You are here: / Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”)...

Search Results

/

Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”) Explained

The Second Department, in upholding the zoning board’s denial of a special exception permit and a variance, explained the criteria for a special exception permit:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . Thus, the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance … . The owner must show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions pertaining to the intended use before a special exception permit may be granted … . The denial of a special exception permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection … . However, where such evidence exists, deference must be given to the discretion of the board authorized to rule upon the application. A court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record … .

Here, the Board’s determination that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the legislatively imposed conditions for issuance of the requested special exceptions was supported by evidence in the record, and was not affected by an error of law, was not arbitrary and capricious, was not an abuse of discretion, and was not irrational… . Matter of M & V 99 Franklin Realty Corp v Weiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 00541, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

Time-Limit for Serving a Complaint Was Never Triggered Because the Summons with Notice Was Filed But Not Yet Served at the Time Defendants Served a Notice of Appearance and Demand for a Complaint

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the time-limit associated with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint was never triggered because the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint were made before defendants were served with the summons with notice (the summons with notice was filed but never served here):

The plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons with notice. It is undisputed that the summons with notice was never served on the defendants… . * * *

An action may be commenced “by filing a . . . summons with notice” (CPLR 304[a]…). “Service of the . . . summons with notice . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action or proceeding” (CPLR 306-b…). “If the complaint is not served with the summons, the defendant may serve a written demand for the complaint” (CPLR 3012[b]). “Service of the complaint shall be made within twenty days after service of the demand” (id.). “If no demand is made, the complaint shall be served within twenty days after service of the notice of appearance” … . “The court upon motion may dismiss the action if service of the complaint is not made as provided in this subdivision” … .

As this Court has previously recognized, “[n]o provision is made for an appearance or a demand for a complaint before the summons is served” … . A demand for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) prior to service of the summons is premature and does not invoke the time limitations of CPLR 3012(b) … .

Here, since the summons with notice had never been served, the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint was a nullity and the 20-day period within which the complaint had to be served pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) had not begun to run … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) … . Ryan v High Rock Dev LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00519, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway

The Second Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of risk was not available where the plaintiff, the music director of a marching band, was injured by a defect in the roadway where the band was marching.  The court noted that extending the assumption of risk doctrine to persons using streets or sidewalks would constitute an unwarranted diminution of the duty to keep sidewalks and streets reasonably safe:

The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is inapplicable in this case. It cannot be said that by leading a marching band in a parade on a public street, the injured plaintiff consented to the alleged negligent maintenance of the street by the County … . “[E]xtension of the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] to cases involving persons injured while traversing streets and sidewalks would create an unwarranted diminution of the general duty of landowners–—both public and private–—to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . Behr v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 00485, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

“Transacting Business” Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the Connecticut defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendant had transacted business in New York within the meaning of the long-arm statute:

Under New York’s long-arm statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302[a]), regardless of whether that non-domiciliary has actually entered New York State … . Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege[s] of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … . Proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, as long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted … .

Here, the complaint asserts that the defendant, through its agent, solicited the plaintiff’s services while present in New York. The record indicates that the defendant’s agent traveled to New York for three meetings with the plaintiff before the parties finalized their agreement, and that the defendant’s agent subsequently traveled to New York in furtherance of the contract. Moreover, the parties engaged in numerous telephone and email communications regarding the contract. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant conducted sufficient purposeful activities in New York, which bore a substantial relationship to the subject matter of this action, so as to avail itself of the benefits and protections of New York’s laws … . Paradigm Mktg Consortium Inc v Yale New Haven Hospital Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00508, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Ordered a Unified (Liability and Damages) Trial–Criteria Explained in Some Depth

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages because the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the nature of his injuries had an important bearing on the issue of liability. Plaintiff, who was driving a golf cart,  was injured when he allegedly swerved to avoid defendant’s on-coming golf cart.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria in some depth:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice [a] court . . . may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Furthermore, “[a] court may determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue” (CPLR 4011). These statutory provisions simply confirm that “the broad common-law powers of New York judges over conduct in their own courtrooms have been continued and have not been eliminated or impinged upon by any of the explicit CPLR provisions.”… .

“Judges are encouraged to order a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action for personal injury where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” (22 NYCRR 202.42[a]…). “As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately” … .

“The decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (…see CPLR 603, 4011). Unified trials should only be held “where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability” … . However, even where a trial is bifurcated, some evidence of injuries may nevertheless be admitted, in the trial court’s discretion, to establish liability at the liability phase of the trial, so long as such evidence is probative of liability and accompanied by “an appropriate limiting instruction” … .

Accordingly, when exercising its discretion in deciding whether to conduct a unified trial or a bifurcated trial, a court should determine whether the nature of the alleged injuries is probative of the issue of liability and, furthermore, should also evaluate the relative importance of such evidence to the parties’ dispute … . In addition, the probative value of such evidence to the issue of liability and its centrality to the parties’ dispute should be weighed against the degree to which the gravity of such injuries will likely engender sympathy for the plaintiff and thereby pose a risk of prejudice to the defendant … . Patino v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 00509, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ , ,

Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was made (and granted) before plaintiff had completed putting in his case.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder at a work site and alleged a violation of Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence:

Prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, concluding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition at the work site. The Supreme Court thereafter entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. …

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr & Mgt Serv Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00521, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ , ,

Petitioners, Who Did Not Represent a Majority of the Elected Board of Directors, Did Not Have Standing the Seek Dissolution of the Corporation Under Business Corporation Law 1102/Criteria for Common-Law Dissolution Not Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly found that the petitioners did not have standing to seek dissolution of the corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law 1102.  However, the Second Department found Supreme Court erred when it granted the petition under a common-law dissolution theory, a ground not raised by the parties and not applicable under the facts:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly determined that [petitioners] lacked standing to seek dissolution of Candlewood pursuant to Business Law § 1102, since they do not represent a majority of the corporation’s duly elected board of directors … . However, as the appellants correctly contend, the court should have dismissed the petition rather than grant the petition for dissolution on a ground that was not raised by the petitioners and was inapplicable to the circumstances. “[T]he remedy of common-law dissolution is available only to minority shareholders who accuse the majority shareholders and/or the corporate officers or directors of looting the corporation and violating their fiduciary duty” … . The petitioners did not allege that a majority of shareholders, the directors, or the officers looted the corporation or breached a fiduciary duty to … a minority shareholder. Matter of Candlewood Holdings Inc …, 2015 NY Slip Op 00533, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ ,

Town Willfully Violated Federal Employee-Safety Regulations Re: Working In Permit-Required Confined Spaces—A Town Employee and a Volunteer Fireman Died After Entering a 20-Foot-Deep Manhole

MUNICIPAL LAW/EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Second Department confirmed the determination of the NYS Industrial Board of Appeals finding that petitioner-town had willfully violated provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) concerning the safety of employees required or allowed to work in confined spaces.  Here a town worker and a volunteer fireman died of asphyxiation after entering a 20-foot-deep manhole:

“If [an] employer decides that its employees will not enter permit [-required confined] spaces, the employer shall take effective measures to prevent its employees from entering the permit spaces” and shall, inter alia, warn exposed employees of the existence and location of such spaces and the danger posed by them (29 CFR 1910.146[c][3]; see 29 CFR 1910.146[c][2]). Further, “[i]f the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop and implement a written permit space program that complies with [29 CFR 1910.146]” (29 CFR 1910.146[c][4]).

Here, the evidence established that the petitioner was aware of the requirements of the subject regulations. Although the petitioner allegedly restricted its DPW [Department of Public Works] employees from entering confined spaces, a practice existed in which its DPW employees entered such confined spaces. The evidence also showed that the petitioner did not implement a written permit space program for volunteer firefighters. In addition, the evidence demonstrated that the petitioner’s management made little or no effort to communicate the requirements of the subject regulation to its lower level supervisors and employees. Thus, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, substantial evidence existed in the record to support the IBA’s determination that the petitioner willfully violated 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(3) and (4) … . Matter of Village of Tarrytown v NYS Dept of Labor, 2015 NY Slip Op 00543, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ ,

Error for Prosecutor to Imply that Communicating with an Attorney Manifests a Consciousness of Guilt (Error Deemed Harmless Here)

The Second department noted that the prosecutor’s comment implying that communicating with an attorney manifests a consciousness of guilt was error:

In response to evidence proffered by the People that the defendant relocated to a motel after the subject shooting, the defendant called as a witness an attorney whom she had retained after the shooting. To rebut the People’s theory that the relocation indicated a consciousness of guilt, the defendant elicited testimony from that attorney that the defendant intended to surrender to the police, but that the police arrested her before she was able to do so. During summation, the prosecutor posed the rhetorical question: “[I]f you didn’t do anything and you don’t know that detectives are looking for you in respect to a shooting, why did you get an attorney?” The defendant correctly contends that this comment was improper, since the defendant’s retention of an attorney was not probative of her consciousness of guilt … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and otherwise does not require reversal … . People v Credle, 2015 NY Slip Op 00548, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ ,

No Foundation Provided for Use of a Notarized Statement for Impeachment (As a Prior Inconsistent Statement)

The Second Department determined the trial court had properly prohibited the defense from cross-examining a complaining witness about a notarized statement the witness denied signing.  The court explained the foundation-requirements for admitting a prior inconsistent statement:

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding a notarized statement which she had denied signing, and for which the notary could not be located. “[T]here must be a proper foundation laid for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of a witness. In order to prevent surprise and give the witness the first opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency between his [or her] testimony at trial and his [or her] previous statements, he [or she] must first be questioned as to the time, place and substance of the prior statement” … . “If the witness does not admit that he [or she] signed the statement[ ], the genuineness of the signature can be proved by any one or in any legal way. Such proof enables the impeaching party to properly offer the paper in evidence as a part of his [or her] case or, with the permission of the court, at any other stage of the trial” … . Where, as here, the party seeking to admit the writing into evidence has not proven the genuineness of the signature, “the writing cannot be read to the jury, or, provided it can be produced, used as a basis for a cross-examination as to its contents until it is in evidence'” … . People v Haywood, 2015 NY Slip Op 00555, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

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