You are here: / Where Extrinsic Evidence Indicates a Party’s Interpretation of Ambiguous...

Search Results

/ ,

Where Extrinsic Evidence Indicates a Party’s Interpretation of Ambiguous Language Is the Only Fair Interpretation, Summary Judgment Is Appropriate

In finding that the meaning of a title insurance policy was properly determined as a matter of law, the Second Department explained the complicated analytical criteria:

Generally, courts determine the rights and obligations of parties under insurance contracts based on the specific language of the policies … . However, where the language is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, and thus ambiguous, “the parties to the policy may, as an aid in construction, submit extrinsic evidence of their intent at the time of contracting” … . “[I]f the tendered extrinsic evidence is itself conclusory and will not resolve the equivocality of the language of the contract, the issue remains a question of law for the court” … . “Under those circumstances, the ambiguity must be resolved against the insurer which drafted the contract” … .

“It is only where such evidence does not resolve the equivocality that the ambiguity must be resolved against the insurer” … . Where there is ambiguity and the “determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then such determination is to be made by the jury” … . Where, however, a party’s extrinsic evidence demonstrates “not only that its interpretation is reasonable but that it is the only fair interpretation,” summary judgment is appropriate … . Demetrio v Stewart Tit Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00720, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Denial of Coverage Based Upon Noncooperation of the Insured Party Explained/Default Judgment In Favor of Defendant American States Re: Other Defendants Did Not Preclude, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, Plaintiff’s Direct Action Against American States

The Second Department determined a question of fact existed about whether the “noncooperation-of-an-insured-party” rationale for denying coverage applied.  The court noted that a prior default judgment in favor of defendant American States re: other defendants did not preclude, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, plaintiff’s direct action against American States:

American States prevailed in that declaratory judgment action against the defendants in the underlying action which determined that American States is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendants in the underlying action. However, those orders were entered upon the underlying defendants’ default, and thus, did not collaterally estop the plaintiff from bringing the instant, direct action against American States pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) … . …

The noncooperation of an insured party in the defense of an action is a ground upon which an insurer may deny coverage, and may be asserted by the insurer as a defense in an action on a judgment by an injured party pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) … . In order to establish a proper disclaimer based on its insured’s alleged noncooperation, an insurer is required to demonstrate that “it acted diligently in seeking to bring about its insured’s cooperation, that its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain its insured’s cooperation, and that the attitude of its insured, after the cooperation of its insured was sought, was one of wilful [sic] and avowed obstruction'” … . The insurer has a “heavy” burden of proving lack of cooperation … . Here, the submissions of the American States defendants were insufficient to sustain their prima facie burden on the cross motion for summary judgment, with respect to American States. West St Props LLC v American States Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00751, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/

Right-to-Intervene Criteria Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

The Second Department described the criteria for intervening in an action (criteria not met here):

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right, “1. when a statute of the state confers an absolute right to intervene; or 2. when the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment; or 3. when the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a]). Additionally, upon a timely motion, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, “when a statute of the state confers a right to intervene . . . or when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party (see id.).  Wells Fargo Bank NA v Mazzara, 2015 NY Slip Op 00750, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/

Cause of Action Based Upon a Legal Theory Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Action Stemming from the Same Events Precluded by the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed a cause of action which originated from the same events which gave rise to a prior action and merely relied on a different legal theory than was raised in the prior action.  The court explained the criteria for the application of the doctrine of res judicata:

” Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding'” … . “Res judicata thus operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding'” … .

The third cause of action asserted herein could have been raised in a prior action …, as it originates from the same events which gave rise to the prior action, and merely relies upon a different legal theory. Pedote v STP Assoc LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00738, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/

Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4)—Action Was Not “Sufficiently Similar” to Pending Action

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed an action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4) because the dismissed action was not “sufficiently similar” to a pending action.  The initial personal injury action stemmed from alleged Labor Law violations. The second action, alleging a fraudulent conveyance, stemmed from the defendant’s transfer of the property where plaintiff was injured:

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action … . A court may dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same … . It is not necessary that “the precise legal theories presented in the first action also be presented in the second action” … . The critical element is whether both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs … .

Here, the personal injury action and the instant action do not arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs, and do not seek the same or substantially similar relief. The personal injury action arises from the defendants’ alleged breach of Labor Law § 200 and the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace, and their alleged violations of the safety requirements imposed on property owners by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The sole relief sought in the personal injury action is a money judgment for damages. The instant action arises from the post-accident transfer …, and the plaintiff seeks various relief authorized by Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, including setting aside the alleged fraudulent conveyance. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the claims asserted in both actions are not “sufficiently similar” to warrant dismissal simply because the plaintiff raised an argument pertaining to constructive fraud as a basis for the imposition of liability … for violation of Labor Law § 240(1) in the personal injury action. Jadron v 10 Leonard St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00730, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/

Shareholder Should Not Have Been Awarded Damages Individually Re: a Derivative Cause of Action

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred in awarding damages to a shareholder individually because the shareholder had sued on behalf of the closely held corporation:

A shareholder of a corporation, even of a closely held corporation, may not recover in his or her individual capacity for wrongs committed against the corporation, and any recovery obtained pursuant to a derivative cause of action asserted by a shareholder is obtained for the benefit of the injured corporation … . Sakow v Waldman, 2015 NY Slip Op 00742, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/ ,

Suppression Should Not Have Been Granted Because the Officer Who Made the Vehicle Stop Had Died/Hearsay Evidence from a Police Officer Who Arrived at the Scene After the Stop and Spoke to the Deceased Officer Was Admissible at the Suppression Hearing

The Second Department determined the hearsay testimony of a police officer (Schmidt) who learned of the reason for the stop of defendant’s vehicle from another officer (Olivieri) was admissible in the suppression hearing.  Supreme Court had suppressed the evidence stemming from the stop because the officer who made the stop (Olivieri) had died and could not therefore be “confronted” at the hearing:

Pursuant to statute, “hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact” at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60[4]…). Thus, “[a] police witness at a suppression hearing may establish probable cause by personal knowledge, as well as by information supplied by fellow officers” … . Where the knowledge of the imparting officer is based on his or her first-hand observations, the People are not required to produce that officer at the suppression hearing … .

Here, Schmidt’s testimony established that the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was lawful, based upon the first-hand observations of Olivieri, which were imparted to Schmidt … . Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest also was established through Olivieri’s observations, as imparted to Schmidt, together with Schmidt’s own personal observations … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) does not require a different result. In Crawford, the Supreme Court considered whether particular evidence admitted at trial violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see id. at 38…), and did not address the admission of hearsay evidence in pretrial suppression hearings … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00786, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff-Employee Indicated Employer’s Sexual Advances Were “Unwelcome”–Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Complaint Reversed

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that there were questions of fact whether plaintiff-employee indicated by her conduct that defendant’s (Cohen’s) sexual advances toward plaintiff were “unwelcome” and whether plaintiff’s termination was for a non-discriminatory reason.  Supreme Court erred when it focused on whether plaintiff participated in sexual activity “voluntarily:”

The New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296, et seq.) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107) both make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the sex of any individual (Executive Law § 296[1][a]; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1][a]). Moreover, under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices (see Executive Law § 296[1][e], [7]; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[7]).

To establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a retaliation case commenced pursuant to either the New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, “a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual” … . To prevail on a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, a defendant must demonstrate “either plaintiff’s failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for [the] challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether [its] explanations were pretextual” … . With respect to a cause of action alleging discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, where a defendant moves for summary judgment and has ” put forward evidence of one or more nondiscriminatory motivations for its actions,’ a court should turn to the question of whether the defendant has sufficiently met its burden, as the moving party, of showing that, based on the evidence before the court and drawing all reasonable inferences’ in the plaintiff’s favor, no jury could find the defendants liable under any evidentiary route” … . * * *

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants, which included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether Cohen used his position to intimidate her into the relationship and as to whether the sexual conduct on his part was, in fact, “unwelcome.” In this regard, the plaintiff, at her deposition, consistently testified that the sexual relations were not welcome, that she felt as though she had no other choice but to participate, and that when she complained to Cohen, he made it very clear that there would be repercussions if she did not participate. In considering this testimony, we recognize that the question of whether particular conduct was “unwelcome” presents “difficult problems of proof and turns largely on credibility determinations committed to the trier of fact” … . The Supreme Court appears to have focused on the voluntariness of the plaintiff’s participation in the claimed sexual episodes. However, “the fact that sex-related conduct was voluntary,’ in the sense that the [plaintiff] was not forced to participate against her will, is not a defense,” and the “correct inquiry is whether [the plaintiff] by her conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome” … . Overbeck v Alpha Animal Health PC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00736, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/

Access to Financial Support from Family Properly Considered In Calculating Father’s Child Support and Child Care Obligations

The Second Department explained that Family Court properly imputed income to the father based upon access to financial support from his family:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)(iv), the Family Court is entitled to impute income to a parent based upon various factors, including “money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends” (Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][5][iv][D]). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father has access to, and receives, financial support from his family. Considering, among other things, the father’s employment history, his monthly expenses, and the resources provided to him by his own father over a number of years, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in imputing income to the father in the sum of $30,000 per year for the purpose of calculating his child support and child care obligations … . Matter of Recco v Turbak, 2015 NY Slip Op 00770, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers Re: a Bench Trial Described

The Second Department determined Supreme Court (in a bench trial) had properly pierced the corporate veil to find the owner personally liable.  The court described the criteria for piercing the corporate veil and noted that, in reviewing a bench trial, the appellate court has the same fact-finding powers as the trial court:

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” … .

“The general rule . . . is that a corporation exists independently of its owners, who are not personally liable for its obligations, and that individuals may incorporate for the express purpose of limiting their liability” … . The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, allowing the imposition of individual liability on owners for the obligations of their corporation “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity” … . “A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over it in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff” … . AZTE Inc v Auto Collection Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00711, 2nd Dept 1–28-15

 

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