You are here: / Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to...

Search Results

/ ,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/ , ,

Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations Sufficiently Pled/Disclaimers and Disclosures Did Not Preclude Claim of Fraud

The First Department determined a cause of action for fraud against Merrill Lynch had been sufficiently pled.  The underlying agreement related to credit default obligations (CDO’s).  The court noted that an unjust enrichment cause of action is not viable when the lawsuit is based on a written agreement:

…[The] factual allegations provide sufficient details to inform the …defendants … of the alleged fraudulent conduct, namely that the CDO was secretly designed by an undisclosed hedge fund, Magnetar, which was secretly placing massive short bets against the very same deals it was sponsoring. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiff cannot establish the element of reasonable reliance (an element of both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment) as a result of the disclosures and disclaimers for the Auriga CDO. We cannot agree.

The offering circular states, “All or most of the Collateral Debt Securities Acquired by the Issuer . . . will be Acquired from a portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities selected by the Collateral Manager . . . .” If Magnetar rather than 250 Capital was doing the selecting, the statement in the offering circular was misleading. The identity of the person selecting the collateral was material: The offering circular says, “The performance of the portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities depends heavily on the skills of the Collateral Manager in analyzing and selecting the Collateral Debt Securities.” * * *

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the disclaimers and disclosures in the offering circulars preclude a claim of fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter, namely that the CDO’s collateral had been carefully selected by an independent collateral manager, in the interests of the success of the deal and for the benefit of Auriga’s long investors. Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 38 Ltd v Merrill Lynch …, 2014 NY Slip Op 03326, 1st Dept 5-8-14

Similar issues and result re: Citigroup in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick.  Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 3 Ltd v Citigroup Global Mkts Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03358, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

/ , ,

Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable

The Fourth Department determined the records generated by attorneys which related to an insurer’s decision whether to accept or reject a claim were discoverable as records made in the regular course of business—even if the records relate in part to potential litigation.  Records generated by attorneys after the claim was denied are privileged and not discoverable:

“It is well settled that [t]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding which of the two indicated actions to pursue are made in the regular course of its business’ ” … . “Reports prepared by . . . attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are thus not privileged and are discoverable . . . , even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose’ reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured” … . Here, the documents submitted to the court for in camera review constitute multi-purpose reports motivated in part by the potential for litigation with plaintiff, but also prepared in the regular course of defendant’s business in deciding whether to pay or reject plaintiff’s claim, and thus plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of those documents.  Lalka v Aca Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 03995, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/

Tenant’s Common Law Duty to Keep Sidewalk on the Premises Safe Applies Even Though Another Party Agreed to Maintain the Sidewalk in Its Lease

The First Department noted that a tenant has a common law duty to keep a sidewalk on the leased premises safe, even if another party is obligated to maintain the sidewalk in its lease. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on the sidewalk:

It is well established that a tenant owes a common-law duty of reasonable care to maintain the demised premises in a reasonably safe condition, independent of any obligation that might be imposed by the existence of a lease … . The fact that nonparty C.L.B. #6 Inc. (CLB#6) was required to maintain the sidewalk under its lease with the landlord is irrelevant to CLB’s common-law duty to maintain the demised premises … . Additionally, whether a gas station was also a tenant of the premises is also irrelevant to CLB’s duty … . Because CLB never produced the lease between itself and CLB#6, which might reflect whether the subject sidewalk was part of the demised premises, it failed to establish prima facie that it owed no duty to maintain the subject sidewalk … . Williams v Esor Realty Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03343, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

/

Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish Negligence in a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Fourth Department noted that the fact that an Industrial Code provision was violated does not establish negligence sufficient to support partial summary judgment: “Despite our conclusion that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), we reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A violation of an Industrial Code provision ‘does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’…”.   Whether there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c) turned on whether plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew.” If he was not, then his proximity to the equipment which injured him violated the provision. If he was a member of an “excavation crew,” the provision was not violated.  The majority determined plaintiff was not a member of a “crew” because he was the only person there.  The two dissenting judges disagreed and argued plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew” within the meaning of the provision. Vanderwall v 1255 Portland Ave. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03959, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/

Police Officer’s Convictions for “Criminal Diversion” (Obtaining Another’s Prescription Medication), and “Official Misconduct” Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence

The Third Department reversed defendant’s convictions for criminal diversion and official misconduct because the offenses were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.  The defendant, a police officer, was accused of obtaining someone’s prescription drugs in exchange for something of pecuniary value (criminal diversion).  She was also accused of flashing her badge to a pharmacist and asking the pharmacist to hurry up with a prescription drug (official misconduct).  The Third Department determined the “criminal diversion” charge was not supported by evidence the drug involved (a muscle relaxant) was a “prescription medication.”  And, in the absence of evidence the defendant knew that flashing her badge constituted an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, there was not sufficient evidence to support the “official misconduct” charge. People v Barnes, 2014 NY Slip Op 03310, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/ , ,

Landlord Failed to Eliminate Triable Issues of Fact Concerning Whether He Had Constructive Notice of the Presence of Lead Paint

In the context of a summary judgment motion, the Fourth Department determined the landlord did not meet his burden of demonstrating he did not have constructive notice of the presence of lead paint:

Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice of the existence of a hazardous lead paint condition, plaintiff may establish that defendant had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that the landlord “(1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9, 15). Defendant conceded that he was aware that a young child lived in the subject premises, and we conclude that he failed to meet his burden on the four remaining Chapman factors… . Wood v Giordano, 2015 NY Slip Op 03984, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/ , , ,

Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking

The Third Department determined the village had acted appropriately when it opted to exclude portions of land within the village from New York City’s watershed acquisition program.  Petitioner was attempting to sell an easement for her land to the City.  When the village opted to exclude petitioner’s land from the City’s acquisition program, the petitioner brought an action claiming the village had exceeded its authority by improperly restricting the ownership and transferability of her property. Petitioner further argued that the village’s action constituted a de facto regulatory taking of her property for which she was entitled to compensation:

Through voluntary agreement and accepting DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] conditions, the City consented not to be a potential purchaser of some upstate property if the local municipalities opted to exclude the property from land acquisition by the City. This was part of a delicate balance designed to protect the watershed and save the City significant money while safeguarding the economic vitality of upstate communities … . It was not an improper attempt by a local municipality to regulate who owns or occupies property … , but, in essence, the withdrawal of one potential purchaser who received a significant benefit. * * *

Where, as here, “the contested [resolution] falls short of eliminating all economically viable uses of the encumbered property, the Court looks to several factors to determine whether a taking occurred, including ‘the [resolution’s] economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the [resolution] interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action'” … . The resolution’s result was that one potential purchaser — who had not made any offer during the years when an easement on petitioner’s farm could have been purchased — no longer remained a potential purchaser. Petitioner has since found another willing purchaser. The resolution did not hinder the use that was being made of the property as a farming operation. The purpose of the resolution was to protect the Town’s potential for growth and economic sustainability, which was one of the many goals of the various parties involved … and consistent with an overriding purpose of maintaining a safe, ample and relatively inexpensive drinking water supply for the City. Petitioner “did not meet [her] heavy burden of showing that the [resolution] resulted in a regulatory taking”… .  Matter of Nelson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03319, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/

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

 

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