You are here: / Sale of Notes Was Champertous—Seller Subcontracted Out Its Litigation...

Search Results

/

Sale of Notes Was Champertous—Seller Subcontracted Out Its Litigation for Political Reasons In Violation of Judiciary Law 489 (1)

The First Department determined plaintiff’s purchase of notes was champertous. Champerty “is the purchase of claims with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action that [the purchaser] may involve parties in costs and annoyance, where such claims would not be prosecuted if not stirred up . . . in [an] effort to secure costs”. Champerty is prohibited by Judiciary Law 489 (1). Although purchases of claims for more than $500,000 are not subject to the champerty prohibition (Judiciary Law 489 (2)), the First Department held that the $500,000 must actually be paid.  Here the price was set at $1,000,000 but nothing had been paid. The court determined the seller of the notes had subcontracted out its litigation to plaintiff for political purposes:

The purported sale of the notes is champertous since [the seller] maintained significant rights in the notes and expected the lion’s share of any recovery from defendants … . There is every indication that plaintiff entered into the Purchase Agreement with the intent of pursuing litigation on [the seller’s] behalf in exchange for a fee; plaintiff’s intent was not to enforce the notes on its own behalf …. Indeed, plaintiff could not enforce all of the rights under the notes, since, as the motion court noted, “No reasonable finder of fact could conclude that [plaintiff] was making a bona fide purchase of securities.” On the contrary, “[t]he only reasonable way to understand the [Purchase Agreement] is that [the seller] was subcontracting out its litigation to [plaintiff] for political reasons.” Accordingly, the sale of the notes violated Judiciary Law § 489(1). Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 2015 NY Slip Op 04381, 1st Dept 5-21-15

 

/ ,

Parol Evidence Demonstrated What Appeared to Be a Contract Was Not—There Was No Meeting of the Minds Re: the Consideration for the Contract

The Third Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined extrinsic evidence should have been considered on the issue whether a contract was ever formed, i.e., whether there was a “meeting of the minds.” Based upon that extrinsic evidence, the breach of contract complaint was dismissed by the Third Department. The defendant argued that the contract was premised upon the understanding plaintiff would execute a power of attorney, which plaintiff refused to do. The parol evidence, emails, demonstrated that defendant agreed to the terms of the contract in return for the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff.  The power of attorney was the consideration for the contract. Therefore, the parol evidence demonstrated no contract was ever formed:

In order “‘[t]o create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms’ and consideration” … . Defendant is not arguing that a valid agreement between the parties included an unstated commitment by plaintiff to execute the power of attorney; instead, she is asserting that she proposed an agreement upon that understanding, but that there was never a meeting of the minds on the issue sufficient to give rise to a valid agreement. Accordingly, she was entitled to use parol evidence “to show that what appears to be a contractual obligation is, in fact, no obligation at all”… . Libasci v Singares, 2015 NY Slip Op 04357, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/ ,

Seasonal Residents Properly Deemed “Residents” of a Town for Election Purposes

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined that seasonal residents of a condominium were properly deemed “residents” of the town where the condominium is located for voting purposes under the Election Law. The court noted that, under the Election Law, a voter may have two residences and choose one of them for election purposes. The Election Law requires only that the voter have legitimate, significant and continuing attachments to the residence and there be no “aura of sham:”

The [County Election] Board’s determination upholding the voter registrations at issue constituted presumptive evidence of the … voters’ residence for voting purposes; thus, petitioner was saddled with the weighty burden of proffering sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption (see Election Law § 5-104 [2]…). The Election Law defines “residence” as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return” (Election Law § 1-104 [22]…). As the courts of this state have repeatedly explained, the Election Law “does not preclude a person from having two residences and choosing one for election purposes provided he or she has ‘legitimate, significant and continuing attachments’ to that residence” … . “The crucial [factor in the] determination [of] whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham'” … . Matter of Maas v Gaebel, 2015 NY Slip Op 04353, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/

Documents Relevant to a Civil Investigation by the Department of Taxation and Finance Were Not Protected from FOIL Disclosure by a Statute which Specifically Relates to Criminal Investigations

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that documents which were pertinent to a civil, as opposed to a criminal, investigation, were not shielded from disclosure by Public Officers Law 87(2)(e)(iv).  The petitioners were notified they were subject to an “interrogation” by the Department of Taxation and Finance about job-related expense deductions. Under a FOIL request, the petitioners sought documents which included “interrogation” questions.  Because Public Officers Law 87(2)(e)(iv) protects such documents from disclosure only if they are part of a criminal investigation, Supreme Court properly held the documents should be disclosed:

“Under FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection, without regard to the need or purpose of the applicant, unless the requested documents fall within one of the exemptions set forth in Public Officers Law § 87 (2)” … . In this regard, “[e]xemptions are narrowly construed, with the agency that seeks to prevent disclosure bearing the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within an exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access” … .

Here, in denying access to the 68 pages of proposed interrogation questions, respondents relied exclusively upon Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (e) (iv), which exempts from disclosure “records or portions thereof that . . . reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures.” The statute — on its face — references criminal investigative techniques or procedures, and prevailing case law suggests that this exemption applies only to a FOIL request that, at the very least, has its genesis in an underlying criminal investigation or prosecution … . Matter of Aurigemma v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2015 NY Slip Op 04356, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/ , ,

The Insurer Properly Reserved Its Rights to Disclaim Coverage When It Agreed to Defend a Legal Malpractice Action

The insurer agreed to defend an attorney in a legal malpractice action, but reserved its rights to disclaim coverage based upon the exclusion in the policy for actions arising from the conduct of a business owned by the attorney (as opposed to the law practice). The First Department rejected the argument that the insurer’s reservation of rights violated the policy:

The issuance of a reservation of rights allows the insurer the flexibility of fulfilling its obligation to provide its insured with a defense, while continuing to investigate the claim further. In fact, an insurance company’s failure to reserve the right to disclaim coverage may later result in the insurer being equitably estopped from doing so … . Thus, although plaintiffs are correct that the counterclaims, broadly construed, triggered defendants’ duty to provide them with a defense, defendants did not breach that duty by agreeing to do so, but with a reservation of rights to, among other things, later recoup their defense costs upon a determination of non-coverage … . Law Offs. of Zachary R. Greenhill P.C. v Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04382, 1st Dept 5-21-15

 

/ , ,

Insanity Acquittee Not Entitled to Blanket Sealing of Record of a Recommitment Proceeding But Is Entitled to Sealing of His Clinical Record

The Third Department determined respondent, who is subject to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20 based on his acquittal of criminal charges by reason of mental disease or defect, was not entitled to a blanket sealing of the record of a recommitment proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.31 (F), but was entitled to the sealing of his clinical record pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 33.13:

Here, respondent was subject to CPL 330.20 based upon his acquittal of criminal charges by reason of mental disease or defect. A lack of responsibility for criminal conduct by reason of mental disease or defect is an affirmative defense that a defendant must raise and prove by a preponderance of the evidence (see Penal Law §§ 25.00 [2]; 40.15). By avoiding criminal penalties and becoming subject to CPL 330.20, “this places insanity acquittees in a significantly different posture than involuntarily committed civil patients” …, and “rational differences between procedures for commitment and release applicable to defendants found not responsible and persons involuntarily committed under the Mental Hygiene Law are justifiable” … . In light of this distinction, we agree with Supreme Court that the blanket sealing of the record that is specifically applicable to the involuntarily admission of civil patients under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 (f) is not applicable to respondent … .

We reach a different conclusion, however, regarding defendant’s clinical record. Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, a clinical record for each patient or client shall be kept containing “information on all matters relating to the admission, legal status, care, and treatment of the patient or client and shall include all pertinent documents relating to the patient or client” (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [a]) and “such information about patients or clients . . . shall not be a public record,” subject to certain exceptions (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c]). Although Supreme Court ruled that respondent’s clinical treatment records, related hospital records and unrelated medical records must be sealed, it is unclear if other information intended to be included in his clinical record under Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (a) would be made public. In our view, respondent is entitled to the full protection of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, and all information contained in his clinical record, as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (a), shall not be made public, subject to the statutory exceptions (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c]). Matter of John Z. (John Z.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04361, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/ , ,

Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory Immunity

The Third Department determined the driver of a street sweeper was engaged in highway work (re: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103) at the time the sweeper collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.  Therefore the “reckless disregard for the safety of others” standard of care applied to the sweeper driver. The driver was working on a highway and had to make several passes to clean up spilled gravel.  Because it was a divided highway, the sweeper driver had to make a u-turn and return on the opposite side of highway to make another pass.  The immunity afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 applies only when actual work on the highway is being done, not when a worker is driving to or from the work site. The Third Department held that the statutory immunity was available here, even though the accident did not occur as the sweeper was engaged, because the driver was forced to use a circuitous route to complete the assigned task:

With exceptions not applicable here, the safety rules and regulations set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Law do “not apply to persons . . . while actually engaged in work on a highway nor . . . to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway but shall apply to such persons and vehicles when traveling to or from such hazardous operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]…). If the person is “actually engaged” in work or a hazardous operation, the applicable standard of care is “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” but the exception does not apply where the person is traveling to or from the hazardous operation … . Matsch v Chemung County Dept. of Pub. Works, 2015 NY Slip Op 04374, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/

Customer Service Representative Working from Home Properly Determined to Be an Employee

The Third Department determined there was substantial evidence to support the finding claimant was an employee of PRF.  Claimant worked from home booking reservations at off-site parking facilities near airports:

Although claimant and other representatives worked from home and were required to provide their own Internet service, PRF furnished them with special phones that utilized the voice over Internet protocol necessary to assist customers. In addition, PRF provided training on use of the phones as well as the services that it provided to its customers. Although PRF did not establish set hours and allowed the representatives to hold other jobs, it set up a schedule online that the representatives completed by selecting the hours that they wished to work, and PRF emailed them their final schedules. Claimant and the other representatives submitted invoices for hours worked that PRF would, in turn, check against their work schedules. Notably, PRF was able to monitor the representatives while they were assisting customers to verify that they were working and to ensure quality service. Moreover, PRF handled customer complaints and took corrective action where necessary. Matter of Aussicker (Park Ride Fly USA–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04376, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/ , , , ,

Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should Not Have Been Reversed—Board Properly Considered All the Factors Mandated by the Land Use Ordinance and Supreme Court Did Not Have the Authority to Substitute Its Judgment for the Board’s

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board had properly issued a special use permit for the installation of wind turbines. The court noted that the burden of proof on the owner for seeking a special exception (special use permit) is lower than the burden for seeking a variance.  The court held that all of the analytical factors mandated by the land use ordinance had been properly considered by the board and Supreme Court did not have the authority to substitute its own judgment for the board’s:

The Land Use Ordinance permits specified uses in the area where the project is to be built and allows “[a]ll other uses” for which a special use permit is obtained. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, while the project is not allowed as of right in the district, the fact that it is “permitted . . . is ‘tantamount to a legislative finding that [it] is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . As such, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance, [with] the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use” … . The determination of the Board that those conditions had been met here will be upheld if it “has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … .

The parties do not dispute upon this appeal, and we agree with Supreme Court, that the Board’s findings with regard to six of the eight conditions enumerated in the Land Use Ordinance are supported by substantial evidence. The first of the remaining two conditions requires that the “[l]ocation, use and size of structure, nature and intensity of operations involved, size of site in relation to it, and location of site with respect to existing or future streets giving access, are such that it will be in harmony with orderly development of the district.” The second requires that the “[l]ocation, nature and height of buildings, walls, fences and signs will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair their value.”

With regard to those two conditions, the wind turbines are almost 500 feet tall when the rotor blades are fully vertical [FN2]. Notwithstanding their size, the Board pointed out that the turbines are located in an area where high-voltage electric transmission lines have already altered the landscape, and noted that other factors minimized the impact of the project upon the viewshed. The project will have minimal impact upon traffic after construction is completed and, given the economic benefits that will accrue to participating landowners, the Board found that it would help to preserve existing uses of the surrounding properties. Moreover, the Board cited a study in the record finding that property values would not be impacted by the project. The Board also pointed to proof that the applicant had entered into setback agreements with nonparticipating landowners who resided within 2,000 feet of the turbines, further ensuring that the project would not impair the use of nearby parcels or development in the zoning district. Supreme Court pointed to conflicting evidence submitted by petitioners with regard to both conditions but, even if that evidence was properly considered, “a court may not substitute its own judgment” where substantial evidence supports the determination of the Board … . Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04355, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

/ , ,

School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a Student Was Not Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision/Retention of the Employee or Negligent Supervision of the Student on the Part of the School District

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and granted the defendant school district’s motion to dismiss the complaint.  The school’s marching band director, Perna, engaged in inappropriate communications with plaintiff’s child, KS, a student who was in the marching band.  The communications by computer and cell phone took place off school grounds after hours.  The Second Department determined the band director’s after-hours behavior was not proximately caused by negligent retention or supervision of Perna or negligent supervision of KS:

Because the inappropriate conduct by Perna toward KS, the plaintiff’s child, occurred after school hours and off school grounds by means of their personal computers and cellular phones, the causes of action alleging negligent retention and supervision cannot provide a basis for liability against the appellants. Although KS first met Perna through the marching band, KS’s injuries were not proximately caused by any negligent retention or supervision by the appellants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent supervision of KS, since the appellants established, prima facie, that the wrongful acts occurred outside of the school grounds … and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. MS, etc. v Arlington Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04290, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

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