You are here: / Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro...

Search Results

/

Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc Where Workers’ Compensation Carrier Failed to Timely Seek Consent to a Third-Party Settlement from the Special Funds Conservation Commission

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred when it held that it not have the power to provide judicial consent to a third-party settlement nunc pro tunc.  The Second Department explained the requirements for consent to a third-party settlement where the Special Fund will reimburse the carrier:

The Workers’ Compensation Board has previously determined that where, as here, a carrier failed to timely obtain consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee to settlement of a personal injury action, the carrier may still obtain reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but only if it obtains a nunc pro tunc order from a court directing the Special Funds Conservation Committee to consent … . A request to compel nunc pro tunc consent to a settlement is addressed to the discretion of the Supreme Court … . In seeking a discretionary nunc pro tunc order from a court directing consent to settlement, a petitioner must first establish that (1) the delay in seeking judicial relief was not caused by the petitioner’s fault or neglect; (2) the amount of the settlement was reasonable; and (3) the party whose consent is sought was not prejudiced by the delay … .

Here, because the Supreme Court erroneously believed that it had no power to issue a nunc pro tunc order directing the Special Funds Conservation Committee to consent to settlement, it did not exercise its discretion. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … . Matter of Empire State Transp Workers’ Compensation Trust v Special Funds Conservation Comm, 2015 NY Slip Op 01635, 2nd Dept 2-15-15

 

/ , , ,

Town Board and Police Commission Members Entitled to Immunity and Qualified Privilege Re: Defamation Causes of Action—Criteria Described/Power to Terminate Probationary Police Officer Described

The Fourth Department determined statements attributed to members of the town board and police commission with respect to the reasons for plaintiff’s termination as a probationary police officer were protected by governmental immunity and qualified privilege (explaining the relevant criteria).  In addition, the court explained the power to terminate a probationary police officer:

There is complete immunity from liability for defamation for ” an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government who is entrusted by law with administrative or executive policy-making responsibilities of considerable dimension’ . . . , with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . Here, the Town Board has the statutory authority to “make, adopt and enforce rules, orders and regulations for the government, discipline, administration and disposition of the police department and of the members thereof” (Town Law § 154) and, as members of the Police Commission, [defendants] were delegated “all the powers relative to police matters conferred upon the town board” (§ 150 [2]). We therefore conclude that Brooks, Sullivan, and Ulinski were entitled to absolute immunity because “members of the Town Board enjoy an absolute privilege against a claim of defamation where . . . the defamatory statements are made in the discharge of their responsibilities about matters within the ambit of their duties” …, and “[t]he privilege of absolute immunity . . . extends to those of subordinate rank who exercise delegated powers’ ” … . …

A qualified privilege arises when a person makes a good[ ]faith, bona fide communication upon a subject in which he or she has an interest, or a legal, moral or societal interest to speak, and the communication is made to a person with a corresponding interest’ ” … . Here, defendants submitted evidence that, at the time of the alleged slanderous communications, Ulinski was a member of the Police Commission and, therefore, had an interest in plaintiff’s performance as a probationary police officer, and that Ulinski made the communications to persons with a corresponding interest in plaintiff’s performance, namely to a member of the Town Board, and to the president of the union that represented plaintiff … . We further conclude that plaintiffs “failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … . * * *

As a probationary police officer, plaintiff could be ” dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all[,]’ . . . [and he] had no right to challenge the termination by way of a hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” … . Fiore v Town of Whitestown, 2015 NY Slip Op 01361, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/ ,

Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Against Owner Properly Dismissed—Owner Did Not Exercise Supervisory Control Over Plaintiff’s Work

The Fourth Department determined the owner was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action based upon evidence the owner did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

It is well settled that, “[w]here the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Here, defendants met their burden on the motion of establishing that they did not direct or control plaintiff’s work …. “There is no evidence that defendant[s] gave anything more than general instructions on what needed to be done, not how to do it, and monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work is not enough to impose liability under section 200” or under the common law.. . Matter of Mitchell v NRG Endergy Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01367, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/ ,

“Local Authority,” Within the Meaning of the Public Authorities Law, Defined

The Fourth Department determined petitioner, Operation Oswego County, was a “local authority” subject to reporting and oversight requirements of respondent, the New York Authorities Budget Office.  The court defined what a “local authority” is:

A “local authority” under the Public Authorities Law includes “a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with, sponsored by, or created by a county, city, town or village government” (§ 2 [2] [b]). Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation that acts as a local development corporation by establishing and implementing economic development strategies for Oswego County (County). We agree with respondent that petitioner is a local authority inasmuch as it is affiliated with and/or sponsored by the County … . The record establishes that the County regularly gives grants to petitioner, which comprise the majority of its budget. …[T]he term “sponsor” means, inter alia, ” a person or an organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity’ ” (id. at 1404, quoting Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary [emphasis added]). The County has also given interest-free loans to petitioner. Furthermore, a County official serves as a voting member of petitioner’s board, and several County officials serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of petitioner’s board. Considering the totality of the circumstances …, we conclude that petitioner is a local authority as defined in the Public Authorities Law. Matter of Operation Oswego County Inc v State of New York Auths Budget Off, 2015 NY Slip Op 01358, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/

The Procedure for Holding an Executive Session Does Not Apply to Proceedings Which Are Exempt from the Open Meetings Law

The Fourth Department determined that the town board need not follow the procedure in the Public Officers Law (Open Meetings Law) for holding an executive session (where the public is excluded) for matters which are exempt from the open meetings requirement. In this case a consultation between the town board and town counsel was exempt from the open meetings requirement pursuant to a provision of the Public Officers Law.  Therefore, the town board could not be faulted for keeping that consultation private without following the formal procedure for holding an executive session:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]…). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “proposed, pending or current litigation” (§ 105 [1] [d]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). There is no dispute that section 105 (1) does not extend to communications between a town board and its counsel, but section 108 (3) provides in relevant part that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” “[S]ince communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in the determination of a[n] . . . application, are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … . “When an exemption [under section 108] applies, the Open Meetings Law does not, and the requirements that would operate with respect to executive sessions are not in effect. Stated differently, to discuss a matter exempted from the Open Meetings Law, a public body need not follow the procedure imposed by § 105 (1) that relates to entry into an executive session” … . Matter of Brown v Feehan, 2015 NY Slip Op 01339, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/ , , ,

Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department determined the cause of action for battery was not duplicative of the cause of action for dental malpractice because it was based upon the allegations consent to the procedure was completely absent or was fraudulently induced.  In addition, there were questions of fact re: the deceptive business practices cause of action:

…[T]he cause of action asserting the complete absence of consent and/or fraudulently induced consent for treatment is properly treated as one for battery rather than for dental malpractice, and it is not duplicative of the dental malpractice cause of action … . “It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . The court properly denied that part of the … defendants’ motion with respect to the battery cause of action, inasmuch as they failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not intentionally engage in offensive bodily contact without plaintiff’s consent”… . …

A cause of action for deceptive business practices under section 349 “requires proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially deceptive or misleading, causing injury” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the … defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the underlying transaction was private in nature and the allegedly deceptive acts were not aimed at the public at large …, we conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raised issues of fact concerning whether the … defendants engaged in a scheme to place profits before patient care, which allegedly included fraudulent practices that impacted consumers at large beyond a particular dentist’s treatment of an individual patient … . Matter of Smiles, 2015 NY Slip Op 01362, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has an Automatic Lien Re: Recovery by Injured Worker Against Third-Parties

The Fourth Department noted that a workers’ compensation carrier has a lien against any settlement the worker reaches with a third-party:

Where an individual receiving workers’ compensation benefits commences a civil action against a tortfeasor “not in the same employ who caused the injuries giving rise to such benefits . .. , an automatic lien attaches to the proceeds of any recovery, in favor of the [worker’s compensation carrier], for any amounts that the [carrier] has paid in compensation benefits, less litigation costs and amounts received in lieu of first[-]party benefits under the no-fault law” … . Klem v Special Response Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01368, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

 

/ ,

Appeal Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Moot Because the Underlying Order of Protection Had Expired—There Are Significant Negative Consequences of the Issuance of an Order of Protection Which May Affect Appellant in the Future

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the appeal by respondent, who had been found to have committed a Family Offense and against whom an order of protection had been issued, should not have been dismissed as moot because the order of protection had expired.  The Court of Appeals explained that the issuance of the order of protection could have significant negative future consequences for the respondent:

“[i]n general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” …. The ability of an appellate decision to directly and immediately impact the parties’ rights and interests is among the most important aspects of the mootness analysis, for otherwise the analysis might turn on inchoate or speculative matters, making mootness an unwieldy doctrine of a thousand “what ifs.” On the other hand, even where the resolution of an appeal may not immediately relieve a party from a currently ongoing court-ordered penalty or obligation to pay a judgment, the appeal is not moot if an appellate decision will eliminate readily ascertainable and legally significant enduring consequences that befall a party as a result of the order which the party seeks to appeal … .

In this case, the expiration of the order of protection does not moot the appeal because the order still imposes significant enduring consequences upon respondent, who may receive relief from those consequences upon a favorable appellate decision. Because the order of protection on its face strongly suggests that respondent committed a family offense, the court in a future criminal case or Family Court proceeding would likely rely on the order to enhance a sentence or adverse civil adjudication against respondent. ** * *In the face of the substantial probability that the order of protection will prompt severely deleterious future legal rulings against respondent, an appellate decision in his favor will directly vindicate his interest in avoiding that consequence of the order.

The order of protection has other potential legal consequences that render it susceptible to appellate review. For example, in a future legal matter, an opposing party might be permitted to use the order of protection to impeach respondent’s credibility …. . Furthermore, since the order of protection remains in a police computer database, albeit not in an active file (see Executive Law §§ 221-a [1]; 221-a [6]; see also 9 NYCRR 486.2 [g]), respondent may face additional law enforcement scrutiny and an increased likelihood of arrest in certain encounters with the police (see 9 NYCRR 486.3 [n] [declaring information obtained from the database to be relevant to the decision to arrest an individual]).[FN2]

Beyond its legal consequences, the order of protection places a severe stigma on respondent, and he can escape that stigma by prevailing on appeal … . Matter of Veronica P v Radcliff A, 2015 NY Slip Op 01300, CtApp 2-13-15

 

/ , ,

Motion for a Change of Venue Can Be Entertained in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Trials and Hearings Under the Mental Hygiene Law/Non-Final Order Which Necessarily Affects the Final Order Is Appealable

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that “dangerous sex offender” trials and hearings under the Mental Hygiene Law are subject to the change of venue procedures under the CPLR.  Here, after the motion for a change of venue was denied, the petitioner refused to attend the hearing.  The Court of Appeals noted that the denial of the motion to change venue, although a non-final order, was appealable because it necessarily affected the final order:

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e) provides that “[a]t any hearing or trial pursuant to the provisions of this article, the court may change the venue of the trial to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent.”  * * * The construction of the provision is somewhat ambiguous, in that, if the legislature intended to restrict a change of venue to article 10 trials, the reference to “any hearing or trial” would appear to be superfluous. We see no need to read a restriction into the statute limiting annual review hearings solely to the few counties where secure treatment facilities are located.

However, petitioner failed to establish good cause for the change of venue. As noted above, the statute provides that good cause “may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [e]). The affidavit submitted in support of the motion did urge, generally, that it would be inconvenient and burdensome for unnamed family members and other potential witnesses to travel to Oneida County, but failed to identify a single witness that would testify on petitioner’s behalf. Nor did the affidavit set forth the subject of any proposed testimony — let alone identify any information that would be potentially relevant to the issue of whether petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement. Therefore, the motion for a change of venue was properly denied. Matter of Tyrone D v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01301, CtApp 2-13-15

 

/ ,

Elements of Civil Antitrust Action Under the General Business Law (Donnelly Act) Explained; Corporate Officers Can Be Individually Liable

The Fourth Department determined there were questions of fact re: the civil antitrust action and the related individual liability of corporate officers:

… [T]he court erred in granting those parts of defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action against them, alleging unfair competition and restraint of trade in violation of General Business Law § 340 (1) (hereafter, Donnelly Act), and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. … “A party asserting a violation of the Donnelly Act is required to (1) identify the relevant product market; (2) describe the nature and effects of the purported conspiracy; (3) allege how the economic impact of that conspiracy is to restrain trade in the market in question; and (4) show a conspiracy or reciprocal relationship between two or more entities” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized, however, “that neither the Donnelly Act nor the Sherman Act, after which it was modeled, has been interpreted as prohibiting every agreement that has the effect of restraining trade, no matter how minimal. Instead, as construed by State and Federal courts, the antitrust laws prohibit only unreasonable’ restraints on trade” … . * * *

“[C]orporate officer[s] can also be held liable in civil antitrust actions” under the Donnelly Act, and there are triable issues of fact regarding their participation in the alleged corporate antitrust violations … . Radon Corp of Am Inc v National Radon Safety Bd. 2015 NY Slip Op 01365, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

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