You are here: / “Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by...

Search Results

/ , ,

“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney Does Not Apply If the Relevant Litigation Is a “Sham”—Here Sufficient “Sham Litigation” Allegations Were Made—Slander Per Se Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed

In finding plaintiff had stated a cause of action for slander per se, the First Department explained that the privilege for statements made by an attorney which pertain to on-going litigation does not apply if the litigation is a “sham.”  The plaintiff, an attorney, sued Finkelstein, also an attorney, for statements alleged to have been made by Finkelstein to plaintiff’s former client, Harrison. Plaintiff alleged that Finkelstein told Harrison plaintiff had taken Harrison’s money and that Finkelstein was the source of the false allegations in Harrison’s complaint against plaintiff.  Disagreeing with Supreme Court, the First Department held that the complaint stated a cause of action because the complaint sufficiently alleged the lawsuit brought by Harrison was a “sham” to which the “statements pertinent to litigation” privilege would not apply:

… [A] statement that is pertinent to litigation is absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamation action. That principal of law was first stated by the Court of Appeals in Youmans v Smith (153 NY 214, 219 [1897]), and was recently reaffirmed by the Court in Front, Inc. v Khalil (24 NY3d 713 [2015]) . This Court has held that, where the privilege is invoked, “any doubts are to be resolved in favor of pertinence” … . Further, the test to determine whether a statement is pertinent to litigation is ” extremely liberal'” …, such that the offending statement, to be actionable, must have been “outrageously out of context” … .

This Court has recognized, however, that the privilege is capable of abuse and will not be conferred where the underlying lawsuit was a sham action brought solely to defame the defendant … , in which this Court declined to dismiss a defamation claim based on the pertinency privilege where the context in which the allegedly offending statement was made was a litigation that the plaintiffs filed but never prosecuted. The existence of this “sham litigation” exception has been confirmed (but not applied) in other cases in this Department… . Flomenhaft v Finkelstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03468, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

/ ,

Statutory Presumption of Possession of Weapons Recovered from Vehicle Confers on Vehicle-Occupants Automatic Standing to Move to Suppress

The First Department determined the People were relying exclusively on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from inside a vehicle are possessed by all the occupants.  Therefore, the defendant had standing to move to suppress the weapons:

In opposition to defendant’s assertion that the weapon possession charges were based solely on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from the interior of an automobile are deemed to be possessed by all its occupants (Penal Law § 265.15[3]), the People failed to “point to evidence reasonably tending to show the defendant’s actual or constructive possession” of the two pistols … . Instead, the People asserted that the statutory presumption did not apply, claiming erroneously that the two handguns at issue were recovered from the person of one of the car’s passengers (see Penal Law § 265.15[3][a]). The People concede on appeal that this argument was incorrect, because the two pistols (unlike a revolver found on the person of a passenger) were in fact recovered from a box on the back seat. There is no indication that the motion court relied either on the grand jury minutes or the search warrant affidavit. Because the People failed to adequately demonstrate that the charges relating to the two pistols were not based entirely on the statutory presumption, defendant had automatic standing to challenge seizure of those weapons … . People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03396, 1st Dept 4-23-15

 

/

Limousine Driver Properly Found to Be an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of SUK, a limousine service, and therefore was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.  The court noted that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) need not distinguish every arguably similar case it has previously decided:

“An employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with control over the latter being more important … .

Here, the record establishes that SUK assigned jobs to claimant and fielded complaints from its customers. Additionally, SUK imposed numerous restrictions upon claimant, including prohibiting him from working with its competitors, imposing detailed rules as to acceptable work dress and behavior and requiring him to drive a specific type of car. SUK also set the rate collected from the passengers and handled all voucher billing. … …[T]he Board need not “explicitly distinguish in its written decisions each and every arguably similar case that it previously has decided” and, hence, was not required to address the distinguishable cases relied upon by SUK … . Matter of June-Il Kim (Suk Inc.–Commissioner of Labor)\, 2015 NY Slip Op 03438, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

/

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over Employment Within Federal Enclaves (Here Navy Ships at Sea)

The Third Department determined that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) had jurisdiction over employment within so-called federal enclaves.  Here claimant was employed by a company which sold cars to Navy personnel stationed on ships at sea.  The company, Priority Assist, argued the Board did not have jurisdiction over the employment at issue.  The court relied on a US Supreme Court case which indicated the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States could be modified by statute, and the federal statute which state employment on federal propery was not exempt from state unemployment compensation law:

Priority Assist initially asserts that claimant and others similarly situated performed work in federal enclaves — i.e., lands purchased by the federal government, with state consent, “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” — and that the Board accordingly lacked jurisdiction to hold it liable for unemployment insurance contributions (US Const, art I, § 8, cl 17). Even assuming that United States Navy vessels that have never been part of a state constitute federal enclaves, “exclusive jurisdiction over [such an] area . . . remains with the United States, except as modified by statute” (Howard v Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 344 US 624, 627 [1953] [emphasis added]). Inasmuch as federal law provides that “[n]o person shall be relieved from compliance with a [s]tate unemployment compensation law on the ground that services were performed on land or premises owned, held, or possessed by the United States,” the Board retained jurisdiction here (26 USC § 3305 [d]). Matter of Pickton (Priority Assist Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03437, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

/ ,

Under Powers Reserved to the Town by an 1818 Law, the Town Cannot Regulate Shoreline Dune Reconstruction and Erosion Control Undertaken by a Village within the Town

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined laws enacted in the early 1800’s prohibited the Town of Southampton from regulating shoreline activities such as dune restoration and erosion control undertaken by the Village (located within the Town):

The language of the 1818 Law “only relates to the use of the beach or shore, by taking seaweed from it and carting or transporting to and from or landing property on such shore” and “makes no reference to the management or regulation of the lands constituting the beach or shore . . . , but merely provides for the [Town’s] management and regulation of the waters, fisheries, and taking of seaweed and the productions of the waters” … . Accordingly, the Village was entitled to a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the [Town has] no lawful governmental or regulatory power to grant or deny permits in connection with (i) the placement and grading of sand and earth, and (ii) the development, construction, maintenance, and use of structures and lands located anywhere upon the ocean beaches situated within the boundaries of the Village. Semlear v Incorporated Vil. of Quogue, 2015 NY Slip Op 03345, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

/

Pleading Requirements for Aiding and Abetting Fraud and Fraud Explained—Requirements Not Met Here

In finding that the cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud should have been dismissed, the Second Department explained the pleading requirements:

To plead a cause of action to recover damages for aiding and abetting fraud, a complaint must allege the existence of an underlying fraud, knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud … . Here, the complaint failed to adequately allege the existence of an underlying fraud. A plaintiff asserting a cause of action alleging fraud must plead all of the following elements: (1) a material misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and which the defendant knew to be false, (2) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it, (3) the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury … . In addition, in any action based upon fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (… see CPLR 3016[b]). “[A]n essential element of any fraud [claim] is that there must be reasonable reliance, to a party’s detriment, upon the representations made” by the defendant against whom the fraud claimed has been asserted … . The plaintiff must show a belief in the truth of the representation and a change of position in reliance on that belief… .  Nabatkhorian v Nabatkhorian, 2015 NY Slip Op 03335, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

/

Under the Facts, Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Father’s Parental Rights—No Showing that Termination Would Increase Likelihood of Adoption

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have terminated father’s parental rights. Father had made progress in strengthening his bond with his children and there was no showing terminating his rights would increase the likelihood of adoption:

The record indicates that the father made sufficient progress toward strengthening his relationship with the subject children … . Furthermore, the older child is residing at a residential treatment center for children with emotional and behavioral issues, and there is no indication that he has any prospects for foster placement or adoption. Although the younger child resides with a foster family, the foster parents have indicated that they do not wish to adopt him out of concern that they could not handle him. Thus, on this record, there is no indication that termination of the father’s parental rights would increase the subject children’s opportunities for adoptive placement … .

Under these circumstances, the Family Court’s termination of the father’s parental rights was not in the best interests of the children and, instead, the court should have suspended judgment for one year… . Matter of Javon J. (Antoine J.), 2015 NY Slip Op 03363, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

/ ,

Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were Timely and Properly Mailed—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Should Not Have Been Granted

Supreme Court granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment, declaring that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay no-fault claims submitted by the defendant because the defendant was unable to verify the validity of the claims. The Second Department reversed, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the denials had been timely and properly mailed to the defendant. The relevant proof requirements were described:

Generally, “proof that an item was properly mailed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the item was received by the addressee” … . ” The presumption may be created by either proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed'” … . However, in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a denial of claim is always properly addressed and mailed … . “Denial of receipt by the insured[ ], standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that they timely and properly mailed the denial of claim forms to the defendant. The affidavit of Joseph M. Andre … asserted that … all items were mailed through an automated system, and explained how documents were identified. However, Andre did not state, in his affidavit, how the envelopes were addressed so as to ensure that the address was correct or whether the envelope was addressed by the automated system or by an employee. He also did not state how and when the envelopes, once sealed, weighed, and affixed with postage using the automated system, were transferred to the care and custody of the United States Postal Service or some other carrier or messenger service to be delivered. Therefore, Andre’s affidavit was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed to the defendant… . Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03340, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

/ ,

Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building

The Second Department determined that the exclusion of a parking lot from a bodily injury insurance policy did not apply to the failure of a manhole cover in the parking lot.  Plaintiff’s decedent drowned in the leaching pool below the manhole. The leaching pool and manhole cover were deemed to be part of the building’s septic system.  Therefore the claim arose from operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the parking lot:

The policy provided coverage for bodily injury “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of the premises . . . and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The policy excluded coverage for claims “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of [a specified parking lot] or any property located on these premises; [or] Operations . . . necessary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of those premises” (hereinafter the parking lot exclusion). * * *

Exclusions to coverage must be strictly construed and read narrowly, with any ambiguity construed against the insurer … . “[T]o negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . …

Since the allegedly defective manhole cover and leaching pool into which the decedent fell were part of the building’s septic system, the decedent’s claim arose out of operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the rear parking lot. Thus, strictly construing the parking lot exclusion and reading it narrowly, it does not apply … . Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03331, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

/ ,

Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff alleged that a ladder twisted out from under him when he was carrying materials to the roof and defendant (Sigma) did not raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court explained the circumstances under which a tenant, the defendant (Sigma) here, is liable under the Labor Law:

Labor Law § 240(1) applies to owners, contractors, and their agents (see Labor Law § 240[1]…). A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or contractor under the Labor Law when it has the ” ability to control the activity which brought about the injury'” … . A lessee of real property that hires a contractor and has the right to control the work at the property is considered to be an owner within the meaning of the law … . Moreover, a lessee of property may be liable as an “owner” when it “has the right or authority to control the work site, even if the lessee did not hire the general contractor” … . The key question is whether the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed … . Here, the evidence established that Sigma was the lessee of the premises where the accident occurred and that the president of Sigma hired the injured plaintiff to perform the work and controlled his work. Seferovic v Atlantic Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03343, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

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