the practice of law on behalf of a particular client. There is no express conflict between the broad authority accorded to the courts to regulate attorneys under the Judiciary Law and the licensing of individuals as attorneys who are engaged in debt collection activity falling outside of the practice of law and, thus, the Local Law does not impose an additional requirement for attorneys to practice law. Rather, the regulatory schemes can be seen as complementary to, and compatible with, one another. * * *

The courts’ authority to regulate attorney conduct does not evince an intent to preempt the field of regulating nonlegal services rendered by attorneys. “Intent to preempt the field may ‘be implied from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the State legislative scheme, including the need for State-wide uniformity in a given area'” (People v Diack, 24 NY3d 674, 679 [2014] [citations omitted]). Although the courts may have preempted the field of regulating attorney misconduct, that authority does not extend to all nonlegal aspects of attorney behavior, which can be governed by both civil and criminal law, including regulatory proscriptions. To the extent that the courts have exercised some authority over nonlegal services provided by attorneys (see Rules of Professional Conduct 5.7), the regulation in that area is not “so detailed and comprehensive so as to imply that” the field has been preempted … . Eric M. Berman, P.C. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05594, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ ,

Failure to Make Clear in the Jury Instructions that the Acquittal on the Top Count Based Upon the Justification Defense Required Acquittal on the Lesser Counts As Well Rendered the Verdict “Ambiguous”—New Trial Ordered in the Interest of Justice

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, exercising the court’s “interest of justice” jurisdiction, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions did not make clear that, if the jury found the defendant’s actions justified (self-defense), acquittal on all counts was mandatory. The defendant was charged with attempted murder, attempted assault in the first degree, and assault second degree stemming from a stabbing. There was evidence defendant may have acted in self-defense.  Therefore the jury was given the justification-defense instruction. The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser two counts. If the not guilty verdict was based on the justification defense, then the defendant should have been acquitted of all charges. The jury instructions did not make the effect of finding the defendant’s acts justified clear. Because it could not be discerned whether the jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder based on the justification defense, the verdict was ambiguous and a new trial was required, notwithstanding that the error in the jury instructions was not preserved:

On this record, review of the issue in the interest of justice is warranted because it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the two lesser counts. While lack of justification was included as an element of each crime, the verdict sheet and the court’s accompanying explanation created confusion, because they indicated among other things that the jurors “must consider” count three irrespective of their disposition of higher counts and they failed to explicitly convey that a finding of justification on the top count precluded further deliberation. While the trial court did follow the CJI justification instruction in its charge, it also included as an element of each offense “[t]hat the defendant was not justified,” which may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each crime required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification. People v Velez, 2015 NY Slip Op 05619, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/ ,

Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of forfeiture of a sum of money entered by the defendant was part of the judgment of conviction, and was therefore reviewable on appeal. The dissent argued that appeal should have been dismissed because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction and was therefore not reviewable.  The forfeiture was ultimately affirmed on the merits:

At the outset, we reject the People’s contention, adopted by the dissent, that this appeal is not properly before us because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.30, a court has the authority to order a forfeiture of property, and any order exercising that authority “may be included as part of the judgment of conviction.” In People v Detres-Perez (127 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2015]), relying on Penal Law § 60.30, this Court recently found that a forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction and thus reviewable on the appeal from the judgment. Likewise here, the court’s so-ordering of the stipulation at the time of sentencing rendered it part of the judgment of conviction and reviewable on this appeal as of right (see CPL 450.10). Contrary to the dissent’s position, we do not conclude that Penal Law § 60.30 authorizes the inclusion of forfeiture as part of a defendant’s sentence. Rather, that provision allows a court to order forfeiture as a separate component of the judgment of conviction… . … Finally, the omission of the forfeiture order from the sentence and commitment sheet does not render the order unreviewable since a forfeiture, although not a component of a criminal sentence, can nevertheless be part of the judgment of conviction … . People v Burgos, 2015 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/

Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)

The First Department explained that, under Labor Law 200 (a codification of common law negligence), a subcontractor, as the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor. Neither the owner, general contractor nor their statutory agent may be held liable under Labor Law 200 in the absence of evidence the owner, general contractor or their statutory agent actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here there was no evidence the defendant subcontractor created or was aware of a dangerous condition allegedly created by its subcontractors. A subcontractor who did not create and/or has no notice of the dangerous condition, however, can be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, as a statutory agent, under Labor Law 241 (6):

 As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, [defendant] stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor, neither of which may be held liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 (a codification of common-law negligence) for injuries arising from a dangerous condition in the absence of evidence that such party actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Uncontroverted evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that [defendant]  sub-subcontracted all of its work … and furnished no workers in its own employ to perform work. Rather, [defendant’s] presence at the site was limited to one-hour visits by its president once a week or every other week. Since there is no evidence that [defendant] itself created the condition in question or had actual or constructive of it, it cannot be held liable for injuries arising from that condition under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, neither of which makes an owner, a general contractor or their statutory agent vicariously liable for the negligence of a downstream subcontractor … .

However, given that [defendant’s] subcontract with [the owner] delegated to it the authority to supervise all drywall work, and given plaintiff’s allegation that the presence of the pipe segment on the floor was caused by employees of [defendant’s] spackling sub-subcontractor … , [defendant] is subject to liability under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . DeMaria v RBNB 20 Owner, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/

The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion the defendant hospital had constructive notice of a worn rubber mat. The jury could reason that the wearing of the mat, resulting in a hole, occurred over a period of time and should have been noticed by the defendant. The fact that plaintiff’s testimony was the only evidence of the claimed defect did not render the evidence insufficient. The motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence:

Plaintiff testified that as she entered the playground with her five-year-old grandson, her foot became caught in a hole in the rubber mat, and she fell forward, her right elbow striking the ground. Plaintiff described the hole as being caused by “worn out” rubber. * * *

To set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by sufficient evidence, the movant must demonstrate that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . The standard for setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence is “whether the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … .

The liability verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises and was not against the weight of the evidence … .

Plaintiff’s testimony that she was caused to fall when her foot became ensnared in a “worn out” section of the rubber mat was sufficient to support a finding of liability … . The fact that plaintiff’s testimony provided the lone evidence of the claimed defect is not a basis to conclude that there was insufficient evidence of a hazardous defect to impose liability on the premises owner … .

The dissent’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that the worn out area was visible or apparent by reasonable inspection cannot withstand scrutiny. A “worn out” section by definition occurs over the passage of time. As the trial court noted “the very description of a worn out area pre-supposes a slow process, and can support a jury inference [*3]that the defect should have been discovered.” The jury having reasonably credited plaintiff’s direct observations and testimony over that of the defense witnesses, it is not for us to second-guess the verdict. Cruz v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 05601, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/ ,

An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the Right to Bring a Tort Action Was Included, Did Not, Under New York Law, Include the Right to Bring a Tort Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the assignment of a note, which was silent about whether the assignment included the right to bring a tort action, did not include such a right. Therefore the Second Circuit’s certified question whether the assignee of the note had standing to sue Morgan Stanley for fraud was answered in the negative. The case arose out of the collapse in value of sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities. The court explained the relevant New York law:

To be sure, fraud claims are freely assignable in New York … . It has long been held, however, that the right to assert a fraud claim related to a contract or note does not automatically transfer with the respective contract or note … . Thus, where an assignment of fraud or other tort claims is intended in conjunction with the conveyance of a contract or note, there must be some language — although no specific words are required — that evinces that intent and effectuates the transfer of such rights … . Without a valid assignment, “only the . . . assignor may rescind or sue for damages for fraud and deceit” because “the representations were made to it and it alone had the right to rely upon them” … . Commonwealth of Pa. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05591, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ ,

The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the People were required to provide the pre-trial statutory notice of the intent to introduce evidence of an out-of-court identification of the defendant by the officer (Detective Vanacore) who viewed the underlying controlled drug purchase (by an undercover officer) from across the street. The error was deemed harmless however.  Noting that the identification at issue was not so free from the risk of undue suggestiveness as to render the identification merely “confirmatory,” the court offered a clear explanation of the reasons for the statutory pre-trial notice requirement:

“CPL 710.30 could not be clearer” … . When the People intend to offer at trial “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant either at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such,” the statute requires the People to notify the defense of such intention within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). Not only is “[t]he statutory mandate . . . plain” but the procedure is “simple” … . The People serve their notice upon defendant, the defendant has an opportunity to move to suppress and the court may hold a Wade hearing (see id.). If the People fail to provide notice, the prosecution may be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial.

The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures” … . In enacting the notice requirement, the Legislature “attempt[ed] to deal effectively with the reality that not all police-arranged identifications are free from unconstitutional taint” … .

The purpose of the notice requirement is two-fold: it provides the defense with “an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the [evidence procured by the state] and prepare the defense accordingly” and “permits an orderly hearing and determination of the issue of the fact . . . thereby preventing the interruption of trial to challenge initially the admission into evidence of the [identification]” … . Thus, the statute contemplates “pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony where it is alleged that an improper procedure occurred” … . * * *

Detective Vanacore’s surveillance of defendant does not constitute an “observation of . . . defendant . . . so clear that the identification could not be mistaken” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness … . Therefore, the People were required to serve their notice concerning Detective Vanacore’s observations. People v Pacquette, 2015 NY Slip Op 05595, CtApp 6-30-15

 

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