You are here: / Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable Children Would “Ride”...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable Children Would “Ride” an Unsecured Gate Resulting in Injury

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether it was foreseeable that children would swing on an unsecured gate to a cemetery (open to the public). The seven-year-old plaintiff was injured while “riding the gate.” Although there is nothing inherently dangerous about an unsecured gate, knowledge that children played in the cemetery raised a question of fact whether injury to a child was foreseeable:

“It is beyond dispute that landowners . . . have a duty to maintain their properties in [a] reasonably safe condition” … . “Consistent with that duty, the degree of care to be exercised must take into account the known propensity’ of children to roam and climb and play’ ” … . Indeed, “New York State courts have recognized the special propensities of children and the prevailing social policy of protecting them from harm’ . . . and have not deprived them of a right to compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of third parties . . . solely on account of their misuse of an instrument found on the defendant’s premises” … . “What accidents are reasonably foreseeable, and what preventive measures should reasonably be taken, are ordinarily questions of fact” … .

* * * “[A]t least once it is known that children commonly play around . . . an artificial structure [such as the gate], their well-known propensities . . . to climb about and play’ . . . create a duty of care on the part of a landowner to prevent foreseeable risks of harm that might arise out of those activities” … .

Given that, “as a matter of law, [ riding’ a gate] is not such an extraordinary’ form of play as to break the causal connection between the dangerous condition . . . and plaintiff’s injuries,” we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether “[i]t was a natural and foreseeable consequence of defendant’s failure to effectively secure the [gate] against access that young children would play [on it],” thereby resulting in injury … . Charles v Village of Mohawk, 2015 NY Slip Op 03975, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/ , , ,

Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined a mistake made by the Division of Parole, which resulted in claimant’s prosecution and imprisonment for a violation of parole at a time when his parole had been terminated, was privileged.  Therefore, the claimant’s action for false imprisonment was properly dismissed:

To establish a claim of false imprisonment, claimant must demonstrate, among other things, that the confinement was not privileged … . “To that end, it is settled that ‘[a]n otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction or parole authorities'” … . Here, there is no dispute that claimant’s confinement was pursuant to parole violation warrants that were valid on their face. Yet, according to claimant, because his sentence should have terminated by law on March 10, 2005, the Division acted without jurisdiction when it commenced the April 2005 parole revocation proceeding, revoked his parole and thereafter subjected him to various periods of incarceration.

“‘There is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not'” … .

While the [Division of Parole’s] ….interpretation of Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a) may well have been mistaken, any such “error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant’s claim of privilege” … . The statute vested the Division with the authority to grant a termination of sentence under certain described circumstances, and interpreting the provisions that implement such power is a legitimate part of the Division’s function .. . The Division made a reasoned judgment …[which] was neither inconsistent with nor contrary to extant judicial authority … . Thus, at most, the Division “acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence [thereof], and its conduct therefore was privileged”… . Marsh v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03320, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/ ,

Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient Privilege—Even Though the Admission Can Be Disclosed in Child Protective Proceedings, the Privilege Applies in a Criminal Trial

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that an admission of child sexual abuse made to the defendant's psychiatrist was privileged.  The psychiatrist should not have been allowed to testify about the admission at defendant's trial.  The error was not harmless. The Court made it clear that the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protective proceedings where physicians are required to report abuse, do not extend to the context of a criminal trial where the defendant's liberty is at stake:

The Legislature has determined that the protection of children is of paramount importance, so much so that it has either limited or abrogated the privilege through statutory enactments.

The People erroneously assert that these exceptions place offenders on notice that the physician-patient privilege does not apply to statements or admissions triggering a duty to disclose. But it is one thing to allow the introduction of statements or admissions in child protection proceedings, whose aim is the protection of children, and quite another to allow the introduction of those same statements, through a defendant's psychiatrist, at a criminal proceeding, where the People seek to punish the defendant and potentially deprive him of his liberty. Evidentiary standards are necessarily lower in the former proceedings than in the latter because the interests involved are different. Thus, the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protection proceedings lend no credence to the People's argument that defendant should have known that any admission of abuse he made to his psychiatrist would not be kept confidential. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03764, CtApp 5-7-15

 

/

UInstructor at a Not-for-Profit Theater Company Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined a playwrighting instructor at  a not-for-profit theater company, Primary Stages Company, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

We note that, for purposes of our review, we consider instructors and teachers to be professionals … . Accordingly, in deciding if such individuals are employees, the pertinent inquiry is “whether the purported employer retains control of important aspects of the services performed” … .

Here, Primary Stages utilized an informal process in retaining claimant, as it was familiar with her through her affiliation with a writers’ group and simply inquired if she was interested in teaching writing classes. Claimant responded in the affirmative and entered into a written agreement with Primary Stages under which she was paid a flat fee of $1,900 per class. Primary Stages furnished the classroom and also provided a teaching assistant. Although claimant retained the discretion to set the course curriculum, claimant and Primary Stages worked together to establish the class schedule that Primary Stages then distributed to prospective students. Primary Stages was responsible for providing all school facilities and a teaching assistant, finding students to fill the classes and collecting their tuition. The school cancelled classes if there was low enrollment, in which case the instructor would not be paid. If claimant could not teach a class, she needed to notify Primary Stages and, if she or other instructors were unable to complete a course assignment, Primary Stages would find a replacement whose selection was often based upon the recommendation of the instructor. Furthermore, Primary Stages circulated an evaluation form to students for feedback on the instructor at the end of the course and, if the evaluation was unsatisfactory, it would not rehire that instructor. Matter of Wilner (Primary Stages Co. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03902, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

/ ,

Late Notice of Claim Can Be Allowed Even in Absence of Reasonable Excuse Where Defendants Had Actual Notice

The Second Department explained the criteria for determining whether to allow a late notice of claim, noting that the lack of a reasonable excuse does not necessarily require denial of the application where there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice:

The determination of an application for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court … . Among the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted are whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense … . Neither the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative … . The absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal … . However, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance … .

Here, the City defendants had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim well within the 90-day period for serving a notice of claim. Bakioglu v Tornabene, 2014 NY Slip Op 03219, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

/ , ,

Revocation of Empire-Zone-Business Certifications Upheld in 9 of 11 Instances

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, considered the Empire Zone Designation Board’s revocation of petitioners’ certifications as empire zone businesses. The Department of Economic Development (DED) was directed, in 2009, to conduct a review of all certified businesses to determine whether decertification was warranted on one of two grounds: “First, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it was a “shirt-changer,” that is, if the enterprise was certified prior to August 1, 2002, and it “caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with another business enterprise with similar ownership . . . to similar employment with [the enterprise] or if the enterprise acquired, purchased, leased, or had transferred to it real property previously owned by an entity with similar ownership, regardless of form of incorporation or ownership” (General Municipal § 959 [a] [v] [5]; see 5 NYCRR 11.9…). Second, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it failed to meet the 1:1 benefit-cost test … . The latter test required decertification where it was determined that the enterprise “has submitted at least three years of business annual reports [and it] has failed to provide economic returns to the [s]tate in the form of total remuneration to its employees (i.e., wages and benefits) and investments in its facility that add to a greater value than the tax benefits the business enterprise used and had refunded to it” … . Applying the standard criteria for review of administrative determinations, the Third Department upheld all but two of the 11 decertifications, but also determined retroactive decertifications were improper. Matter of Lyell Mt. Read Bus. Ctr. LLC v Empire Zone Designation Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 03906, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

/

Motion to Disqualify an Attorney Who Had Previously Represented Both Parties and Related Businesses Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined a motion to disqualify an attorney who had represented both parties in related matters should have been granted:

Here, prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant’s attorney had provided legal advice to both the appellant, Barbara Gordon, and the defendant in their capacity as business partners and members of several limited liability companies. There was a substantial relationship between the involvement of the defendants’ attorney in the formation of those limited liability companies, and his involvement as general counsel to those limited liability companies in connection with the instant action for an accounting. In his capacity as general counsel, the defendant’s attorney was in a position to receive relevant confidences regarding several of those limited liability companies, in which the plaintiff’s interests are now adverse to the defendant’s interests. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to disqualify the defendants’ attorney… . Gordon v Ifeanyichukwu Chuba Orakwue Obiakor, 2014 NY Slip Op 03232, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

/

Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position Contrary to the Position Plaintiff Took In Two Prior Successful Actions

The Third Department determined the position taken by plaintiff in prior successful actions, i.e., that defendant was the owner of certain lots, precluded plaintiff, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, from taking the position defendant was not the owner of those lots in the instant proceeding:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” … . “The doctrine rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise” …. . Green Harbour Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Ermiger, 2015 NY Slip Op 03899, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

/

Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained

The Second Department determined the relation-back doctrine was properly applied to a second amended complaint which otherwise would have been time-barred. The court noted that the mistake in naming the correct party need not be excusable:

A party seeking the benefit of the relation-back doctrine must establish that (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship, can be charged with notice of the institution of the action and will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits by virtue of the delayed assertion of those claims against him or her, and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been timely commenced against the new party … . The mistake need not be excusable for the relation-back doctrine to apply … . Castagna v Almaghrabi, 2014 NY Slip Op 03223, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

/ , ,

Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff had adequately pled a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. The plaintiff alleged that defendant subverted a bidding process for the installation of artificial turf at state and local schools. Usually competitive bidding cases are brought in an Article 78 proceeding against the relevant public entity. This case fit an exception to that rule because it was brought against a private party working with the public entities. There was also some question whether the proceeding was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or a motion for summary judgment.  Because documentary evidence was submitted, the court’s role was to determine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether plaintiff has stated one:

…[S]ince the motion (made shortly after serving the answer and before disclosure) argued an absence of any legal viability of the alleged causes of action, Supreme Court did not err in treating the motion as a narrowly framed post-answer CPLR 3211 (a) (7) ground asserted in a summary judgment motion … . When dismissal is sought for failure to state a cause of action and, as here, plaintiff submits affidavits, “a court may freely consider [those] affidavits . . . and ‘the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one'” … .

Turning to the merits of the motion, “the laws requiring competitive bidding were designed to benefit taxpayers rather than corporate bidders and, thus, should be construed and administered with sole reference to the public interest” … . Therefore, the remedy for an alleged violation of the competitive bidding statutes typically involves a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the bidding process … . However, a narrow exception to the limited remedy may exist where a plaintiff does not seek relief from the public entity, but brings an action against someone working on behalf of the public entity in the competitive bidding process who allegedly engaged in egregious conduct unknown to the public entity aimed at intentionally subverting a fair process … . Allegations of restricting competition to artificial turf manufactured by A-Turf could be part of a cognizable claim under the narrow exception … . Chenango Contr., Inc. v Hughes Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03903, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

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