You are here: / THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.27 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES; THE DISSENT ARGUED DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 202.27 WAS IMPROPER AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a substantive dissent, determined Supreme Court, sua sponte, properly dismissed the foreclosure action as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s directive. The dissent argued the criteria for a section 202.27 dismissal were not met and the motion to vacate the dismissal should have been granted:

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that the action was improperly dismissed. Although the April 2020 order does not specify which statutory or regulatory basis was being relied upon to dismiss the action, this Court has “consistently held” that 22 NYCRR 202.27 authorizes a trial court to dismiss an action as abandoned where a “party fails to timely comply with a court’s directive to progress the case” … . Supreme Court described in its April 2020 order how plaintiff had made no effort to move this action forward since 2016 and how plaintiff was summoned to a status conference in November 2019, where the court directed plaintiff to move for a judgment of foreclosure no later than December 31, 2019. Plaintiff failed, without explanation, to comply with that directive, and Supreme Court was therefore within its discretion to dismiss the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.2 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hartquist, 2024 NY Slip Op 02352, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: The court has the power to, sua sponte, dismiss an action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 where plaintiff has failed to comply with court directives.

 

/ ,

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LIMITED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO ONLY “SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES;” USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGH AIRBNB VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that a restrictive covenant from a common grantor restricting the use of the property to only “single-family residential purposes” prohibited plaintiff from using the property for short-term rentals through Airbnb. Such use is not “residential:”

… [T]he restrictive covenant limits the permissible use to only “single[-]family residential purposes.” This phrase unambiguously directs that all properties within the subdivision must be used for only residential purposes, and, thus, any and all rentals must be to those who would utilize the property for residential purposes — i.e., as a residence. A residence is the location where an individual “actually lives” and is established by “[t]he act or fact of living in a given place for some time” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). Although there is no express durational requirement, a stay in a short-term rental property does not meet this definition … . Lodgers in short-term rental properties do not live on the premises but are instead on a short trip and often maintain a residence elsewhere where they “actually live[ ]” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). This is true even though lodgers may have access to the entirety of the property and may use it in the same manner as a resident, including by cooking meals and sleeping as plaintiff highlighted. West Mtn. Assets LLC v Dobkowski, 2024 NY Slip Op 02355, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here the restrictive covenant limited the use of the property to “residential” use. A “residence” is where someone actually lives, not where someone stays for a short time while on a trip. Therefore the restrictive covenant precluded short-term rentals of the property through Airbnb.

 

/ ,

THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY PROPERLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN HERBICIDE IN LAKE GEORGE TO CONTROL AN INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) properly issued permits for the application of an herbicide (ProcellaCOR EC) in Lake George to control an invasive aquatic plant called Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). Supreme Court had granted the Article 78 petition and vacated the permits. Applying black letter administrative law, the Third Department found no basis to overturn the APA’s ruling. The opinion is too fact-specific and detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [W]here an agency’s determination was rendered without a fact-finding hearing, a court’s review is limited to “whether [the] determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3] …). In performing such review, “[i]t is well settled that a court cannot substitute its view of the factual merits of a controversy for that of the administrative agency” … . And, when “the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference” … . Indeed, “[i]f a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational” … .

Although an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it fails to conform to its own regulations, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference if that interpretation does not contradict the plain language of the regulations and is not irrational or unreasonable … . Matter of Lake George Assn. v NYS Adirondack Park Agency, 2024 NY Slip Op 02356, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Black letter administrative law for the review of an agency’s determination when there was no fact-finding hearing was applied here. The Adirondack Park Agency’s issuance of permits for the application of an herbicide in Lake George was upheld.

 

/ , ,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ADMITTED ROLLING THROUGH A BIKE-PATH STOP SIGN BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION, THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-driver’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection bicycle-car collision case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff-bicyclist acknowledged he did not completely stop at the bike-path stop sign before entering the intersection, there were questions of fact whether defendant driver (Butler) failed to see what was to be seen:

… [P]laintiff’s admission that he came to a “rolling stop” at the stop sign, which amounts to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 (a) and establishes some degree of fault on his part. Nevertheless, that fact is not dispositive as to whether he was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . To this point, Butler’s testimony suggests that no other vehicles were at the intersection prior to her turning left and that her visibility down the bike path was limited to approximately 20 feet, due in part to a building, trees and bushes obstructing her view. However, our review of the photographs of the intersection contained in the record casts doubt on that account, as a lengthy portion of the bike trail both preceding and after the stop sign located on said trail appears visible from Butler’s vantage point both at the light and after she commenced the left turn. Whether plaintiff should have been visible to Butler is further unresolved by the time frames relative to Butler commencing the turn and the time to impact as well as the varying accounts from plaintiff, Butler and the police report specific as to how far Butler had traveled into the intersection before the collision took place … . Ruberti v Butler, 2024 NY Slip Op 02358, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: In this intersection bicycle-car collision case, plaintiff-bicyclist’s failure to come to a complete stop at the bike-path stop sign did not establish he was the sole proximate cause of the accident.. There were questions of fact about whether defendant driver failed to see what was there to be seen.

 

/ , , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY; HOWEVER A QUESTION OF FACT REMAINED CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this rear-end collision case should have been awarded summary judgment on liability, but defendant’s comparative negligence affirmative defense properly survived dismissal. Defendant alleged that plaintiff made a sudden stop, which was not enough to raise a question of fact on defendant’s liability:

… [P]laintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through her own affidavit, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear while the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the LIE due to traffic conditions … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant’s averments in his affidavit that the plaintiff’s vehicle made a sudden stop and that the plaintiff had told the defendant after the accident that she had stopped her vehicle to allow another car merge into the lane ahead of her, do not provide a nonnegligent explanation for striking the plaintiff’s vehicle …

However, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on the ground that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff’s affidavit failed to provide sufficient details to demonstrate, prima facie, that she was not comparatively at fault in causing the accident … . Fischetti v Simonovsky, 2024 NY Slip Op 02302, Second Dept 5-1-24

Practice Point: A defendant in a rear-end collision case will not escape summary judgment on liability by alleging plaintiff came to a sudden stop.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR WHO WAS ATTACKED BY A STUDENT IN A SCHOOL HALLWAY; THERE WAS NO “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of a special relationship between plaintiff high school administrator and defendant NYC Department of Education precluded recovery for an attack on the administrator by a student in the school’s hallway:

“Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the . . . plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for a breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public” … . To succeed on a cause of action sounding in negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants owed her a special duty of care … .

A plaintiff may demonstrate that a special relationship exists by showing, among other things, that the municipality “voluntarily assume[d] a duty that generate[d] justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty,” or that “the municipality assume[d] positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . A special relationship based upon a duty voluntarily assumed by the municipality requires proof of the following: “‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking'” … .

… The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that they did not voluntarily assume a duty toward the plaintiff. The defendants did not make any promises to the plaintiff or take any actions regarding security protocols in the school that amounted to an affirmative undertaking of protection by them on her behalf, nor could the plaintiff have justifiably relied on any such actions … . Notably, the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had no reason to fear the student who allegedly assaulted her. The plaintiff also testified that, prior to the incident, the student had never made any threats toward her and she never asked the school to provide her with protection from the student. Moreover, the defendants did not take positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation … . Villa-Lefler v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 02343, Second Dept 5-1-24

Practice Point: Absent a “special relationship’ between plaintiff school administrator and defendant NYC Department of Education, defendant is not liable for an attack on the administrator by a student in a school hallway.

 

/ , , ,

THE NEARLY $10 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE; IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT DOCTOR SHOULD HAVE SENT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO PLAYED A ROLE IN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SUICIDE THE NEXT DAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nearly $10 million verdict should not have been set aside on the ground the evidence of proximate cause was insufficient. Plaintiff alleged defendant doctor (Strange) should have sent plaintiff’s decedent to the emergency room the day before plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. The matter was remitted for consideration of other grounds for setting aside verdict:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of Strange’s motion which was to set aside the verdict on the issue of proximate cause and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, since the jury reasonably concluded, based on the evidence presented at trial, that Strange’s alleged departures were a proximate cause of the decedent’s death. The plaintiff’s expert witness testified that the decedent’s suicide was preventable and that a referral to the emergency room would have allowed the decedent to be admitted to the hospital. Such testimony was sufficient to allow a reasonable person to conclude that it was more probable than not that Strange’s conduct, under these circumstances, diminished the decedent’s chance of a better outcome … . Shouldis v Strange, 2024 NY Slip Op 02340, Second Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Proximate cause in a medical malpractice case is demonstrated if the doctor’s conduct “diminished the … chance of a better outcome.”

 

/ ,

AFTER PLAINTIFF’S POST-NOTE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE NONPARTY WITNESS WAS QUASHED, PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FROM THE NONPARTY WITNESS; OBTAINING THE STATEMENT WAS A PROPER METHOD OF “INFORMAL DISCOVERY” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff properly conducted “informal discovery” by obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness after plaintiff’s post-note deposition subpoena for the witness was quashed:

Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to quash the untimely, post-note deposition subpoena plaintiff served on nonparty witness Harris-Aikens, and to preclude plaintiff from “examining or otherwise taking any sworn testimony from” Harris-Aikens (the December Order), and suspended disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3103(b). …

… [T]he Harris-Aikens witness statement did not constitute “disclosure of the particular matter in dispute” prohibited by CPLR 3103(b). The statement was not an examination or other sworn testimony explicitly prohibited by the December Order, and was not otherwise an enumerated “disclosure device” under CPLR 3102(a) … . Rather, obtaining the witness statement was plaintiff’s proper exercise of ex parte, informal discovery, which the Court of Appeals has long recognized as a permissible and invaluable avenue by which litigants prepare for trial … . Everett v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02276, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: Obtaining a voluntary statement from a nonparty witness here did not violate the court order quashing a deposition subpoena for the same witness. The voluntary statement was a proper form of “informal discovery.”

 

/ ,

THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the absence of a record indicating defense counsel was notified of a note from the jury, or even that the judge responded to the note, was a mode of proceedings error. The People’s argument that the note addressed only one count of the indictment and the convictions on the other counts should survive was rejected. The nature of the jury’s question was relevant to all counts:

The fourth note stated: “We the jury request to hear the judge’s reading of count 1, including definitions and detail. Further, can you please confirm if it is up to our determination to decide if something is considered as “course of conduct” and “act”? As written on the verdict sheet, count 1 states “engaging in a course off conduct,” we want to confirm if this is a typo or not.” * * *

When an O’Rama error occurs, the question of whether the error in the proceedings related to some charges requires reversal on the other charges is determined on a case-by-case basis, with ‘due regard’ for the facts of the case, the nature of the error, and the ‘potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome’ … .

Here, the three counts of the indictment were alleged to arise from a course or repetition of conduct in violation of the order of protection reasonably perceived as threatening to the victim’s safety (count 1), through means both electronic/written (count 2) and telephonic (count 3). Thus, given the underlying factual relationship between the crimes, defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Jamison, 2024 NY Slip Op 02286, First Dept 4-30-24

Practice Point: If the record is silent about whether counsel was notified of a jury note and whether the judge even responded to the note, that is a mode of proceedings error.

Practice Point: Although the jury note related to only one of the three counts, the convictions on the other two counts could not survive because all the counts were factually connected.

 

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