You are here: / Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s...

Search Results

/ , , , , ,

Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action

In an action stemming from the collapse of a retaining wall between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties, the First Department noted that a survey map without an affidavit from the surveyor is insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, but was sufficient to support the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court also noted that where negligence and nuisance causes of action are duplicative, the nuisance action should be dismissed:

… [A] survey alone, without an accompanying affidavit from the surveyor, does not constitute competent evidence of the location of property lines and fences or retaining walls … . Plaintiff has therefore failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to a declaratory judgment on its claim brought pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-305.1.1.

Defendant met its prima facie burden as cross movant by submission of the affidavit of a land surveyor who inspected and measured the property subsequent to the collapse of the retaining wall in June 2013, and concluded that no portion of the wall had been upon defendant’s property. That plaintiff’s two surveys indicate that the wall was “on [the] line” of both properties, is sufficient, however, to raise a question as to the location of the wall relative to the two properties; we have long held that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be considered to defeat an application for summary judgment … .

… [W]e find that the claim of negligence is expressed throughout plaintiff’s papers, and there is a question of fact as to whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, if the retaining wall is found to rest on both parties’ premises. The claim of nuisance, based on allegations that defendant’s ongoing refusal to participate in the repairs and maintenance of the retaining wall substantially interferes with plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy its property, arises solely from plaintiff’s claim of negligence. Where nuisance and negligence elements are “so intertwined as to be practically inseparable,” a plaintiff may recover only once for the harm suffered … . Upon a search of the record, we conclude that the third cause of action, nuisance, should be dismissed as duplicative of the negligence cause of action, although this argument was not previously made or considered … . 70 Pinehurst Avenue LLC v RPN Mgt Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09029, 1st Dept 12-30-14

 

/ , ,

Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a dissent, discussed several fundamental issues in reversing Supreme Court's sua sponte award of attorney's fees which differed from the fee agreed to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's law firm.  The First department held that the 33 1/3% contingency fee for the trial, and an additional 10% contingency for the appeal, amounting to a 43 !/3 % contingency fee, was proper. In addition, the First Department determined the defendant did not have standing to contest the fee, Supreme Court did not have the power to adjust the fee and Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction over the case at the time it did so:

Initially, we note that defendant has no standing to challenge the fees agreed upon as between plaintiff and his counsel. CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party (emphasis added).” Defendant is not an “interested person” within the meaning of the statute, as even the motion court appeared to recognize. Defendant will pay the same amounts pursuant to the judgment regardless of the division of fees as between plaintiff and his counsel. …

Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the judgment was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by plaintiff or his attorneys. …

Defendant having no standing under CPLR 5015(a)(3) to challenge the separate fee for appellate work, the court relied on its “inherent authority” to reach the issue. A court, however, has no inherent authority to sua sponte reach the issue of attorneys' fees … .

Moreover, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to revisit the issue of the propriety of the fees, even upon the motion of a proper party. Since the Court of Appeals denied applications for review … the judgment was final, and Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to, in effect, reverse the Court by modifying the judgment … .

Plaintiff's expert, a leading expert on legal ethics, opined that it was legally and ethically permissible for the firm to collect a separate fee for appellate work, notwithstanding that the firm is entitled, under the original retainer, to a contingency fee of one third of the recovery. Plaintiff's expert opined that limiting counsel's contingent fee to that encompassed in the initial retainer “does not advance the purpose behind Section 603.7 [Rules of the Appellate Division] . . . i.e., protecting clients from gouging by attorneys.” The expert also observed that had plaintiff chosen to retain new counsel for the appeal, there would be absolutely no question that the new counsel would be entitled to a fee for his or her work, notwithstanding the fact that trial counsel was entitled to receive 33 1/3% of any recovery. Plaintiff's expert noted that it would be “anomalous” to assert that trial counsel should be compensated less favorably than new counsel for performing the work that had not been contemplated by the initial retainer. Stewart v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 09063, 1st Dept 12-30-14


/ ,

“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders

In the course of affirming the finding that appellant was a dangerous sex offender who must be civilly confined, the Second Department noted that Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which applies to “detained sex offenders,” applies equally to lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders.  The court went on to briefly describe the relevant analytical criteria and proof burden:

The appellant's contention that this proceeding was “jurisdictionally flawed” because he did not meet the definition of a detained sex offender is without merit. The appellant was incarcerated upon his conviction of attempted sodomy in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 110.00 and former Penal Law § 130.50 at the time that this proceeding was commenced (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[g][1]). The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not distinguish between lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders … . * * *

A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e]). The State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). Matter of State of New York v Abdul A, 2014 NY Slip OP 09006, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

Documents Explaining Reason for Mail-Watch Order Re: Inmate Exempt from Disclosure Pursuant to Public Officers Law

The Third Department determined the petitioner-inmate was not entitled to documents explaining why a mail-watch order was issued by the Department of Corrections mandating that the petitioner's mail be monitored for two months.  The requested documents were exempt from disclosure as “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions:”

…[T]he withheld document constitutes inter- or intra-agency deliberative material, “i.e., communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions” (…see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]…). The withheld document is a mail watch request and consists of “predecisional evaluations, recommendations and conclusions,” and is accordingly exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) … . Matter of Ward v Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip OP 08931, 3rd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ , ,

Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department, in the context of a legal malpractice action, explained the requirements for common law indemnification and contribution.  The motions to dismiss at issue were brought by the third-party defendant law firm (M & S) against the third-party plaintiff law firm (Danna).  The Second Department determined Danna's common law indemnification cause of action should have been dismissed because Danna's alleged liability was not purely vicarious and Danna's contribution action properly survived dismissal because Danna alleged M & S's legal malpractice contributed to plaintiff's damages:

“The principle of common law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “Common-law indemnification is warranted where a defendant's role in causing the plaintiff's injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious” … . “Thus, a party which has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification” … . Here, the plaintiffs' claims against the Danna defendants in the instant legal malpractice action are based upon the Danna defendants' representation of the plaintiffs in an accounting proceeding they commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey proceeding). * * * …[T]he documentary evidence submitted by M & S in support of its motion conclusively established that any liability on the part of the Danna defendants for legal malpractice was not solely passive and purely vicarious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of M & S's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action for common-law indemnification in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

As to the contribution cause of action, ” [i]n determining whether a valid third-party claim for contribution exists, the critical issue is whether the third-party defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff which was breached and which contributed to or aggravated plaintiff's damages'” … . ” [T]he remedy may be invoked against concurrent, successive, independent, alternative and even intentional tortfeasors'” … . “A defendant attorney may seek contribution from a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent that the subsequently retained attorney's negligence may have contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff's injuries” … . Contrary to M & S's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the contribution cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, since the defendants third-party plaintiffs properly stated a cause of action alleging that M & S's legal malpractice contributed to the plaintiff's damages, and documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a complete defense to that cause of action… . Bivona v Damma & Assoc PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08947, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ , ,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the brother of plaintiff's decedent was defendants' employee or an independent contractor.  Defendants are the owners of a single family home who hired plaintiff's decedent's brother and plaintiff's decedent to cut down a tree on the property. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when he was thrown head-first into a tree during the tree-felling process. Plaintiff's decedent sued defendants under negligence, violation of Labor Law sections 200 and 240, and wrongful death theories.  Plaintiff's decedent sought to hold defendants liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (as the employer of decedent's brother, who negligently performed his work, causing plaintiff's decedent's death). Plaintiff's decedent and his brother were hired by the defendants at the suggestion of a mason, Cano, who worked for the defendants.  Cano relayed defendants' instructions concerning the tree removal to plaintiff's decedent's brother:

“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration” … . Whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … .

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence they submitted in support of their motion did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the deposition transcript of the decedent's brother, who testified that the defendant Sean Jencik, in addition to specifying which trees were to be removed, provided instructions as to how the work was to be performed so that the trees would not fall on to the roadway, which were conveyed to him in Spanish through Cano. Moreover, the decedent's brother testified that the defendants gave the money to pay him and the other workers involved with the tree removal to Cano, who then paid them. Sirignano v Jencik, 2014 NY Slip Op 08977, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

If the Accident Was Staged by the Insured, the Insurer Would Not Be Required to Cover a Party Injured In the Collision, Even If that Party Was Not Involved in the Staging

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined that the insurer could disclaim coverage if the accident was staged by the insured (Robinson), even with respect to a party not shown to have been involved in the staging (Pontoon).  Here Robinson's vehicle side-swiped the vehicle in which Pontoon was a passenger:

Robinson's vehicle was covered under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the proposed additional respondent Government Indemnity Company (hereinafter GEICO). Pontoon sought coverage for the incident from GEICO. GEICO disclaimed coverage on the ground, inter alia, that the collision was staged, and thus resulted from an intentional act. Pontoon then sought arbitration under the uninsured motorist provision of Nelson's policy, which was issued by Nationwide General Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide). Nationwide initiated this proceeding under CPLR article 75 seeking to permanently stay the arbitration on the ground that GEICO was required to provide coverage for Pontoon's injuries, and thus Robinson was not “uninsured.” * * *

The referee incorrectly concluded that GEICO was required to submit evidence that Pontoon was involved in staging the collision in order to support a disclaimer of coverage. Contrary to the referee's conclusion, if GEICO can prove that the collision was staged by Robinson, its insured, it would not be obligated to provide coverage under the policy regardless of whether Pontoon was an innocent third party … . Nationwide Gen Ins v Pontoon, 2014 NY Slip OP 09001, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349

The Second Department determined that the insurer's (Quincy's) failure to notify the insured of a change in a the coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy (in violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) supported a cause of action for deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349. Quincy had notified the insured's broker of the change, but not the insured:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349 are that the defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented, and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deceptive act or practice … . ” Intent to defraud and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not elements of the statutory claim” … . Conduct has been held to be sufficiently consumer-oriented to satisfy the statute where it constituted a standard or routine practice that was “consumer-oriented in the sense that [it] potentially affect[ed] similarly situated consumers” … .

Here, Quincy's submissions failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that its failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Insurance Law § 3425(d) did not constitute a deceptive business practice. Quincy, in its submissions, admitted that it sought to change and reduce coverage by eliminating a particular endorsement to its New York homeowners' insurance policies, including the plaintiffs' insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs' renewal of the policy, Quincy eliminated the endorsement, but failed to notify those insureds of that change in the manner prescribed by the Insurance Law. Moreover, the plaintiffs, who continued to seek full replacement costs in relation to the fire that destroyed their home, were clearly injured by the lack of notice that they were underinsured. Valentine v Quincy Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08984, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After Learning Payment Was Not Authorized by the Holder of the Account from Which the Money Was Transferred—Plaintiff, Which Had Provided the Fake Buyer with Products Ostensibly Purchased with the Funds Initially Transferred to Plaintiff’s Account, Was Not Entitled to Those Funds Because the Funds Had Been Properly Returned by the Defendant Banks Pursuant to the Wire-Transfer Provisions of the UCC

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant banks (TD Bank and Eastern Bank) was properly granted.  Plaintiff, Golden Door, sold watches worth $71,000 to a fake buyer after the money was wired from the ostensible buyer's (MHIC's) account at defendant Eastern Bank to plaintiff's account in defendant TD Bank.  It turned out that the wire transfer was the result of the “hacking” of ostensible buyer's account. When Eastern Bank was notified the buyer had not authorized the transfer, Eastern Bank notified TD Bank which then reversed the transfer of the $71,000. Plaintiff sued for the $71,000.  The Second Department found that, under the wire-transfer provisions of the UCC, plaintiff was not entitled to the $71,000:

Under Article 4-A, a funds transfer is initiated by a “payment order,” which is an instruction from the person making the payment (the “originator”), to a “receiving” or “intermediary” bank to transfer the funds to the bank account of the beneficiary, normally in the “beneficiary's bank” (UCC 4-A-103, 4-A-104). Here, MHIC was indicated as the originator, Eastern Bank was the receiving bank, Golden Door was the beneficiary, and TD Bank was the beneficiary's bank.

Under Article 4-A, “a beneficiary's bank accepts a payment order when the bank pays the beneficiary by crediting the beneficiary's account and notifying the beneficiary of the right to withdraw the credit” (…see UCC 4-A-209[a]; 4-A-405[1][i]). Once the beneficiary's bank accepts the payment order, a cancellation of the order is not effective unless the beneficiary's bank agrees and, as relevant here, the order was unauthorized in the first place (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b]…). “If the payment order is cancelled . . . the beneficiary's bank is entitled to recover from the beneficiary any amount paid to the beneficiary to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). Once cancelled, “the acceptance [of the payment order] is nullified and no person has any right or obligation based on the acceptance” (UCC 4-A-211[5], Comment 4, Case #1).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established prima facie that the cancellation of the payment order was effective. The defendants submitted evidence that TD Bank, the beneficiary's bank, agreed to the cancellation, and that MHIC had not authorized the transfer (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b], Comment 1). The defendants further established prima facie that TD Bank was authorized to recover payment from Golden Door in the amount of the cancelled transfer in accordance with the “law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). The applicable doctrine of restitution is the “discharge for value” rule. Under that rule, ” [a] creditor of another or one having a lien on another's property who has received from a third person any benefit in discharge of the debt or lien, is under no duty to make restitution therefor, although the discharge was given by mistake of the transferor as to his interests or duties, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the transferor's mistake'” (…quoting Restatement of Restitution § 14[1]). Although Golden Door had made no misrepresentation, the defendants established that Golden Door had notice that the transfer from MHIC was given by “mistake,” or was unauthorized. Specifically, the transfer order indicated that the transferor was MHIC, which was not Golden Door's “customer,” was not indebted to Golden Door, and had no apparent relationship with it or its “customer” (see UCC 4-A-211, Comment 4, Cases #2-#4…). Accordingly, Golden Door could not, under the discharge for value rule, retain the funds that had been transferred into its account. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, Golden Door failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Golden Door V & I Inc v TD Bank, 2014 NY Slip Op 08960, 2nd Dept 12-24-14


 

/ ,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

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