You are here: / Criteria for Deceptive Business Practices Explained

Search Results

/ ,

Criteria for Deceptive Business Practices Explained

The Fourth Department determined that the defendant's (One Source's) violation of General Business Law 349 had been proven. Defendant had misled car-purchasers by informing them they were required to purchase an extended service contract or warranty as a condition of a loan.  Only at the closing of loan were the purchasers informed they could waive the warranty.  The court explained the elements of a section 349 violation:

Pursuant to section 349, deceptive business acts or practices are unlawful, and a ” [petitioner] under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the [consumer] suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act' ” … . With respect to the second element, an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way is defined as a representation or omission “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … . Contrary to respondents' contention, we conclude that petitioner established that second element, i.e., that One Source's actions were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. One Source's actions were misleading in a material way in light of the fact that the consumers at issue were dependent on One Source to find them the financing to purchase their vehicles, and they were willing to pay for a warranty in order to obtain their loans. People v One Source Networking Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01068, 4th Dept 2-4-15


/ ,

Evidence Did Not Support Finding of Neglect Based Upon Mother’s Mental Illness and Failure to Take Medication

The Second Department determined the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate mother's neglect based upon her mental illness and her failure to take medication:

” A finding of neglect may be predicated upon proof that a child's physical, mental, or emotional condition is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of a parent's mental illness'” (… see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]). “However, proof of mental illness alone will not support a finding of neglect'; the evidence must establish a causal connection between the parent's condition, and actual or potential harm to the children'” … .

Here, based on our evaluation of the record, and giving deference to the Family Court's credibility determinations …, we find that the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a causal connection between the mother's mental illness and actual or potential harm to the subject child … . * * *

“Proof of ongoing mental illness and the failure to follow through with aftercare medication, which results in a parent's inability to care for her child in the foreseeable future, is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect” … . Here, although there was evidence that the mother stopped taking medication after her discharge from Beth Israel, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the mother was unable to care for the child during that period. Matter of Nialani T, 2015 NY Slip Op 00894, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


/ ,

Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The court explained the plaintiff's standard of proof when the existence of a hazardous condition (here a slippery substance on stairs) is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence.  The court noted that a defendant's self-serving affidavit (claiming that nothing was spilled on the stairs) was not sufficient to warrant summary judgment in defendant's favor:

“To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a case based on a hazardous condition, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition” … . “To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff's proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote' or technical' to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant's negligence than by some other agency” … . Quiroz v 176 N Main LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00863, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


/ ,

“Big Apple” Map Provided City with Written Notice of a Tree-Well Defect in a Sidewalk/Notice of Claim Was Sufficient Even Though It Did Not Specifically Mention the Tree-Well Defect

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the city in a tree well/sidewalk slip and fall case.  The “Big Apple map” provided the city with notice of the defect alleged to be the cause of plaintiff's fall.  The notice of claim was sufficient to notify the city of the defect in question, even though the tree well was not specifically mentioned in the notice:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) limits the City's duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects . . . [of] which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” … . Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which a plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City … .  * * *

Here, the Big Apple map provided the City with notice that the subject tree well was unprotected and potentially hazardous. Indeed, the key to the Big Apple map, which has been in the City's possession since 2003, is entitled, in relevant part, “Survey Of Pavement Defects Sufficient To Cause A Hazard.” Moreover, it is the failure to “fence” or place a barrier around the tree well, which is shown on the Big Apple map, that formed the basis of the plaintiff's cause of action. Therefore, the City did not meet its burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff's notice of claim precluded her from asserting a theory of liability based on the absence of a fence or barrier around the tree well. The purpose of the notice of claim is “[t]o enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim” … . Here, the plaintiff's notice of claim alleged a defective condition located adjacent to P.S. 146 on 98th Street, between 158th and 159th Avenues, in Queens. The City does not argue that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced based on the description provided by the plaintiff in the notice of claim … . Nor has it articulated how investigating a defective sidewalk would differ from investigating an unsecured tree well at the same location. Moreover, any discrepancy as to the cause of the plaintiff's fall was remedied by the plaintiff's hearing testimony. Bartels v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00836, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


/ , ,

School’s Duty to Supervise the Child Had Ended When the Child Was Struck by a Car Just Outside the School Building/City Is Immune from Liability for Alleged Negligent Traffic Control—No “Special Relationship” with the Child

The Second Department determined the school's duty to supervise plaintiff's child had ended at the time the child was struck by a car outside the school building.  Plaintiff had already taken custody of the child at the time.  In addition, the court determined that the city was immune from liability for the alleged negligent traffic control because no special relationship between the city and the child existed:

A school's duty to supervise the students in its charge arises from its physical custody over them … . The rationale underlying this duty is that when a school takes custody of a child, it deprives the child of the protection of his or her parents or guardian, and thus must give the child the protection of which the child has been deprived .. . For this reason, a school's duty to supervise is generally viewed as being “coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child. When that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child's protection, the school's custodial duty also ceases” … . In support of their motion, the municipal defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they had released the infant to the plaintiff's custody and, thus, he was no longer in the custody of the municipal defendants when the accident occurred.

… A municipal defendant is immune from liability for negligence claims arising from the performance of its governmental functions … . However, there is a “narrow class of cases in which [the courts] have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a special relationship' between the municipality and the claimant” …. “A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . Regulation and control of traffic and public transportation “is the exercise of an unquestioned governmental function” … . Here, the municipal defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not owe the infant a special duty and, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Giresi v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00844, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


/

Late Motion for Judicial Approval of a Settlement Properly Denied—Delay In Seeking Approval Was Due to Plaintiff’s Own Fault or Neglect

The Second Department determined plaintiff's late motion for judicial approval of a settlement was properly denied because the delay in making the motion was due to the plaintiff's own fault or neglect:

“Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5), an employee who is the recipient of workers' compensation benefits may compromise a third-party claim arising out of the same accident without prejudice to the continued payment of benefits upon obtaining either the written consent of the compensation carrier before the compromise, or judicial approval of the compromise within three months after it” … . “However, a judicial order may be obtained nunc pro tunc approving a previously agreed-upon settlement, even where the application for approval is sought more than three months after the date of settlement, provided that the employee can establish that (1) the amount of the settlement is reasonable, (2) the delay in applying for a judicial order of approval was not caused by the employee's fault or neglect, and (3) the insurance carrier was not prejudiced by the delay” … .

A proceeding for approval, nunc pro tunc, of the settlement of a third-party action pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) is directed to the discretion of the court … . Here, the delay in seeking judicial approval was due to the plaintiff's own fault or neglect. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion … . Lobban v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 00850, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


/ ,

Judge’s Failure to Question Prospective Juror Re: the Juror’s Possible Bias In Favor of Police Officers Was Reversible Error/Prosecutor’s Suggestion in Summation that Simply Being a Defendant Is Evidence of Guilt Was Grounds for Reversal As Well

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not further question a juror who indicated bias in favor of police officers.  [The judge, in denying defense counsel's “for cause” challenge, erroneously indicated it was defense counsel's role to question the juror about the juror's ability to be fair.]  In addition, the prosecutor's suggestion in summation that simply being a defendant is evidence of guilt was grounds for reversal:

Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial.” Upon making this type of challenge, “a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about [his] ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that [he] can be fair” … . The CPL “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic words” …, but challenged jurors “must in some form give unequivocal assurance that they can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Those who have given “less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality . . . must be excused” and “[i]f there is any doubt about a prospective juror's impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” … .

In this case, the prospective juror gave a response that was uncertain at best, stating that he did not know and “couldn't say” whether he would be able to judge an officer's credibility as opposed to a civilian witness. * * * Given this ambiguity … it was incumbent upon the trial court to take corrective action to elicit unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror that he would be able to reach a verdict based solely upon the court's instructions on the law … . …

…[T]he prosecutor's summation remarks regarding reasonable doubt also constituted reversible error, as these remarks suggested that the jury should convict based on facts extraneous to the trial. Specifically, the comments “linked [the defendant] to every defendant who turned out to be guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment,” thus inviting the jury to consider his status as a defendant as “evidence tending to prove his guilt” … . Moreover, the prosecutor's comments tended to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for the verdict. These remarks exceed the bounds of permissible advocacy. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 00797, 1st Dept 2-3-15


/ ,

Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified as a Search Incident to Arrest Unless the Searching Officer(s) Intended to Arrest Based Upon the Existing Probable Cause—Here the Officers Did Not Intend to Arrest the Defendant for Littering and the Search Was Therefore Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest

The Third Department determined the search of defendant's backpack was illegal and suppressed the weapon found. Although the defendant had discarded a cup while the officers were watching him, providing grounds for arrest for littering, the officers did not intend to arrest the defendant for littering and in fact did not charge the defendant with littering.  Therefore the search of the backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest:

Based on the recent Court of Appeals decision in People v Reid (__ NY3d __ 2014, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759 [2014]), which holds that there must be either an actual or intended arrest for the offense justifying the search, we now reverse.

It is well recognized that the police may search the person or area within the immediate control of any individual who is lawfully placed under arrest … . The warrantless search incident to arrest advances the twin objectives of ensuring the safety of law enforcement and the prevention of evidence tampering or destruction by a suspect. It is not particularly significant whether a search precedes an arrest or vice versa, so long as the two events occur in a nearly contemporaneous manner… . Based on Reid, however, it is now clear that the police must either make an arrest or intend to make an arrest at the time of the search in order for the search to be considered lawful … . The intent to arrest for the offense justifying the search must be present even if a defendant is ultimately arrested for a different offense … .

In Reid, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer after he was observed driving erratically. Based on the defendant's disheveled appearance and odd responses to questions, the officer ordered him out of the car, searched his person, and uncovered a knife in his pocket. Although it was undisputed that the officer's observations gave him probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated, the officer testified at the suppression hearing that he had no intention of arresting the defendant at the time he was initially stopped and searched. The officer also explained that it was not until discovery of the knife that he decided to arrest the defendant. In declining to uphold the search as incident to the defendant's arrest, the Court of Appeals observed that “but for the search,” the arrest “would never have taken place (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *6),” concluding that it was irrelevant that an arrest for DWI could have been made prior to the search. The Court explained that the search must be “incident to an actual arrest, not just probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not” (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *4). This necessarily requires that, at the time the search is undertaken, an arrest has either been made or the officer has already formulated the intent to effectuate an arrest.

While in this case the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for littering (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-118…]), defendant was not arrested for that offense. Nor did either of the officers testify at the suppression hearing that they harbored any intent to arrest defendant until they discovered the gun. According to officer Arslanbeck, it was only after they discovered a weapon in defendant's backpack that a decision to arrest him was made. Without an actual arrest or the formulation of an intent to arrest defendant for littering prior to frisking his bag, the search cannot be justified as having been incident to defendant's arrest … . People v Magnum, 2015 NY Slip Op 00796, 1st Dept 2-3-15


/

Judicial Approval of a Settlement with Third Parties Was Properly Granted After the Expiration of the Statutory Period (Nunc Pro Tunc)—Delay In Seeking Approval Was Not Due to Injured Worker’s Fault or Neglect/Workers’ Compensation Carrier’s Consent to a Settlement Is Required Even Where the Settlement Is Greater than the Amount of the Benefits Received/Absent the Consent of the Carrier, Judicial Approval Is Required

The Second Department determined judicial approval of a settlement with third parties after the statutory period had passed was properly granted nunc pro tunc.  The injured worker received about $189,000 in workers' compensation benefits and eventually settled with third parties for $2,000,000. The workers' compensation carrier sued to collect on its lien.  The court noted that, despite the language of Workers' Compensation Law 29(5), the workers' compensation carrier's consent to a settlement is required even if the amount of the settlement is more than the amount of the benefits. In the absence of such consent (absent here), judicial approval is required (properly granted here):

Workers Compensation Law § 29(5) provides, in pertinent part:

“A compromise of any such cause of action by the employee or his dependents at an amount less than the compensation provided for by this chapter shall be made only with the written approval of . . . the person, association, corporation, or insurance carrier liable to pay the same. However, written approval . . . need not be obtained if the employee or his dependents obtain a compromise order from a justice of the court in which the third-party action was pending. …

.

“If the third-party action is on trial at the time the offer of settlement which is acceptable to the plaintiff, is made and either such written approval or order as provided in this subdivision is required, the action may be marked settled subject to the securing of such written approval or such order. If such written approval or such order is not subsequently secured within three months the action shall be restored to the head of the trial day calendar” (emphasis added).

Section 29(5) was enacted to protect an insurance carrier from paying a deficiency between the settlement and the amount paid to the injured party … . As originally enacted, the provision required the consent of the insurance carrier. However, “in many instances, the carrier arbitrarily refused to give its consent to a proposed settlement regardless of how fair or generous the proposal might have been,” prompting the Legislature to amend the provision to provide that consent need not be obtained where there is judicial approval of the settlement … .

Although there is case law which indicates that approval pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) is not required if the amount of Workers' Compensation benefits received is less than the amount of the settlement …, the Court of Appeals has held that even where the settlement constitutes 100% of the policy limits, approval pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) is required in order for the claimant to continue to receive Workers' Compensation benefits in the future …. Any settlement is potentially less than the benefits provided by the Workers' Compensation Law (see 1-7 New York Workers' Compensation Handbook § 7.01[5] [2014]), especially where, as here, the claimant is seeking a permanent partial disability classification from the Workers' Compensation Board, which could mean that he would be entitled to benefits indefinitely.

“[A] judicial order may be obtained nunc pro tunc approving a previously agreed-upon settlement, even where the application for approval is sought more than three months after the date of settlement, provided that the employee can establish that (1) the amount of the settlement is reasonable, (2) the delay in applying for a judicial order of approval was not caused by the employee's fault or neglect, and (3) the insurance carrier was not prejudiced by the delay” … . Fidelity & Guar Ins Co v Digiacomo, 2015 NY Slip OP 00842, 2nd Dept 2-2-15


/ ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received

The Third Department explained when the four-month statute of limitations begins to run when the triggering event is a policy memorandum issued by an administrative agency:

…[B]oth the statute and case law make clear that the statute of limitations period for a CPLR article 78 proceeding begins to run when “the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217 [1]…). Such determination, in turn, “becomes ‘final and binding’ when two requirements are met: completeness (finality) of the determination and exhaustion of administrative remedies. First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be . . . significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . In the context of quasi-legislative determinations such as the one at issue here, actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock; rather, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … . Matter of School Adm’rs Assn of NY State v New York State Department of Civ Serv, 2015 NY Slip Op 00676, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

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