You are here: / Constructive Trust Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed on the...

Search Results

/ , ,

Constructive Trust Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed on the Merits, Criteria Explained (Some Constructive Trust Causes of Action Were Properly Dismissed as Time-Barred, However)/Procedure Re: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Described/Application of Statute of Limitations to Constructive Trusts Explained/”Dead Man’s” Statute Not Applicable to Certain Evidence, at Least at this Stage of the Proceedings

The Fourth Department determined causes of action alleging the existence of constructive trusts on behalf of petitioners re: real property and stock owned by decedent should not have been dismissed on the merits.  (However, in a second related appeal addressed in the same decision, the Fourth Department determined the real-property constructive trust actions were time-barred). Re: the company stock, respondent, the executor, alleged he was the sole owner but could not support the allegation with documentary evidence. Petitioners alleged the stock should be distributed as one of the assets of decedent’s estate.  The Fourth Department held that the petitioners had stated a valid constructive-trust cause of action. The court discussed in some depth the consideration of evidence submitted re: a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the nature of a constructive trust, the inapplicability of the “dead-man’s” statute (CPLR 4519) to certain evidence, and the application of the six-year statute of limitations to constructive trusts.  With respect to the nature of constructive trusts, the court wrote:

We agree with petitioners that the petition sufficiently states a cause of action for a constructive trust with respect to the NGR property, the Manitou Road property and NYSFC stock. “On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction . . . We accept the facts as alleged in the [petition] as true, accord [the petitioners] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), . . . a court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the [petitioner] to remedy any defects in the [petition] . . . and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one’ ” … .

“[I]t is well settled that [a] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest . . . In order to invoke the court’s equity powers, [a petitioner] must show a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, a breach of the promise, and [the respondent’s] unjust enrichment . . . Inasmuch as a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, however, courts do not rigidly apply the elements but use them as flexible guidelines . . . In this flexible spirit, the promise need not be express, but may be implied based on the circumstances of the relationship and the nature of the transaction” … .

The facts as alleged in the petition and set forth in the corresponding affidavits establish the existence of a confidential and fiduciary relationship between respondent and decedents. The facts with respect to the NGR and Manitou Road properties establish that respondent promised to pay decedents for the NGR property and to reconvey the Manitou Road property to decedents after it was subdivided by respondent. The petition further alleges that the properties were transferred to respondent as a result of those promises, and that respondent breached those promises and was thereby unjustly enriched.

With respect to the NYSFC stock, the petition and corresponding affidavits allege that Anthony believed, until the day that he died, that he still owned the company and that respondent had made promises to “allow all of [decedents’] children to share in NYSFC.” While the allegations of an express promise are lacking, “[e]ven without an express promise, . . . courts of equity have imposed a constructive trust upon property transferred in reliance upon a confidential relationship. In such a situation, a promise may be implied or inferred from the very transaction itself. As Judge Cardozo so eloquently observed: Though a promise in words was lacking, the whole transaction, it might be found, was “instinct with an obligation” imperfectly expressed’ ” (Sharp, 40 NY2d at 122). Based on the circumstances of the relationship between respondent and decedents and the nature of their multiple transactions, we conclude that there are sufficient facts from which we can conclude that there was an implied promise made by respondent to decedents; that the transfer of stock, if indeed there was a transfer, was made in reliance upon that promise; and that the promise was thereafter broken, resulting in an unjust enrichment to respondent. Matter of Thomas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00017, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Biogas Facility Which Is Located on a Farm and Which Produces Electricity from Manure Is Not Entitled to a Tax Exemption Pursuant to the Former Version of RPTL 483-a

Petitioners use manure produced on petitioners’ dairy farm to generate electricity in a biogas facility.  The electricity is used to operate the farm and is sold to the grid. The Fourth Department determined petitioners were not entitled to a tax exemption for the biogas facility because it was not a “manure storage and handling” facility within the meaning of the former statute (Real Property Tax Law [RPTL] 483-a).  The court further determined that new version of the statute, by its explicit terms, cannot be applied retroactively:

…[P]etitioners contend that the facility is entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because it is a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by that statute. We reject that contention. Inasmuch as petitioners’ contention involves “a question of statutory interpretation, we turn first to the plain language of the statute[] as the best evidence of legislative intent” … . The former version of the statute provided that “[s]tructures permanently affixed to agricultural land for the purpose of preserving and storing forage in edible condition, farm feed grain storage bins, commodity sheds, manure storage and handling facilities, and bulk milk tanks and coolers used to hold milk awaiting shipment to market shall be exempt from taxation, special ad valorem levies and special assessments” (RPTL 483-a [former (1)]). We conclude that the anaerobic digester facility is not a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because the facility is not used simply to store and handle manure. Petitioners’ facility uses an anaerobic digester to produce biogas from the manure, which is then used to generate electricity, and the statute does not provide a tax exemption for an anaerobic digester or an electrical generator. Notably, another provision of RPTL article 4 defines the term “farm waste generating equipment” as “equipment that generates electric energy from biogas produced by the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste” (RPTL 487 [1] [e]), but such equipment was not included among the enumerated structures in RPTL 483-a (former [1]). Furthermore, “words employed in a statute are construed in connection with, and their meaning ascertained by reference to the words and phrases with which they are associated” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 239 [a]), and the plain language of RPTL 483-a (former [1]) establishes that the tax exemption is applicable to structures used for the storage of agricultural materials, and not to structures used for the generation of energy. Matter of Synergy LLC v KIbler, 2015 NY Slip Op 00038, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , , ,

Tenant’s Filing for Bankruptcy Precluded County from Proceeding with Efforts to Collect on a Property Tax Lien

The Fourth Department determined the county properly concluded it could not proceed to collect on a tax lien after the tenant in the relevant property filed for bankruptcy:

The Village contends that the County used an improper basis for its determination to withdraw the properties from the in rem foreclosure proceeding and to cancel the tax liens, i.e., the bankruptcy proceeding filed by plaintiff’s tenant. Although the County does not explicitly respond to the Village’s contention that the bankruptcy petition of plaintiff’s tenant did not operate to stay the in rem proceeding because plaintiff is the property owner, we nevertheless reject that contention. “[A] leasehold, like all other interests of the debtor, immediately becomes property of the [debtor’s] estate whenever bankruptcy relief is sought” … . Thus, the tenant’s petition operated as a stay to “enforce any lien against property of the estate” (11 USC § 362 [a] [4]). We therefore conclude that the County properly determined that the in rem foreclosure proceeding with respect to the subject parcels was stayed pursuant to RPTL 1140 (1), and properly withdrew those parcels from the proceeding. Herkimer County Indus Dev Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2015 NY Slip Op 00053, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , ,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Sellers’ Representations on the Condition Disclosure Statement Claiming No Water-Related Problems on the Property Violated Real Property Law 462, 465, Constituted Fraud, and Constituted Breach of Contract

The Fourth Department determined the sellers’ representations on the condition disclosure statement created questions of fact about whether sellers violated Real Property Law 462 and 465, whether the sellers committed fraud, and whether the sellers breached the sales contract.  The sellers indicated on the condition disclosure statement that they had experienced no problems with standing water and water seeping into the basement.  There was evidence the sellers were aware of the existence of such water problems when they indicated on the form there had been none:

Real Property Law § 462 (1) requires sellers of residential real property to “complete and sign a property condition disclosure statement” and to provide such statement to a prospective buyer “prior to the signing by the buyer of a binding contract of sale.” Real Property Law § 462 sets forth the disclosure form, which instructs the seller to complete the form based upon his or her “ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE,” and contains the seller’s certification that “THE INFORMATION IN THIS PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE SELLER’S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE SIGNED BY THE SELLER.” Where a seller provides a property condition disclosure statement and “willful[ly] fail[s] to perform the requirements” set forth in article 14 of the Real Property Law “[such] seller shall be liable for the actual damages suffered by the buyer in addition to any other existing equitable or statutory remedy” (Real Property Law § 465 [2]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether defendants knowingly misrepresented a material fact, i.e., the property’s history of flooding and standing water, on the property condition disclosure statement … . We likewise conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether he justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the provisions of a contract for the sale of real property are generally merged in the deed and therefore extinguished upon the closing of title …, that rule does not apply ” where the parties have expressed their intention that [a] provision shall survive delivery of the deed’ ” … . Here, the contract provides that “[a]ny claim arising from failure to comply with Paragraph[] 5 [of the contract],” which encompasses defendants’ representations in the property condition disclosure statement, “shall survive for 2 years after the Closing or cancellation of this Contract” … . In any event, we note that “the merger doctrine [is] inapplicable where, as here, there exists a cause of action based upon fraud” … . Sicignano v Dixey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00054, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/

Criteria for Implied Easement, Express Easement, Easement by Necessity and Prescriptive Easement Explained

In considering whether a turnaround area was the subject of an easement, the Fourth Department found that the criteria for an implied easement, express easement, and easement by necessity were not met, but a question of fact about the existence of an easement by prescription had been raised.  The court described the criteria for each:

…”[A] grantee claiming an easement implied by existing use must establish: (1) a unity and subsequent severance of title with respect to the relevant parcels; (2) that during the period of unity of title, the owner established a use in which one part of the land was subordinated to another; (3) that such use established by the owner was so continuous, obvious, and manifest that it indicated that it was meant to be permanent; and (4) that such use affects the value of the estate conveyed and that its continuation is necessary to the reasonable beneficial enjoyment of the estate conveyed” … . “Stated another way, [a]n implied easement will arise “upon severance of ownership when, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude at the time of severance is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate” ‘ ” … . “Implied easements are not favored by the law and the burden of proof rests with [plaintiffs] to prove such entitlement by clear and convincing evidence”… . …

With respect to the … cause of action… for an express easement… we note that Real Property Law § 240 (3) provides in relevant part that “[e]very instrument creating [or] transferring . . . an estate or interest in real property must be construed according to the intent of the parties, so far as such intent can be gathered from the whole instrument, and is consistent with the rules of law.” “The intent’ to which the statute refers is the objective intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the deed; unless the deed is ambiguous, evidence of unexpressed, subjective intentions of the parties is irrelevant” … . We conclude that defendants met their burden of establishing that the access easement in the deed to defendants from the owner of what was formerly the common properties did not grant to that owner express permission to use the turnaround … . …

With respect to the … cause of action, seeking an order determining that plaintiffs have an easement by necessity with respect to the turnaround, we note that “[t]he party asserting an easement by necessity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence . . . that there was a unity and subsequent separation of title, and [ ] that at the time of severance an easement over [the servient estate’s] property was absolutely necessary’ . . . Significantly, the necessity must exist in fact and not as a mere convenience’ . . . and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property”… . * * *

To establish a prescriptive easement, plaintiffs must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the turnaround was” adverse, open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period’ ” of 10 years … . The elements of a claim for an easement by prescription are similar to those of a claim for adverse possession, except that demonstration of exclusivity is not essential to a claim for easement by prescription … . Thus, to establish an easement by prescription, plaintiffs must establish by clear and convincing evidence possession that was hostile and under a claim of right; actual; open and notorious; and continuous for the required period … . Mau v Schusler, 2015 NY Slip Op 00052, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability cause of action against a “finance lessor” of a garbage truck, H Leasing Company.  The lawsuit stemmed from an accident involving the truck.  The court explained that a strict products liability action will not lie against a “finance lessor” which is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, which never had possession of the leased equipment, which was not a financial arm of the manufacturer, and which neither marketed the product nor placed it in the stream of commerce.  Here H Leasing Company was a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck:

“It appears universally accepted as New York law that strict products liability will not apply to finance lessors which merely offer the use of money to acquire goods but otherwise neither market a product nor place it in the stream of commerce” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that H Leasing is the owner and lessor of the truck, and it is therefore subject to strict products liability because it is in the business of leasing equipment. The cases permitting strict products liability actions against lessors involve leasing entities that either actually take possession of the equipment at issue and lease it to the public …, or are financing arms of the manufacturer … . In those situations, the principles of strict products liability may properly be applied to such lenders in order to further the policy goals of such liability, i.e., ensuring that products are safe by permitting an action to go forward “when imposing liability would provide injured consumers with a greater opportunity to commence an action against the party responsible, fix liability on one who is in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to improve the safety of the product, or ensure that the burden of accidental injuries occasioned by products would be treated as a cost of production by placing liability upon those who market them” … . Such goals would not be served by allowing a strict products liability cause of action against H Leasing, however, because it did not take possession of the truck, it is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, and it is a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck, not the manufacturer … . Consequently, we agree with H Leasing “that strict products liability should not be imposed upon [it], a finance lessor which merely offered the use of money and neither marketed the machine nor placed it in the stream of commerce” … . Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015NY Slip Op 00001, 4th Dept 1-2-15

In a separate decision in the same case, again over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined that a cause of action against H Leasing alleging negligent failure to inspect the truck properly survived a summary judgment motion.  The allegation that H Leasing designated the company which leased the truck as its agent for the inspection of the truck raised a triable question of fact:

Here, the lease for the garbage truck, which was submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion for summary judgment, stated in relevant part that H Leasing appointed decedent’s employer as its agent for purposes of inspection and acceptance of the garbage truck from the supplier. Moreover, a vice-president of H Leasing, who was decedent’s employer, acknowledged at his deposition, that the lessees inspected the equipment upon delivery in their capacities as H Leasing’s agents as “laid out in the lease agreement,” and that deposition testimony was also submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion. Viewing those submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference, we conclude that H Leasing’s own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether it was liable in negligence for the failure of one of its agents, decedent’s employer, to inspect and warn of a dangerous condition. Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00002, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , ,

Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Forklift Manufacturer Properly Dismissed Due to Owner’s Disabling Safety Switch/Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was a Special Employee of the Owner of the Forklift (Which Would Limit Plaintiff’s Recovery to Workers’ Compensation)

Plaintiff was injured by a forklift which continued running when he was out of the driver’s seat because the safety switch (which would have automatically shut the forklift off when the driver left the seat) had been disabled by the owner of the forklift.  The Fourth Department determined the strict products liablity cause of action against the manufacturer of the forklift was properly dismissed because the safety switch had been disabled. But the negligence cause of action against the owner of the forklift, Nuttall Gear, should not have been dismissed.  Nuttal Gear argued plaintiff was its special employee and therefore Workers’ Compensation was the exclusive remedy.  The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff was a special employee. It was not clear that Nuttal Gear supervised plaintiff’s work:

We conclude that the court properly granted the motions of the products liability defendants. As the Court of Appeals has recently made clear, ” a manufacturer, who has designed and produced a safe product, will not be liable for injuries resulting from substantial alterations or modifications of the product by a third party which render the product defective or otherwise unsafe’ ” … . Here, the products liability defendants established as a matter of law that the forklift was not defectively designed by establishing that, when it was manufactured and delivered to Nuttall Gear, it had a safety switch that would have prevented plaintiff’s accident, and a third party thereafter made a substantial modification to the forklift by disabling the safety switch. The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact, and they failed to meet that burden … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the affidavit of their expert, a professional engineer, does not raise a triable issue of fact.

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that the court erred in granting the motion of the Nuttall Gear defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. It is well settled that “a general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another . . . General employment is presumed to continue, but this presumption is overcome upon clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … . Although the determination of special employment status is “usually a question of fact,” such a determination “may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . * * *

It appears from the record that the only person who had contact with plaintiff at Nuttall Gear was Mark Moscato, who himself was a general employee of SPS [plaintiff’s employer]. The Nuttall Gear defendants have not identified a single person, other than Moscato, who told plaintiff what to do or how to do it.  Verost v Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 0008, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Tenant In “Adjacent Property” May Be Responsible for Maintenance of a Sidewalk Where the Sidewalk is Subject to Special Use by the Tenant as Part of a Driveway

In perhaps the most thorough treatment of the theories of liability for a dangerous condition on a city sidewalk ever written, the Fourth Department explained the potential liability of the various abutting and “adjacent” property owners/tenants of the area where plaintiff slipped and fell.  Only the discussion of the “special use” by tenants (Bison) of “adjacent property” is excerpted here:

“Where a sidewalk is adjacent to but not part of the area used as a driveway, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment of showing that the special use of the sidewalk contributed to the defect . . . However, if the defect is in the portion of the sidewalk used as a driveway, the abutting landowner, on a motion for summary judgment, bears the burden of establishing that he or she did nothing to either create the defective condition or cause the condition through the special use of the property as a driveway” … . The same principle applies to a commercial tenant of property where the driveway constitutes a special use by the tenant … .

While the area of the dangerous condition is in a City right-of-way that falls within the extended lot line boundaries of the property owned by Seneca One, we conclude that the Bison defendants, as lessors of the “adjacent property,” may nevertheless still be liable if there is evidence that they had “access to and ability to exercise control over the special use [driveway]” … . We conclude that the Bison defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they lacked access to and the ability to control that special use driveway … and, further, failed to establish as a matter of law “that they did not affirmatively create the defect by any alleged special use of the sidewalk as a driveway” … . Indeed, based on the evidence submitted by the Bison defendants in support of their motion, it is reasonable to conclude that the “driveway apron was constructed and exclusively used for the benefit of [the Bison defendants’ leased] property” … . The only places that could be accessed by the driveway were the stadium and the surface parking lot, both of which were located on the property leased by Bison Baseball. We thus conclude that the court properly denied their motion seeking to dismiss the negligence claims asserted against the Bison defendants insofar as those claims were based on their special use of the driveway … . Capretto v City of Buffalo, 2015 NY Slip Op 00055, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ ,

Release Which Specifically Refers to a Particular Incident Relates Solely to that Incident—Where Terms of the Release Are Unambiguous, Extrinsic Evidence Will Not Be Considered

The Fourth Department determined that a release unambiguously related solely to a particular slip and fall on a particular day and did not bar an action based upon a subsequent slip and fall:

…[T]he release stated that defendant, in exchange for providing plaintiff with the agreed-upon settlement amount, was “released and forever discharged . . . from all manner of actions, causes of action, suits, . . . claims and demands whatsoever” that plaintiff “ever had, now has or which [her] successors and assigns, heirs, executors or administrators, hereafter can, shall or may have for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of those present . . . More specifically, for injuries sustained in a slip and fall incident which occurred on June 3, 2009, in the City of Lackawanna, County of Erie and State of New York.” Defendant made payment on the settlement and filed a copy of the stipulation of discontinuance in November 2012.

“It is well settled that a general release is governed by principles of contract law’ … and that, where a release is unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the plain language of the agreement’ … . Moreover, “[i]t has long been the law that where a release contains a recital of a particular claim, obligation or controversy and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby’ … . Thus, “[w]here, as here, [a] release . . . contain[s] specific recitals as to the claims being released, and yet [contains] . . . an omnibus clause to the effect that the releasor releases and discharges all claims and demands whatsoever which he [or she] . . . may have against the releasee . . . , the courts have often applied the rule of ejusdem generis[, i.e., “of the same kind or class” (Black’s Law Dictionary 594 [9th ed 2009])], and held that the general words of a release are limited by the recital of a particular claim” … .

Here, we conclude that the language of the release is unambiguous in specifying that the only claims discharged thereby are those arising from the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the first slip and fall accident … . Contrary to defendant’s further contention that we should consider extrinsic evidence purportedly demonstrating that the parties intended the settlement to cover both matters, “[i]t is well settled that, where the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, effect will be given to the intention of the parties as indicated by the language employed and the fact that one of the parties may have intended something else is irrelevant” … . Abdulla v Gross, 2015 NY Slip Op 00036, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

/ , , ,

Seizure of Claimant’s Computers Pursuant to a Warrant Did Not Give Rise to Conversion, Negligent Misrepresentation and Constitutional Tort Causes of Action—Elements of Those Causes of Action Explained

The Fourth Department reversed the Court of Claims and dismissed causes of action for conversion and negligent misrepresentation stemming from the seizure of claimant’s computers pursuant to a judicial warrant.  The court noted that the seizure pursuant to the authority of the warrant precluded the conversion cause of action and the absence of privity between the claimant and the investigators who said the computers would be promptly returned precluded the negligent representation cause of action. Alternate ways to seek return of the computers (an application to County Court and an Article 78 proceeding if the application were denied) precluded the constitutional tort cause of action:

An actionable “conversion takes place when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person’s right of possession” … . Here, a search warrant specifically authorized law enforcement to “search for and seize” six categories of items, including “[a]ll computers and computer storage media and related peripherals, electronic or computer data.” Claimants have never challenged the validity of the search warrant. Moreover, the unchallenged warrant placed no time limit on the retention of the items seized, and the authorization to “seize” the computers was not terminated until County Court ordered the property returned following Boerman’s guilty plea. We therefore conclude that defendant’s exercise of control over the computers did not constitute conversion inasmuch as it had the proper authority to exercise such control … .

The tort of “negligent misrepresentation requires [a claimant] to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information’ ” … . We agree with defendant that, as a matter of law, there can be no “privity-like relationship” between an investigator and the target of his or her investigation … . Indeed, the relationship between investigator and target is the opposite of a “special position of confidence and trust” in which one party might justifiably rely upon the ” unique or specialized expertise’ ” of the other party … . Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the initial seizure or continued detention of claimants’ computers violated the Search and Seizure Clause of the State Constitution (art I, § 12), we conclude that “no . . . claim [for constitutional tort] will lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy in an alternate forum” … . Here, claimants could have raised their constitutional arguments in an application to County Court seeking the return of their computers … or, if such motion were denied, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition … . LM Bis Assoc Inc v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00007, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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