You are here: / “Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined

Search Results

/

“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined

The Second Department explained the concept of “equitable subrogation” re: paying the debt of another:

The doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter, so long as the payment was made either under compulsion or for the protection of some interest of the party making the payment, and in discharge of an existing liability” … . Bank of NY v Penalver, 2015 NY Slip Op 01406, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

“Special Exception Permit” Defined

In affirming the denial of an application for a “special exception permit,” the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

A “special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . The burden on an owner in seeking a special exception permit is, therefore, “considerably less” than the burden on an owner seeking a use variance … . An applicant for a special exception permit need only show that it has complied with every legislatively imposed condition on the permitted use … . If the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions set forth in the ordinance, the zoning authority may deny the application … . Matter of Nathan v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 01457, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ ,

Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of action for a constructive trust.  Plaintiff alleged she was 50% owner of rental property ostensibly owned by the defendant, her uncle, based upon her uncle’s sharing the rent with plaintiff’s father (now deceased).  The Second Department noted that there was no allegation of a promise running from the uncle to the plaintiff, an essential element of a constructive trust.  The court further noted that plaintiff’s claim she inherited her father’s 50% interest in the property must be adjudicated as part of her father’s estate proceedings:

In general, a constructive trust may be appropriate in situations ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The necessary elements for imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance on that promise, and (4) unjust enrichment … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s complaint, as amplified by her affidavit, does not adequately plead a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the … property. While a confidential relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant as uncle and niece, the complaint does not allege the existence of a promise between the plaintiff and the defendant, or a transfer in reliance upon a promise between them.

Further, … the plaintiff’s allegations in support of a theory that she should be deemed a 50% owner of the … property do not adequately plead the elements of a constructive trust. Her claim of entitlement is based on the laws of inheritance, and must be pursued by the executor or administrator of her father’s estate … . Igneri v Igneri, 2015 NY Slip Op 01419, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff Breached Contract By Not Being Ready on the Time-of-the-Essence Date and Was Therefore Not Entitled to a Return of the Downpayment/Plaintiff’s “Tortious-Interference-with-Contract” Cause of Action Against Brokers Dismissed Because Sellers Did Not Breach the Contract

In finding plaintiff was not entitled to return of her downpayment because she was not ready to close on the “time-of-the-essence” date, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria, as well as the elements of a tortious interference with contract cause of action:

The sellers established, prima facie, that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the plaintiff lacked a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, the sellers established that they did not breach the contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the return of her down payment … . …

The plaintiff alleged that the brokers tortiously interfered with the contract between the plaintiff and the sellers. The elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract are (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract; and (4) damages … . Here, the brokers established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the third-party, i.e., the sellers, did not breach the contract; rather, the plaintiff breached the contract when she did not appear on the time-of-the-essence closing date. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Iacono v Pilavas, 2015 NY Slip Op 01418, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ ,

No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based” Surgery

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined that a no-fault insurer is not required to pay a “facility fee” for “office-based” surgery:

The No-Fault Law (Insurance Law art 51) and its implementing regulations specifically provide that the operator of a hospital or “ambulatory surgery center,” both of which are established under, and subject to, the comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework of Public Health Law article 28, may properly bill a no-fault carrier for facility fees (see e.g. 10 NYCRR 86-4.40). There is, however, no provision for recovery of a facility fee for the performance of an “office-based surgery” performed in a practice and setting accredited under Public Health Law § 230-d (Public Health Law § 230-d[1][b]). Public Health Law § 230-d, which is not contained in Public Health Law article 28, imposes a substantially more modest level of oversight and regulation than article 28. We hold that, absent express statutory or regulatory authorization, a no-fault insurer is not required to pay a facility fee for office-based surgery performed in a practice and setting accredited under Public Health Law § 230-d. * * *

The facility fee is a charge for the cost of providing “technicians, medical assistant[s] . . . [and] equipment,” such as X-ray and ultrasound equipment, for office-based surgery. Government Empls Ins Co v Avanguard Med Group PLLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01413, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another Patron

In finding summary judgment should have been granted to the defendant bar/restaurant, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria re: liability for the assault by one patron upon another.  A verbal dispute erupted inside the restaurant and plaintiff was struck as the dispute continued in the parking lot:

“Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property” … . “However, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . “Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … .

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action with evidence demonstrating that he could not have reasonably prevented the unforeseeable and unexpected assault upon the injured plaintiff … . Hegerty v Tracy, 2015 Slip Op 001415, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

Parking Lot Concrete Wheel Stop Not a Dangerous Condition

The Second Department noted that a concrete wheel stop in a Costco parking lot is “open and obvious” and is not a dangerous condition.  Costco leased the parking lot from the out-of-possession owner:

While Costco had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous … . Generally ” [a] wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm'” … .

Here, Costco established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the wheel stop over which the plaintiff tripped and fell, which was cement-colored in contrast to the color of the pavement to which it was affixed, was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses … . Miller v Costco Wholesale Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01429, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

/

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined defendant in a slip and fall case was not entitled to summary judgment because it did not demonstrate its lack of constructive notice of the condition (glass debris):

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the] defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s accident and, thus, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with regard to their contention that they lacked constructive notice of the glass debris … . The defendants’ failure to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required the denial of their motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Santiago v HMS Host Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01437, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

Property Owner and Snow Removal Contractor Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Snow/Ice Slip and Fall Case—Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant property owner and defendant snow-removal contractor should have been awarded summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The court outlined the criteria for both causes of action:

” A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence'” … . Thus, to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, a property owner defendant moving for summary judgment is required to establish, prima facie, that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall … . Here, … [the property owner] … established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the transcripts of the deposition testimony of … a maintenance supervisor, and … the snow removal contractor, which established, prima facie, that [the property owner] did not have actual or constructive notice for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy the ice condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall… . * * *

“As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties” … . “However, in Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136, 140), the Court of Appeals recognized that exceptions to this rule apply (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, or (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duty to maintain the subject premises safely” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged [the snow-removal contractor] created the dangerous condition that caused her to slip and fall and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm. In support of its motion, [the contractor] established, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff’s fall … . In opposition …, the plaintiff and [the property owner] failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether [the contractor] created or exacerbated the alleged hazardous condition … . The affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert as to the origin of the hazardous condition was speculative and conclusory and, thus, insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment … . Scott v Avalonbay Communities Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op -1438, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property Owner Could Not Seek Indemnification from Independent Contractor Re: Dangerous Condition on the Property

In the context of a personal injury action based upon a dangerous condition, the Second Department explained the criteria for common law indemnification.  Here the dangerous condition was on property built by an independent contractor, Ambrosio, and owned by Wincoma.  Wincoma did not demonstrate it met the criteria for seeking indemnification from Ambrosio:

“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” … . “If . . . an injury can be attributed solely to negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within the province of [a] contractor, then the contractor may be held liable for indemnification to an owner” … . A party that has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification … .

Here, the record demonstrates that Wincoma, the owner of the property where the subject incident occurred, had actual and constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Moreover, the record shows that the injury cannot be attributed solely to the negligent performance or non-performance of an act solely within the province of Ambrosio, which was an independent contractor … . Ambrosio built the subject structure approximately one year prior to the accident, the structure was built pursuant to specifications provided by Wincoma, and the record shows that those specifications were not “patently defective” … . Consequently, Wincoma could not be entitled to common-law indemnification from Ambrosio for any damages that may be assessed against it in this action … . Rappel v Wincoma Homeowners Assn, 2015 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

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