You are here: / Townhouse Residents, Members of a Community Homeowners’ Association,...

Search Results

/ ,

Townhouse Residents, Members of a Community Homeowners’ Association, Entered an Implied Contract to Pay a Proportionate Share of the Fees for Authorized and Necessary Services in Connection with the Maintenance of the Townhouse Facilities

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants (townhouse residents) had entered an implied contract to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining the facilities. The defendants had refused to pay membership fees after a dispute with other residents arose.  The Third Department, applying the “business judgment rule,” determined the fees assessed by the plaintiffs were for authorized and necessary services provided by the plaintiff:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has made clear that an implied contract for a community homeowners’ association “includes the obligation to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining . . . facilities and services, not merely the reasonable value of those actually used by any particular resident” … . We review plaintiff’s action in undertaking such expenditures under the business judgment rule, which, in the absence of “claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct,” is limited to an inquiry of “whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” … . Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Assn., Inc. v Kapsokefalos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04905, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff Not Competent When Release Was Signed/Statute of Limitations Tolled by Plaintiff’s Mental Disability

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly concluded the release signed by the plaintiff was not enforceable, because the plaintiff was not competent at the time it was signed, and the statute of limitations was tolled by plaintiff’s mental disability. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury when he was struck by a car in 1991. A few months later plaintiff signed a release provided by an insurance adjuster in return for $5000.  The case languished for years and Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case in 2014. The court explained the relevant law:

With respect to the release signed by plaintiff, “the burden of proving incompetence rests upon the party asserting incapacity to enter into an agreement [and], to prevail, plaintiff was required to establish that [his] ‘mind was so affected as to render [him] wholly and absolutely incompetent to comprehend and understand the nature of the transaction'” … . The incapacity must be shown to exist at the time the pertinent document was executed … . Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the toll for “insanity” provided by CPLR 208 is narrowly interpreted, the concept of insanity is “equated with unsoundness of mind” … and encompasses “only those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . The mental incapacity must exist at or be caused by the accident and continue during the relevant time … . Lynch v Carlozzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04893, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/

Sworn Juror Who Was From the Same Neighborhood as Defendant Stated His Fear of Drug Dealers Would Prevent Him from Reaching an Impartial Verdict—the Juror Was Properly Discharged as “Grossly Unqualified” and “For Cause” Based Upon a Newly Discovered Ground

The First Department determined a sworn juror was properly discharged as “grossly unqualified,” as well as “for cause.” The juror lived in the neighborhood where the crime occurred and where defendant and his accomplices lived. The juror told the court that his fear of drug dealers in his neighborhood would prevent him from reaching an impartial verdict. The juror had not mentioned his fear before he was sworn:

The juror’s fear provided grounds for the court to dismiss him as “grossly unqualified to serve” pursuant to CPL 270.35(1), even if the court did not cite the statutory phrasing, because it was clear that the juror could not remain impartial. Additionally, since the juror had not mentioned that he feared for his safety when questioned by the court and the parties before being sworn, he was properly discharged for cause, on a newly discovered ground, pursuant to CPL 270.15(4). People v Ward, 2015 NY Slip Op 04928, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

/ ,

The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons

In a lawsuit stemming from allegedly slanderous remarks made by defendants in connection with plaintiff’s termination from employment by the defendant school district, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s petition for a name-clearing hearing should have been dismissed, because there was no evidence defendants disclosed the relevant letters to anyone, and the jury should not have been allowed to consider rumor-related “ostracism and rejection” damages, because there was no evidence defendants were responsible for the alleged repetition of the slander by third persons. A new trial on damages was ordered:

Proof of “ostracism and rejection” to establish damages for defamation is only admissible if the proof is “‘the direct and well-connected result'” of a defamatory statement at issue … . Further, even when a defendant’s slanderous statement is connected by proof to that statement’s republication, “‘one who utters a slander . . . is not responsible for its voluntary and unjustifiable repetition, without his [or her] authority or request, by others over whom he [or she] has no control and who thereby make themselves liable to the person injured'” … . This is because “each person who repeats the defamatory statement is responsible for the resulting damages” … .

Plaintiff’s proof regarding rumors and ostracism fail these tests. Plaintiff and her witnesses offered no proof that directly connected [defendants’] slanderous statements to the ostracism that plaintiff allegedly suffered … . Further, even assuming that the content of the rumors allegedly spread by community members allowed for a reasonable inference that said community members were aware of [defendants’] slanderous statements, proof of republication was nonetheless improper given the absence of evidence that defendants had any knowledge of or played any role in such republication … . Compounding the effect of the error, Supreme Court did not instruct the jury that plaintiff had the burden of proving that the ostracism harms that plaintiff allegedly suffered were actually connected to [defendants’] statements, despite defendants’ request that it do so. Wilcox v Newark Val. Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04890, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/

Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning of the Navigation Law—Plaintiff’s Suit for Clean-Up of PERC Under the Navigation Law Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined the Navigation Law did not confer upon plaintiff a private right of action to sue for clean-up of PERC, a chemical used in dry cleaning.  Plaintiff is the owner of a shopping plaza and sued the estate of the owner a of dry cleaning business that was located in the plaza after PERC was found in the soil. The Navigation Law provides a private right of action to sue for the clean-up of “petroleum.” Although PERC is derived from petroleum, the court held PERC does not constitute petroleum within the meaning of the Navigation Law:

Essentially, plaintiff argues that this finding that PERC is petroleum derived is sufficient to support imposition of liability under the Navigation Law. This would constitute a novel expansion of the law; plaintiff does not cite to, nor can we find, any case in which PERC has been deemed to constitute petroleum under the Navigation Law. At least two other courts have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that PERC does not constitute petroleum under the Navigation Law … . As defendant argues, the vast and diverse range of products and substances derived from petroleum — many of which pose none of the same dangers as petroleum itself — would make a per se rule imposing liability for the discharge of any petroleum-derived substance unworkable. Accordingly, we find no error in Supreme Court’s determination that PERC is not petroleum as defined under Navigation Law article 12 … . Fairview Plaza, Inc. v Estate of Peter J. Rigos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04901, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/ , ,

The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)

The First Department determined the third set of charges brought against petitioner-teacher, alleging the teacher improperly obtained his daughter’s admission to NYC Department of Education (DOE) schools for which she was not zoned, was time-barred.  Although the three-year statute of limitations in the Education Law would not apply had the allegations constituted a crime, the hearing officer did not find the teacher’s conduct to be criminal. The court determined that the first two set of charges against the teacher did not justify termination (the penalty imposed) and remitted the matter for a lesser punishment. The court noted that the statute of limitations in the Education Law need not be raised as a defense:

Supreme Court did not exceed its authority in finding that the third set of charges against petitioner was time-barred. Education Law § 3020-a(1) requires that disciplinary charges against a teacher be brought within three years from the date of the alleged misconduct, unless the alleged misconduct constituted a crime when committed. Petitioner was not required to raise the statutory time limitation set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) as a defense in the disciplinary proceeding. Where, as here, “a statute creates a right unknown at common law, and also establishes a time period within which the right may be asserted, the time limit is . . . a condition attached to the right as distinguished from a [s]tatute of [l]imitations which must be asserted by way of defense” … . Accordingly, DOE had the burden of establishing that it met the time requirement set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) or that the crime exception to the time requirement applied … . DOE failed to meet its burden. Matter of Suker v New York City Board/ Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04940, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

/ , ,

Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Florida law on restrictive covenants re: non-solicitation of customers by a former employee violated the public policy of New York State.  Therefore the choice-of-law provision in the employee agreement was unenforceable.  The Court of Appeals went on to find that, applying New York law, questions of fact precluded a determination whether the non-solicitation agreement at issue should be enforced.  With respect to the public policy violation, the court explained:

… Florida law requires a party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant only to make a prima facie showing that the restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, at which point the burden shifts to the other party to show that the restraint is overbroad or unnecessary (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). If the latter showing is made, the court is required to “modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect” the employer's legitimate business interests (Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). In contrast to this focus solely on the employer's business interests, under New York's three-prong test, “[a] restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public. A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . Whereas Florida shifts the burden of proof after the employer demonstrates its business interests (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]), New York requires the employer to prove all three prongs of its test before the burden shifts … . Further, Florida law explicitly prohibits courts from considering the harm or hardship to the former employee (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [g] [1]). This directly conflicts with New York's requirement that courts consider, as one of three mandatory factors, whether the restraint “impose[s] undue hardship on the employee” … .

Additionally, under Florida law, courts are required to construe restrictive covenants in favor of protecting the employer's interests, and may not use any rules of contract interpretation that would require the construction of a restrictive covenant narrowly or against the restraint or drafter (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [h]). In contrast, New York law provides that “[c]ovenants not to compete should be strictly construed because of the 'powerful considerations of public policy which militate against sanctioning the loss of a [person's] livelihood'” … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04876, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/ ,

Although a Prima Facie Case of Abuse and Neglect Was Made Out, Father’s Expert Provided Persuasive Evidence the Child’s Injuries Were Not the Result of Abuse—The Abuse and Neglect Findings Were Not, Therefore, Supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, reversed Family Court’s finding that father abused and neglected his infant daughter (Nora).  The trial was essentially a “battle of experts” [Patno was the Department of Social Service’s expert; Scheller was father’s expert]. The Third Department determined the Department of Social Services had made out a prima facie case of abuse and neglect (expert testimony that Nora’s physical condition was caused by shaking) but, under a weight of the evidence analysis, father’s expert provided the best explanation for Nora’s injuries—an explanation which did not implicate father.  The court noted that father did not exhibit any characteristics associated with an abusive parent and father’s expert’s “testimony, which was consistent with conclusions of Nora’s treating physicians and her medical records in crucial respects, offered a reasonable and persuasive account of how Nora’s symptoms — and lack thereof — better supported his … diagnosis:”

…. [T]he uncontested evidence showed that Nora did not suffer external trauma …, broken bones or neck injuries …, and she had a one-sided retinal hemorrhage … . Further, the father, a professional pediatric nurse, exhibited none of the characteristics thought to be diagnostically predictive of a perpetrator of abusive head trauma …, and he consistently denied that he mishandled Nora … . The single characteristic that Nora was fussy — while perhaps almost always present in victims of abusive head trauma — fails to meaningfully support Patno’s diagnosis over Scheller’s diagnosis, given the vast number of fussy infants who are never physically abused. Further, while Patno testified that abusive head trauma from shaking often results in a triad of symptoms that include subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhaging and brain swelling …, the medical evidence uniformly established that Nora did not suffer from brain swelling. Additionally, Scheller and Adamo — petitioner’s witness — were substantially in agreement that Nora’s single-sided retinal hemorrhaging could be the specific result of the subdural hematoma, rather than a direct result of any potential trauma. Patno failed to offer any explanation regarding the merits of such a theory or even an opinion as to whether she believed that such one-sided retinal hemorrhaging was the direct result of shaking … . Accordingly, given Patno’s lack of specificity regarding the one-sided retinal hemorrhage, it is unclear whether she believed that evidence of a fussy infant who had suffered a subdural hematoma was, by itself, sufficient to diagnose abusive head trauma. Matter of Natalie AA. (Kyle AA.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04889, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/ ,

In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, in an action involving residential mortgage-backed securities, determined that a cause of action based upon breach of representations and warranties accrued on the date the contract was executed. A few years after the parties executed a mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) and a pooling a servicing agreement (PSA) borrowers began to default, resulting in hundreds of millions in losses.  Upon investigation it was determined that the underlying mortgage loans failed to comply with the defendant’s representations and warranties about the borrowers’ incomes, occupancy status and existing debts.  The Court of Appeals held that the breach of the representations and warranties occurred when the MLPA was executed on March 28, 2006.  The action was commenced on the last day of the limitations period (on March 28, 2012), but was untimely because the contractual conditions precedent to suit had not been complied with as of that date. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s refusal to cure or repurchase after notification in January, 2012, breached a second contract and started the six-year statute running from that point. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s repurchase obligation was not a valid agreement “to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date…”.  “[Defendant’s] cure or repurchase obligation could not reasonably be viewed as a distinct promise of future performance. It was dependent on, and indeed derivative of, [defendant’s] representations and warranties, which did not survive the closing and were breached, if at all, on that date…” . ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04873, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/

Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”

Plaintiff was directed to remove snow from the work site and slipped and fell in the process. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the cited industrial code provision (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)) did not apply to the work plaintiff was assigned. The industrial code prohibited allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, where the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed (here, removal of the slippery condition) that industrial code provision does not apply:

… [P]laintiff cites 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which prohibits an employer from allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, when the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed, 12 NYCRR 23.1-7 does not apply … . In other words, liability does not attach when the injury is caused by the “‘very condition [a plaintiff] was charged with removing'” … . … Here, plaintiff was injured due to the condition that he was specifically charged with removing … , Barros v Bette & Cring, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04910, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

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