You are here: / Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining...

Search Results

/ ,

Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining Property Is a Trespass

The First Department determined the fact that a property owner [Madison] is strictly liable for damage to an adjoining property [17 East] caused by excavation did not allow the construction of encroaching structures to prevent excavation-related damage to the adjoining property:

The imposition of absolute liability on parties whose excavation work damages an adjoining property places the burden of protecting adjoining property onto those undertaking the excavation work, and the risks thereof, rather than those whose interest in adjoining property is harmed by the work … . It should not be inferred, however, that the transfer of risk to the owner/excavator carries with it a corresponding unfettered right to excavate more than 10 feet below curb level, or that the adjoining property owner must allow underpinning of its property simply because the neighboring property owner undertaking such excavation bears absolute liability for any damage it may cause to the adjoining property … . * * *

Madison did not have the right, in the absence of an agreement with 17 East Owners, to erect permanent structures extending beyond the property line, either above or below the surface, and thus encroaching on 17 East Owners’ property.  Madison 96th Assoc LLC v 17 E 96th Owners Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07422, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

/

Jury Instruction Re: Presumption Will Was Duly Executed Proper Even In Absence of Self-Attesting Affidavits by the Witnesses

The Third Department determined the absence of self-attesting witness affidavits did not preclude instructing the jury that it could presume the will was duly executed if it found that the witnesses signed their names after the attestation clause:

…”[I]f the attestation clause is full and the signatures genuine and the circumstances corroborative of due execution, and no evidence disproving a compliance in any particular, the presumption may be lawfully indulged that all the provisions of the statute were complied with, although the witnesses are unable to recollect the execution of what took place at the time” … . The attestation clause here states that decedent signed the will in the presence of the attesting witness, declared the document to be her last will and testament, and the witnesses signed the clause at decedent’s request and in her presence, in accord with the statutory criteria (see EPTL 3-2.1). Moreover, both attesting witnesses confirmed that they were present during the ceremony, that they signed the attestation clause and that decedent appeared of sound mind. One witness testified that he observed decedent sign the will, while the other witness, who was a notary public, testified that she would not have served as a witness unless decedent signed the will in her presence. In this context, Surrogate’s Court properly charged the jury regarding the presumption of due execution of the will … . Matter of Shapiro, 2014 NY Slip Op 07395, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

/ , ,

Appeal Board Was Bound by Arbitrator’s Findings of Fact Re: Employee’s Serious Safety-Rule Violations

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board after the Board determined petitioner should not have been terminated for rule violations.  Pursuant to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator had made factual findings re: serious rule violations.  The Third Department explained that the Board was bound by those factual findings:

[“While the Board was free to make ‘independent additional factual findings’ and draw its own independent conclusion as to whether claimant’s behavior rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct for purposes of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, it was also bound by the [arbitrator’s] ‘factual findings regarding claimant’s conduct and [her] conclusion’ that claimant had” committed serious violations of safety rules … . The arbitrator here found that claimant had committed grave violations of the employer’s policies that had endangered the safety of his passengers, violations that were rendered even more egregious by the fact that he had previously been disciplined for similar conduct. The Board, in contrast, inexplicably found that claimant had “substantially complied with” the employer’s policies and made no effort to consider claimant’s behavior within the context of his prior disciplinary history. Thus, as the Board improperly contradicted factual findings of the arbitrator, remittal is necessary for it to “reconsider[] upon appropriate findings” … . Matter of Boretsky …, 2014 NY Slip Op 07414, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Court Review of Agency Action Explained

In affirming the town’s approval of a subdivision plan, the Third Department explained its review powers:

…”[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decisionmaking and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Moreover, “[w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives” … . Matter of Dugan v Liggan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07404, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

/ , ,

How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary Evidence Is Considered Explained/Dismissal of Foreclosure Action Based on Lack of Standing Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits/Striking of a Foreclosure Complaint for Failure to Comply with a Discovery Order Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have a cause of action to discharge his mortgage.  The court explained how a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim is handled when documentary evidence is submitted and considered on the motion.  [With respect to the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant could not institute new foreclosure proceedings against him, the court noted that the dismissal of a foreclosure complaint premised on a lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes, and the striking of a complaint for noncompliance with a discovery order is also not a dismissal on the merits:]

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate … . Caliguri v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 07319, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/

Language In Bill of Particulars Was Necessary to Support Claim for Punitive Damages—Language Should Not Have Been Struck as “Scandalous or Prejudicial”

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s order that plaintiff remove language from the bill of particulars which Supreme Court deemed “scandalous or prejudicial:”

… Counsel … made an oral application, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3024, to strike certain language from the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. … The court … directed the plaintiff to remove allegations that the respondents engaged in “recklessness/reckless, intentional and malicious conduct, gross negligence, blatantly illegal conduct/illegal conduct” (hereinafter the subject language) from her bill of particulars … .  * * *

CPLR 3024(b) provides that “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading.” This rule is applicable to bills of particulars as well … . In reviewing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), “the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action” … . Matters that are unnecessary to the viability of the cause of action and would cause undue prejudice to the defendants should be stricken from the pleading or bill of particulars … .

The causes of action asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint demonstrate that the subject language was relevant to this matter, and necessary to support the pleading based on the punitive damages sought. Irving v Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 07330, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ , , ,

Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained

In the context of a legal  malpractice action, in affirming the denial of motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [defense founded on documentary evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [failure to state a claim]:

A party seeking relief pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that his or her defense is founded upon documentary evidence ” has the burden of submitting documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim'” … . In the instant matter, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, consisting of the orders issued by the Supreme Court in the underlying action, failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations of malpractice or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law in the instant action … . * * *

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court’s function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that, but for the defendants’ negligence, including their failure to assert “appropriate claims against the proper parties, . . . the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim would have succeeded and resulted in a different, better and/or more positive outcome.” Construing the complaint liberally, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, as required, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice … . Tooma v Grossbarth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07347, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ ,

Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained

The Second Department determined an action challenging the award of a contract to a bus company by a school district should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with the service requirements of the Education Law and the CPLR.  The service requirements of Education Law 3813(1) do not apply to disputes involving the public interest as opposed to private rights.  The complaint was not served in accordance with CPLR 311(a)(7) because it was served upon a security guard and not one of the persons designated in the statute.  However, the matter was sent back for a ruling whether an extension of the time for service should be granted pursuant to CPLR 306-b:

In general, the service of a timely notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813(1) is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or proceeding against a school district, and failure to comply with this requirement is a fatal defect … . However, “not all actions and special proceedings have been held to be subject to the prerequisites of subdivision 1 of section 3813. The pertinent distinction is between actions and proceedings which on the one hand seek only enforcement of private rights and duties and those on the other in which it is sought to vindicate a public interest; the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 3813 are applicable as to the former but not as to the latter” … .

Because “[t]he central purposes of New York’s competitive bidding statutes are the (1) protection of the public fisc by obtaining the best work at the lowest possible price; and (2) prevention of favoritism, improvidence, fraud and corruption in the awarding of public contracts” …, a proceeding challenging the award of a contract pursuant to the competitive bidding statutes is a matter in the public interest … . Since the petitioners here do not seek only to enforce their private rights, Education Law § 3813(1) does not apply … . …

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, where service is not made within 120 days of the commencement of the action or proceeding, the matter is subject to dismissal, but the court may, “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.” The Court of Appeals has made clear that these are two distinct standards and that, while “good cause” requires a showing of reasonable diligence, “the interest of justice” has a broader scope, which can encompass late service due to “mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant” … . In determining whether an extension of time is warranted in the interest of justice, a court may consider, inter alia, “diligence, or lack thereof, . . . expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … . Matter of Baumann & Sons Buses Inc v Ossining Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07353, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/

An “Administrative Evaluation,” As Opposed to a Formal Disciplinary Reprimand, Can Remain in a Teacher’s File Even though the Evaluation Was Issued In the Absence of the Formal Notice and Hearing Requirements of Education Law 3020-a

The Second Department determined an “administrative evaluation,” opposed to a formal disciplinary reprimand, could remain in a teacher’s file, even though the evaluation was issued in the absence of the formal notice and hearing procedures mandated by Education Law 3020-a:

In New York, a tenured teacher may not be “disciplined” without being afforded the procedures set forth in Education Law § 3020-a, which requires that formal charges first be referred to the board of education for a determination of probable cause, after which the teacher is given written notice of the charges and an opportunity for a hearing (Education Law § 3020; see Education Law § 3020-a). However, section 3020-a does not “insulat[e] tenured teachers from all written critical comment from their supervisors” … . While a formal disciplinary reprimand may not be issued without compliance with section 3020-a, a critical “administrative evaluation” may properly be included in a teacher’s personnel file without resort to such procedures … .

Here, the letter the petitioner sought to have removed from his personnel file “[fell] within [the] permissible range of administrative evaluation,” and the respondent Elmsford Union Free School District did not act unlawfully in making it part of the petitioner’s personnel file without complying with Education Law § 3020-a… . Matter of Weinberger v Elmsford Union Free School District, 2014 NY Slip Op -7360, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ , , ,

Where Deportation As a Result of a Guilty Plea Is Not Mentioned by the Court, Preservation of the Error Is Not Required

The Second Department noted that, where the court does not mention the prospect of deportation as a result of a guilty plea, the error need not be preserved and the defendant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate to the court the guilty plea would not have been entered if the possibility of deportation were known. People v Al-Mulwallad, 2014 NY Slip OP 07361, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

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