You are here: / Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Controversy—Defendant Entitled...

Search Results

/ , ,

Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Controversy—Defendant Entitled to Have Her Examined by a Psychiatrist

The First Department, in the context of an action for retaliatory discharge, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, determined plaintiff had placed her mental condition in controversy and defendant was entitled to have plaintiff examined by a psychiatrist.  Plaintiff had alleged “extreme mental and physical anguish,” “severe anxiety,” eczema, hair pulling, depression and suicidal feelings:

Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that defendant had demonstrated that plaintiff had placed her mental condition “in controversy” by alleging unusually severe emotional distress, so that a mental examination by a psychiatrist is warranted to enable defendant to rebut her emotional distress claims (CPLR 3121[a]…). Although plaintiff asserts that an examination would be unduly intrusive into private matters, she did not propose conditions or seek a protective order limiting the scope or extent of the examination … . Clark v Allen & Overy LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 01398, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

/

Defendant Should Not Have Been Denied His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury Because He Struck Out Waiver Provisions Not Required by Statute

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was denied his right to testify before the grand jury.  The waiver presented to the defendant as a prerequisite to his testifying included the provisions required by statute, plus three additional provisions.  The defendant struck out the additional provisions and signed the waiver.  Because the defendant struck out the three additional provisions, he was not allowed to testify by the district attorney.  The Court of Appeals held that the signed waiver was sufficient, without the struck-out provisions, because it included all the provisions required by statute.  Therefore, defendant should have been allowed to testify:

CPL 190.50 (5) provides that a defendant must be permitted to testify before a grand jury if he serves upon the People a notice of intent to testify, appears at the designated time and place, and signs and submits a waiver of immunity pursuant to CPL 190.45. The parties do not dispute that defendant complied with the first two requirements of CPL 190.50 (5). Rather, the issue presented on this appeal is whether defendant complied with the third requirement of signing a waiver of immunity. CPL 190.45 (1) provides:

“A waiver of immunity is a written instrument subscribed by a person who is or is about to become a witness in a grand jury proceeding, stipulating that he [or she] waives his privilege against self-incrimination and any possible or prospective immunity to which he [or she] would otherwise become entitled, pursuant to section 190.40 . . . . “

The People presented defendant with a waiver of immunity form that included the provisions required by CPL 190.45, and three additional provisions that are not required under that statute. * * *

Defendant’s statutory right to testify before the grand jury was violated. This right “‘must be scrupulously protected'” … . Even with the deletions made by defendant, he complied with the waiver of immunity as required under CPL 190.45; that is, he left intact the provisions that stated he waived his privilege against self-incrimination and any immunity to which he would be entitled. Defendant was only required to meet the requirements of the statute, and nothing more to make a valid written waiver of immunity. The statute is clear, straightforward and concise. When a defendant meets the waiver of immunity requirements of CPL 190.45, he or she must be permitted to testify. People v Brumfield, 2015 NY Slip Op 01377, CtApp 2-17-15

 

/

Harassment Not a Lesser Included Offense of Attempted Assault Third Degree

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reaffirmed prior case law and held that harassment is not a lesser included offense of attempted assault in the third degree, even where both offenses are based on the same conduct. Here defendant was accused of deliberately bumping into the complainant as she was coming up the stairs.  She fell back but was not injured because her husband was directly behind her on the stairwell.  The defendant was convicted of both offenses and appealed arguing that the harassment conviction could not stand because it was “included” in the attempted assault conviction. The Court of Appeals determined it was possible (in the abstract) to be convicted of one of the two offenses without being convicted of the other because of the different intent requirements—harassment requires the intent to annoy, assault requires the intent to injure:

To establish that a count is a lesser included offense in accordance with CPL 1.20 (37), a defendant must establish “that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater offense without at the same time committing the lesser” … . Such determination requires the court to compare the statutes in the abstract, without reference to any factual particularities of the underlying prosecution … . Thus, the defendant must show that the offense “is an offense of lesser grade or degree and that in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing the lesser offense” … . Since defendant cannot establish that in all circumstances it is impossible to commit attempted assault without also committing harassment, his challenge to his conviction on both these counts fails as a matter of law.

Our comparison of attempted assault and harassment establishes that these counts do not share a common intent element. To be guilty of attempted assault in the third degree requires proof that defendant “engage[d] in conduct which tends to effect the commission of [assault],” with the “intent to cause physical injury to another” (Penal Law §§ 110, 120.00 [1]). A conviction for harassment requires that defendant “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another . . . [,] shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same” (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). People v Repanti, 2015 NY Slip Op 01375, CtApp 2-17-15

 

/

Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not make inquiries to ensure jurors could be fair before denying defense counsel’s “for cause” challenges.  The jurors said they needed to hear “both sides of the story” indicating they would expect the defendant to testify.  The judge failed to immediately instruct the jury that the defendant was under no obligation to testify:

The court erred in denying, without further inquiry, defendant’s challenges for cause to three prospective jurors, against whom defendant ultimately exercised peremptory challenges. In response to defense counsel’s questioning during jury selection, the panelists at issue expressed, in one form or other, that it would be difficult for them to decide the case if they did not “hear from” defendant or hear his “side of the story.” The court did not instruct the panel on the People’s exclusive burden of proof and a defendant’s right not to testify, and it did not elicit from the panelists at issue “some unequivocal assurance” that they would be “able to reach a verdict based entirely upon the court’s instructions on the law” … .

A prospective juror’s statement to the effect that it is “important to hear both sides” raises the “appear[ance of] assertion of a defendant’s obligation to present a defense” … . Here, although the court had not yet instructed the jurors on the relevant legal principles, defense counsel framed several of her questions in terms of the “right to remain silent.” Further, counsel’s several other attempts to place her questioning in the context of the legal instructions the jurors would receive were cut short by the court, which indicated that it would instruct the jurors “at the appropriate time.” However, the circumstances called for a prompt instruction on the relevant principles regarding the burden of proof and a defendant’s right not to testify or present evidence, along with the elicitation of unequivocal assurances that the panelists would follow that charge. People v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 01385, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

/ ,

Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)

The First Department determined the terms of the contract with the construction manager did not afford the manager sufficient control to impose liability under Labor Law 200.  The court further determined the contract did not make the manager an agent for the property owner, such that the manager would be vicariously liable under Labor Law 240 (1) or 246 (1). Plaintiff fell when an elevated plank on which he was standing shifted:

… [T]he CMS (construction management services contra t) specified that [t]he [construction manager] will not supervise, direct, control or have authority over or be responsible for each contractor’s means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto. If it became apparent that the means and methods of construction proposed by the construction contractors would constitute or create a hazard, then the construction manager was required to notify the Commissioner, or . . . his/her duly authorized representative.”

Where a claim under Labor Law § 200 is based on alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, liability cannot be imposed on an owner or general contractor unless it is shown that it exercised some supervisory control over the work … . Defendants established that under the CMS they were not obligated to exercise supervisory control over the construction contractor’s means or methods of work, nor did they assume such responsibility … . Although under the CMS the construction manager had some general duties to monitor safety at the work-site, and defendants’ personnel were on site on a daily basis, these general supervisory duties are insufficient to form a basis for the imposition of liability … .

Defendants also established that they were not the property owner’s statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) such that they should be held vicariously liable for plaintiff’s injuries …. The CMS did not confer upon the construction manager the right to exercise supervisory control over the individual contractors, nor were defendants authorized to stop the work if their personnel observed an unsafe practice … . The construction manager was only obligated to notify the project owner or its duly authorized representative of such a situation. DaSilva v Haks Engrs, 2015 NY Slip Op 01380, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

/ , , ,

First Responder, a NYC Police Officer, Was Entitled to the World Trade Center Presumption that Her Illness, Fibromyalgia, Was Caused by Environmental Exposure at the Site of the 2001 Collapse of the World Trade Center

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined a NYC police officer was entitled to the World Trade Center (WTC) presumption that her illness, fibromyalgia, was caused by her exposure at the site of the World Trade Center collapse in 2001.  The officer was therefore eligible for accidental disability retirement (ADR):

Administrative Code § 13-252.1 provides that “any condition or impairment of health … caused by a qualifying World Trade Center condition” as defined in the Retirement and Social Security Law “shall be presumptive evidence that it was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident … unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence” (§ 13-252.1[1][a]…). “Qualifying World Trade Center condition” is defined to include, among other conditions, “[n]ew onset diseases resulting from exposure as such diseases occur in the future including cancer, asbestos-related disease, heavy metal poisoning, and musculoskeletal disease” (§ 2 [36][c][v] [emphasis added]). * * *

Here, the evidence shows that petitioner did not have fibromyalgia before September 11, 2001, and that she developed disabling fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome in the wake of her WTC exposure.

Because it was “caused by a qualifying [WTC] condition,” petitioner’s fibromyalgia is presumed to have been “incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by [her] own willful negligence, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence” (Administrative Code § 13-252.1[1][a]). Respondents bear the burden of showing that petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the line of duty … . The Board of Trustees’ determination must be supported by credible evidence in the record … .

The significance of the presumption is that, “unlike ordinary ADR claimants, first responders need not submit any evidence — credible or otherwise — of causation to obtain the enhanced benefits” … Thus, the Board “cannot deny ADR benefits by relying solely on the absence of evidence tying the disability to the exposure” … . * * *

…[R]espondents have failed to rebut the presumption that petitioner’s qualifying condition, fibromyalgia, was caused by hazards encountered at the WTC site.  Matter of Sheldon v Kelly, 2015 NY Slip Op 01404, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

 

/

Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc Where Workers’ Compensation Carrier Failed to Timely Seek Consent to a Third-Party Settlement from the Special Funds Conservation Commission

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred when it held that it not have the power to provide judicial consent to a third-party settlement nunc pro tunc.  The Second Department explained the requirements for consent to a third-party settlement where the Special Fund will reimburse the carrier:

The Workers’ Compensation Board has previously determined that where, as here, a carrier failed to timely obtain consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee to settlement of a personal injury action, the carrier may still obtain reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but only if it obtains a nunc pro tunc order from a court directing the Special Funds Conservation Committee to consent … . A request to compel nunc pro tunc consent to a settlement is addressed to the discretion of the Supreme Court … . In seeking a discretionary nunc pro tunc order from a court directing consent to settlement, a petitioner must first establish that (1) the delay in seeking judicial relief was not caused by the petitioner’s fault or neglect; (2) the amount of the settlement was reasonable; and (3) the party whose consent is sought was not prejudiced by the delay … .

Here, because the Supreme Court erroneously believed that it had no power to issue a nunc pro tunc order directing the Special Funds Conservation Committee to consent to settlement, it did not exercise its discretion. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … . Matter of Empire State Transp Workers’ Compensation Trust v Special Funds Conservation Comm, 2015 NY Slip Op 01635, 2nd Dept 2-15-15

 

/ , , ,

Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department determined the cause of action for battery was not duplicative of the cause of action for dental malpractice because it was based upon the allegations consent to the procedure was completely absent or was fraudulently induced.  In addition, there were questions of fact re: the deceptive business practices cause of action:

…[T]he cause of action asserting the complete absence of consent and/or fraudulently induced consent for treatment is properly treated as one for battery rather than for dental malpractice, and it is not duplicative of the dental malpractice cause of action … . “It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . The court properly denied that part of the … defendants’ motion with respect to the battery cause of action, inasmuch as they failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not intentionally engage in offensive bodily contact without plaintiff’s consent”… . …

A cause of action for deceptive business practices under section 349 “requires proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially deceptive or misleading, causing injury” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the … defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the underlying transaction was private in nature and the allegedly deceptive acts were not aimed at the public at large …, we conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raised issues of fact concerning whether the … defendants engaged in a scheme to place profits before patient care, which allegedly included fraudulent practices that impacted consumers at large beyond a particular dentist’s treatment of an individual patient … . Matter of Smiles, 2015 NY Slip Op 01362, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

/

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has an Automatic Lien Re: Recovery by Injured Worker Against Third-Parties

The Fourth Department noted that a workers’ compensation carrier has a lien against any settlement the worker reaches with a third-party:

Where an individual receiving workers’ compensation benefits commences a civil action against a tortfeasor “not in the same employ who caused the injuries giving rise to such benefits . .. , an automatic lien attaches to the proceeds of any recovery, in favor of the [worker’s compensation carrier], for any amounts that the [carrier] has paid in compensation benefits, less litigation costs and amounts received in lieu of first[-]party benefits under the no-fault law” … . Klem v Special Response Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01368, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

 

/ ,

Appeal Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Moot Because the Underlying Order of Protection Had Expired—There Are Significant Negative Consequences of the Issuance of an Order of Protection Which May Affect Appellant in the Future

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the appeal by respondent, who had been found to have committed a Family Offense and against whom an order of protection had been issued, should not have been dismissed as moot because the order of protection had expired.  The Court of Appeals explained that the issuance of the order of protection could have significant negative future consequences for the respondent:

“[i]n general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” …. The ability of an appellate decision to directly and immediately impact the parties’ rights and interests is among the most important aspects of the mootness analysis, for otherwise the analysis might turn on inchoate or speculative matters, making mootness an unwieldy doctrine of a thousand “what ifs.” On the other hand, even where the resolution of an appeal may not immediately relieve a party from a currently ongoing court-ordered penalty or obligation to pay a judgment, the appeal is not moot if an appellate decision will eliminate readily ascertainable and legally significant enduring consequences that befall a party as a result of the order which the party seeks to appeal … .

In this case, the expiration of the order of protection does not moot the appeal because the order still imposes significant enduring consequences upon respondent, who may receive relief from those consequences upon a favorable appellate decision. Because the order of protection on its face strongly suggests that respondent committed a family offense, the court in a future criminal case or Family Court proceeding would likely rely on the order to enhance a sentence or adverse civil adjudication against respondent. ** * *In the face of the substantial probability that the order of protection will prompt severely deleterious future legal rulings against respondent, an appellate decision in his favor will directly vindicate his interest in avoiding that consequence of the order.

The order of protection has other potential legal consequences that render it susceptible to appellate review. For example, in a future legal matter, an opposing party might be permitted to use the order of protection to impeach respondent’s credibility …. . Furthermore, since the order of protection remains in a police computer database, albeit not in an active file (see Executive Law §§ 221-a [1]; 221-a [6]; see also 9 NYCRR 486.2 [g]), respondent may face additional law enforcement scrutiny and an increased likelihood of arrest in certain encounters with the police (see 9 NYCRR 486.3 [n] [declaring information obtained from the database to be relevant to the decision to arrest an individual]).[FN2]

Beyond its legal consequences, the order of protection places a severe stigma on respondent, and he can escape that stigma by prevailing on appeal … . Matter of Veronica P v Radcliff A, 2015 NY Slip Op 01300, CtApp 2-13-15

 

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