You are here: / Grassy Area Where Plaintiff Fell Was Not Part of a Highway or a Sidewalk–Prior...

Search Results

/ ,

Grassy Area Where Plaintiff Fell Was Not Part of a Highway or a Sidewalk–Prior Written Notice of the Defect (to the Town) Not Required

The Third Department determined the town’s requirement that it be provided with written notice of a defect before the town can be held liable for a related slip and fall did not apply to the grassy area where plaintiff fell:

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice provision (see Code of the Town of Clifton Park § 176-1 [A]), “a plaintiff may not bring a civil action against [the] municipality for damages as the result of an injury sustained by reason of a defective street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk unless prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition has been given” … . Hence, in order to prevail upon its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the Town was required to establish as a matter of law that the grassy area in question constituted — insofar as is relevant here — either a highway, a sidewalk or a site that serves the same “functional purpose” as a highway or sidewalk… .

To be sure, a highway “encompasses the associated shoulders, guardrails, embankments, retaining walls and culverts” (…see Highway Law § 2 [4]…). As relevant here, whether the land adjacent to a highway is paved or otherwise improved does not determine its status as a shoulder; rather, the inquiry is whether the area in question creates “a general right of passage for the traveling public” … . Here, the Town failed to establish that the grassy area where plaintiff fell was designed or intended to provide a general right of passage; further, it is readily apparent from the photographs contained in the record on appeal that the grassy area where plaintiff’s accident occurred is too far removed from the edge of Old Route 146 to be considered an adjacent shoulder or to otherwise fall within the definition of a highway … .

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to whether the grassy area may be deemed to fall within the definition of a sidewalk. In this regard, “a grass strip between the sidewalk and the pavement of the road [indeed] is part of the sidewalk” … . Here, however, the grassy area depicted in the relevant photographs does not lie between a sidewalk and a roadway and, contrary to the Town’s contention, the mere fact that plaintiff and her son were traversing the grassy area to access the nearby parking lot (owned by Northway 9 Associates) does not render this area the functional equivalent of a sidewalk … . Cieszynski v Town of Clifton Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 00423, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/ ,

Question of Fact About Whether ATV Driven with Owner’s Permission Based Upon Owner’s Restrictions on Use of the ATV

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether an all terrain vehicle (ATV) was being operated with the owner’s consent at the time of a collision (a requirement for vicarious liability–Vehicle and Traffic Law 2411).  The owner claimed only his grandson had permission to operate the ATV and operation of the ATV on a public highway was not permitted by him.  The accident occurred when the ATV was driven by someone other than the owner’s grandson (with the grandson’s permission) on a public highway.  The grandson was driving an ATV which had just been damaged in an accident and they were using the public highway to return to the off-road trails:

Although [the owner] and his grandson both confirm that the restrictions regarding where the ATV could be operated had been imposed, when the “the disavowals are arguably suspect, as where there is evidence suggesting implausibility, collusion or implied permission, the issue of consent should go to a jury” … . Here, the testimony of [the owner] is self-interested and his grandson–who is not a party–has no interest of his own in contradicting his grandfather’s position. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded that the grandson’s alleged directions and assurances to [the driver of the ATV] could imply, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, [the owner’s] restrictions were flexible and had been lifted under the circumstances. Accordingly, the issue of implied permission should be determined by a jury … .

Sepsi v Watson, 2015 NY Slip Op 00414, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/ ,

“Findings” of Wrong-Doing in Bear Stearns’ Settlement Agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange Did Not Constitute an “Adjudication” of Wrong-Doing Which Would Support the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the “Dishonest Acts Exclusion” in the Professional Liability Insurance Policy—However, the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the Public Policy Precluding Coverage for Intentional Harm to Others Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined that the “dishonest acts exclusion” in the professional liability insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff (Bear Stearns) could not be used as an affirmative defense in Bear Stearns’ action seeking coverage for settlements paid by Bear Stearns.  Bear Stearns had entered settlement agreements with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in which “findings” of misconduct were made.  The question before the First Department was whether those “findings” constituted an “adjudication” of wrong-doing such that the “dishonest acts exclusion” prohibited recovery from the insurer.  The First Department held that the “findings” did not constitute an adjudciation and the affirmative defense based on the “dishonest acts exclusion” was properly dismissed.  However, the First Department further found the affirmative defense based upon public policy (precluding coverage for monies paid by the insured as a result of intentional harm to others) should not have been dismissed:

Here, the issue is the applicability of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion, so defendants bear the specific burden of demonstrating that a settlement constitutes an “adjudication” for purposes of the exclusion.

In arguing that the term “adjudication” means any resolution of a dispute that has specific consequences for a party, defendants virtually ignore the part of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion that requires that any adjudication “establish that such Insured(s) were guilty of any deliberate, dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act or omission” (emphasis added). Defendants quote the dictionary definition of “adjudication,” but fail to note that “establish” is defined, in this context, as “to put beyond doubt” (Merriam—Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [11th ed 2003]). It can hardly be said that the SEC Order and the NYSE Stipulation put Bear Stearns’s guilt “beyond doubt,” when those very same documents expressly provided that Bear Stearns did not admit guilt, and reserved the right to profess its innocence in unrelated proceedings. Again, in interpreting the policy we are guided by reason, and defendants’ position that the settlement documents “establish” guilt is not reasonable. * * *

Because the Dishonest Acts Exclusion does not apply, the motion court properly dismissed defendants’ affirmative defense based on that exclusion. However, the court should not have dismissed the affirmative defense invoking the public policy against permitting insurance coverage for disgorgement, to the extent it is based on the settlements with the SEC and the NYSE. Bear Stearns argues that the absence of an adjudication of wrongdoing within the meaning of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion bars defendants from relying on the “findings” in the settlement orders for purposes of the public policy doctrine. Again, however, as the Court of Appeals stated in the prior appeal, one of the two situations in which the contractual language of a policy may be overwritten is where an insured engages in conduct “with the intent to cause injury” … . JP Morgan Sec Inc v Vigilant Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00462, 1st Dept 1-15-15

 

/ , ,

Only Out-of-Pocket Damages Allowed in Fraud Action (Re: a Real Estate Purchase Agreement)

The Third Department affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs stemming in large part from the fraudulent representation (re: a property information sheet) that a septic system, which failed, was “new.” The court noted the out-of-pocket rule for damages based upon fraud (lost profits/rents, etc. not recoverable):

[D]efendants’ realtor prepared a property information sheet — to be given to prospective buyers — bearing the notation, “Septic system totally new — le[a]ch field totally replaced — new 5000 gallon holding tank,” as well as the general qualification that “all information [was] deemed reliable but not guaranteed.” …[P]laintiffs … entered into a purchase and sale contract for the property. The contract, which reflected a purchase price of $545,000 and indicated that the buildings on the premises would be sold “as is,” also contained a waivable septic system contingency. Plaintiffs ultimately did not avail themselves of this contingency–a decision purportedly based, in part, upon plaintiffs’ belief that the property contained a new septic system. * * *

…[T]he case law makes clear that where, as here, a cause of action for fraud has been asserted, “[t]he true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the ‘out-of-pocket’ rule. . . . Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not to compensate them for what they might have gained. Under the out-of-pocket rule, there can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud” … . Revell v Guido, 2015 NY Slip Op 00411, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/

Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s Witnesses Despite Taking a Position Similar to Petitioner’s

The Third Department determined the children’s attorney was entitled to ask leading questions in the cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses, even though the the attorney for the children had taken a position similar to petitioner’s.  The similar positions did not convert petitioner’s witnesses to witnesses for the children:

…[W]e reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred by denying her request to require the attorney for the children to cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses before respondent’s cross-examination, or by permitting the attorney for the children to ask leading questions during cross-examination. Both of these claims are premised on respondent’s incorrect view that petitioner’s witnesses effectively became witnesses for the attorney for the children when she agreed with petitioner’s position. The duty of an attorney for the child is to represent the child and advocate for his or her position (see Family Ct Act § 241…). Contrary to respondent’s claim, the fact that here the exercise of this duty resulted in a position similar to that of petitioner did not effectively convert the two parties into one entity. Accordingly, the attorney for the children was entitled to ask leading questions while cross-examining petitioner’s witnesses (see Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-230 at 376 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]). Matter of Aniya L, 2015 NY Slip Op 00410, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/ , ,

Waterway Bordered by Private Land Deemed “Navigable-in-Fact”—Owners of the Land Cannot Prohibit Public Use of the Waterway

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a waterway bordered by private land in the Adirondacks was “navigable-in-fact” and the owners of the land (plaintiffs) bordering the waterway could not prohibit public use of the waterway.  The waterway was deemed “navigable-in-fact” even though a portion of it consisted of rapids which required canoeists to carry their canoes on a privately-owned path along the rapids:

Pursuant to the common law, a waterway on private property that is not navigable-in-fact is owned by the adjacent landowners, but a waterway that is navigable-in-fact “is considered a public highway, notwithstanding the fact that its banks and bed are in private hands” … . The State cannot alienate the right of the public to travel on a navigable-in-fact waterway by transferring title in its bed and banks to a private owner … . As riparian owners never obtain ownership interests in the waters of navigable-in-fact waterways, a judicial determination that the public has the right of navigation does not result in a taking for public use without compensation … . Accordingly, the import of a judicial determination that a waterway is navigable-in-fact is that it has always been open to the public in that character, even though the riparian owners may not have believed it to be, and no trespass was committed by a traveler who navigated upon it before a court ruled upon its navigability. * * *

…[W]here, as here, the State has no sovereign or proprietary ownership interest in the land and the waterway in question passes through private property, its navigability-in-fact is determined by a common law examination of “evidence of [the waterway’s] actual practical use or evidence of capacity for practical use” … . Historically, this analysis turned on whether the waterway had the capacity to be used for commercial transportation; the public was deemed to have the right to travel on “every stream which is capable, in its natural state and its ordinary volume of water, of transporting, in a condition fit for market, the products of the forests or mines, or of the tillage of the soil upon its banks” … . More recently, the Court of Appeals clarified that commercial use is not the only relevant factor, and that a waterway’s capacity for recreational use is also significant in determining its navigability. “[W]hile the purpose or type of use remains important, of paramount concern is the capacity of the river for transport, whether for trade or travel” … . The Court of Appeals stated that this holding neither altered nor enlarged the applicable common-law analysis and was “in line with the traditional test of navigability, that is, whether a river has a practical utility for trade or travel” … .

Accordingly, the Waterway’s navigability-in-fact must be determined based upon its utility for travel or trade as revealed by the testimony, affidavits, maps, photographs, historical records and other evidence in the voluminous record. * * *

The Waterway’s narrow, shallow character does not preclude such a finding, as a stream that can carry only small boats may nevertheless be navigable-in-fact … . Likewise, neither the portage around the relatively short Mud Pond rapids nor the presence in the Waterway of other incidental obstacles such as beaver dams and fallen trees renders the Waterway nonnavigable, as “occasional natural obstructions do not destroy the navigability of a [waterway]” … . On the contrary, the presence of such occasional obstructions in a navigable-in-fact waterway gives rise to a public right to circumvent them by “mak[ing] use, when absolutely necessary, of the bed and banks, including the right to portage on riparian lands” … . Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 00420, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/ ,

Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Privileged

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims, finding that claimant’s confinement was not privileged.  Claimant had completed his sentence at the time of sentencing but he was held for a month:

…[I]n order to succeed on a claim of false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to show “that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged”… . The first three elements have undoubtedly been satisfied and, accordingly, the question distills to whether claimant’s confinement by DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] was privileged. The facts leading up to his detention are not in dispute and, after reviewing them, we agree with the Court of Claims that the confinement was not privileged.

Claimant was sentenced to a prison term as the result of his conviction and, “where a facially valid order issued by a court with proper jurisdiction directs confinement, that confinement is privileged” … . That being said, DOCCS was “‘conclusively bound’ by the terms of the sentence and commitment order,” which unambiguously directed that claimant be released after 1½ years of confinement … . DOCCS continued to confine claimant after that period had ended and, given the absence of any order that required it to do so, its actions were not privileged … . Miller v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00408, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/ ,

Where Plaintiff Was “Demoted” In Violation of an Employment Agreement, the Restrictive Covenants in the Agreement Are No Longer Enforceable

The First Department determined the restrictive covenants agreed to by the plaintiff in conjunction with the job he was hired to do did not apply to the job, with diminished responsibility, he was subsequently assigned (in violation of the employment contract):

The significant change in plaintiff’s duties constituted a material breach of his employment agreement … . * * *

The record demonstrates that defendants did not have a legitimate interest in restricting plaintiff from working for a competitor once he was in his demoted position … . Although the employment agreement acknowledged the uniqueness of plaintiff’s services, that acknowledgment was made in connection with plaintiff’s acceptance of a position he no longer held at the time of his resignation. Further, the record is devoid of evidence that plaintiff possessed any trade secrets or confidential customer lists … . Thus, insofar as the restrictive covenants contained in the employment and option agreements prohibited plaintiff from competing …, they are unenforceable. Fewer v GFI Group Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00440, 1st Dept, 1-15-15

 

/ ,

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

The Third Department determined the police properly made a warrantless entry of the apartment where defendant [Anderson] was staying based upon the consent of a “lease enforcement officer” who believed the apartment was occupied by “squatters.”  The motion to suppress the weapon found near the defendant was, therefore, properly denied:

…John Downey, a lease enforcement officer, informed a police detective that he believed that Anderson’s apartment was vacant and that tenants frequently abandoned their units in the apartment building without providing notice. Downey further explained that he was authorized to enter apartments in order to ensure that they are secure and not occupied by squatters. Downey averred that he provided law enforcement officers with a key to the apartment because he was concerned that someone other than Anderson may have been staying there. When law enforcement arrived at the apartment and knocked on the door, there was no response and no noise was detected from inside the residence. Although it became obvious to the officers, after having entered the apartment, that it was not vacant, inasmuch as an objective view of the evidence adequately demonstrated that the police reasonably relied in good faith upon Downey’s apparent authority to allow entry into the apartment, County Court properly found that the warrantless entry –and resulting seizure of the gun that was in plain view–was not illegal… . People v Edwards, 2015 NY Slip Op 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/

Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions

The Third Department determined the failure to comply with the service instructions in Family Court’s order to show cause required the dismissal of the petitions:

Strict compliance with court-directed methods of service is necessary in order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a respondent/defendant … . Here, petitioner’s counsel drafted and presented Family Court with a proposed order directing service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5). Specifically, the order required that the amended orders to show cause and petitions be served on two attorneys who had represented respondent in unrelated litigation and, further, that substituted service be completed as follows:

“2. By serving [respondent] at [two known] email addresses [and] by including with such emails copies of the [p]etitions, this [o]rder, and the [o]rders to show cause filed by [p]etitioner in support of the [p]etitions, in PDF format, each of such emails to be sent on or before April 28, 2014; and

3. By sending [respondent] an SMS/text message at [a known] subscriber number . . . advising her of the pendency of the two above-captioned proceedings and advising her to access her email addresses as set forth in paragraph 2 herein, to review this [o]rder and the contents of the attached PDF files and to contact her attorneys . . . for copies of the [o]rders to show cause and [p]etitions upon whom these papers have been served on her behalf, said text to be sent on or before April 28, 2014.”

Despite the fact that petitioner’s counsel created the terms upon which substituted service of process would be deemed sufficient, the record demonstrates that petitioner’s compliance with such terms was lacking. As to the email requirement, petitioner’s affidavit of service states that respondent was served on April 28, 2014 via two separate email addresses, as per Family Court’s order, and that both emails were returned as undeliverable. While neither dictates of due process nor Family Court’s order required proof that respondent actually received notice of the proceedings … , we observe that the affidavit of email service fails to state that the documents were, in fact, delivered to respondent in a PDF format.

Of greater concern, however, is the manner in which petitioner conducted service by text message. As to that particular mode of delivery, petitioner’s process server averred that, on April 28, 2014, he sent respondent a text message stating that “[p]aternity and custody petitions have been filed by [petitioner] regarding [the child]. Your court date in [Family Court] is May 21, 2014 at 9AM. Your failure to appear may result in a custody order and default. Contact [respondent’s attorneys] for copies of these documents.” Having neglected to state in the text message, as expressly required in Family Court’s order, that respondent should access her email accounts to review the documents that had been served in a PDF format by email and that the text message was being sent by virtue of Family Court’s order, we agree with Family Court’s determination that such substituted service was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over respondent … . Matter of Keith X v Kristin Y, 2015 NY Slip Op 00429, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

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