You are here: / The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction...

Search Results

/ ,

The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction for Letters of Administration Re: the Estate of an Incapacitated Person—In Resolving the Dispute the Appellate Court Discussed the Authority of a Public Administrator As Well As Surrogate’s Court’s Jurisdiction and the Decedent’s Domicile

The Second Department dealt with many issues which resulted from the public administrators in two counties applying for letters of administration re: the estate of an incapacitated person, a resident of Kings County who had moved from a nursing home in Kings County to a nursing home in Richmond County, where she died.  The administrator to whom the letters were issued first (Stein in Kings County) prevailed.  The court was asked to resolve many questions concerning a public administrator's authority, as well as questions concerning jurisdiction and domicile (not all of which are mentioned here):

Stein has exclusive authority to administer the decedent's estate pursuant to SCPA 704. That section provides, in part, that “[a] person who applies in good faith therefor, and to whom letters are first issued from a court having jurisdiction to issue them, has exclusive authority under the letters until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]). Here, letters of administration were first issued to Stein by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and the record supports Stein's assertion that he had applied in “good faith” for letters of administration, without notice or knowledge of the petition filed in Richmond County (SCPA 704). Further, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to Stein. Since the decedent was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of her death, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the decedent's estate (see SCPA 205 [1]).

…[T]he Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack personal jurisdiction over certain alleged distributees of the decedent. Pursuant to SCPA 1003(2), “[e]very eligible person who has a right to administration prior or equal to that of the petitioner and who has not renounced must be served with process upon an application for letters of administration” (emphasis added). However, “[w]here the right of the applicant for letters of administration is superior to the right of other persons interested in the estate, process need not issue and letters will be granted upon a proper petition and due qualification” (1-13 NY Practice Guide: Probate & Estate Admin § 13.08; see Margaret Valentine Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1003 at 46-47). Further, SCPA 1001 mandates the issuance of letters of administration to the public administrator where the only known distributees of a decedent are “issue of grandparents, other than aunts or uncles, on only one side” (SCPA 1001[1][f][ii]). * * *

…[T]he county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of her death is not determinative here. Since Stein had “exclusive authority” to administer the decedent's estate under the letters of administration issued by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, “until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]), improper venue would not be a valid ground for revocation of those letters of administration. “Since domicile is a waivable and nonjurisdictional concept, if a court mistakenly, without objection, exercises jurisdiction over the estate of a domiciliary of another county, its decree is not vulnerable to direct or collateral attack for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (…1-2 Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice § 2.12).

In any event, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, correctly determined that the decedent was domiciled in Kings County at the time of her death. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). ” The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . “The law is well settled that an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired,” and “[i]t is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change of domicile to demonstrate such a change by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To meet this burden, the movant must establish the decedent's intention to effect a change of domicile from her [or his] acts, statements, and conduct” (id.), and ” [t]he element of intent is essential'” … . Thus, generally, “an incapacitated person's admission into a health-care facility does not cause a change of domicile if the incapacitated person is unable to express an intention to establish a new domicile” … . Here, [the Richmond County public administrator] failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent changed her domicile from Kings County to Richmond County, inasmuch as the record reveals that the decedent lacked the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile … . Further, the mere fact that [the guardian of decedent's person was] given the authority to choose the decedent's “place of abode,” does not warrant the conclusion that [guardian] had any authority to change the decedent's domicile … . Matter of Bonora, 2014 NY Slip Op 08425, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

/ ,

Appellant, Who Was Only Mentioned in the Complaint As the Holder of a Second Mortgage, Properly Appeared in the Action by Serving a Notice of Appearance Which Entitled Appellant to Be Kept Informed of the Progress of the Proceeding—There Is No Filing Requirement for a Notice of Appearance

The Second Department explained that appellant properly appeared in the foreclosure action by the service of a notice of appearance because the complaint did not allege anything that appellant, who held a second mortgage, would be required to defend against.  Service of the notice of appearance, which did not need to be filed, entitled appellant to be kept informed of the progress of the action:

…[T]he appellant was not required to serve an answer where the complaint did not set forth any allegations that the appellant was required to defend against (see Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C320:1 at 130; 2—R320 Weinstein-Korn Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. ¶ 320.03). “A defendant who has no defense, and therefore serves no pleading, might nevertheless serve a notice of appearance so as to be kept apprised of the progress of the proceeding” (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C320:1 at 130). Such was the situation here. The complaint contained no allegations about the appellant, except to state that he had a second mortgage on the property. Thus, the appellant properly proceeded by serving a notice of appearance only and was entitled to be kept apprised of the proceedings.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' further contention, the appellant was not required to file his notice of appearance with the Supreme Court. There is no statutory or other requirement that a notice of appearance, timely served upon a plaintiff, must also be filed with the clerk of the relevant court in order for a defendant to appear in the action … . Tsionis v Eriora Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08421, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

/

Statute of Limitations Defense Waived If Not Raised in a Timely Motion to Dismiss

The Second Department noted that the statute of limitations defense to misdemeanors is waived if not raised in a timely motion to dismiss.  The misdemeanor convictions therefore are valid:

The defendant waived his claim that the two misdemeanor counts of which he was convicted were barred by the statute of limitations by not making a timely motion to dismiss on that ground … . People v Sylvestre, 2014 NY Slip Op 08464, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

/

When a Party Does Not Object to Errors in a Verdict Sheet, the Jury Charge Becomes the Law Applicable to the Case—Only “Fundamental” Errors Will Be Reviewed on Appeal (No Fundamental Error Here)—“Fundamental Error” In this Context Briefly Defined

The First Department explained its review powers with respect to errors in a verdict sheet that were not preserved by objection:

The record reflects that the jury charge correctly advised that loss of enjoyment of life was a component of pain and suffering … . Defendant argues that the verdict sheet was inconsistent with this instruction. However, defendant concedes that it failed to object to the verdict sheet. Thus, defendant failed to preserve the issue of the error in the verdict sheet for review by this Court … .

Where a party fails to object to errors in a verdict sheet, the charge becomes the law applicable to the determination of the case, and on appeal, this Court will review only if the error was “fundamental” … . We find that the alleged conflict between the jury charge and the verdict sheet was not fundamental since it did not confuse or create doubt as to the principle of law to be applied, or improperly shift fault, such that the “jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” … . Grace v NYC Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 08362, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

/ ,

Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Described in Some Detail

The First Department determined questions of fact concerning whether the corporate veil should be pierced (alter-ego theory) had been raised.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

In order to state a claim for alter-ego liability plaintiff is generally required to allege “complete domination of the corporation [here PFLLC] in respect to the transaction attacked” and “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury” … . Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised … .

If plaintiff prevails in proving that PFLLC owes it a debt …, the further allegations in the complaint are sufficiently pleaded to support plaintiff's claim that defendant is an alter-ego of PFLLC. The complaint asserts that with respect to the transaction at issue, defendant dominated and controlled the negotiations on behalf of PFLLC and actually provided the erroneous information which persuaded plaintiff to enter into the agreement. The allegations … sufficiently frame factual issues about whether defendant, as the parent company of PFLLC, commingled funds and disregarded corporate formalities … .

In addition, the allegations that defendant, through its domination of PFLLC, misrepresented the value of the assets sold and then caused PFLLC to become judgment proof, are also sufficient to support claims that defendant perpetrated a wrong or injustice against plaintiff, thus warranting intervention by a court of equity … . Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … . Baby Phat Holding Co LLC v Kellwood Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08364, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

/ ,

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissent, determined that the fact that a co-defendant (Stephens) had been represented by a New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) attorney did not create a conflict requiring the disqualification of defendant's trial attorney (Fisher), who also worked for the NYCDS.  The court noted that Fisher was not privy to any confidences of Stephens (who had pled out shortly after arraignment) and there was little danger attorneys within a large institution like the NYCDS would share their clients' confidential information.  Therefore Fisher could effectively cross-examine Stephens should he be called to testify (the People did not intend to call Stephens). The defendant did not want Fisher disqualified and was willing to waive any conflict:

As both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have explained, the Sixth Amendment encompasses a right to select and be represented by one's preferred counsel. However, that right is not absolute …, and it must be balanced with the right to effective assistance of counsel … . Thus, trial courts are given “substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interests not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses” … . …

Here … defendant not only challenges the trial court's refusal to accept his waiver of the potential conflict of interest, but also questions whether there was even a potential conflict of interest, in the first instance, where Fisher, who is a staff attorney at an institutional defense organization, never personally represented Stephens. It is crucial to recognize that here, unlike in other right to counsel cases, the proper initial inquiry is not whether defendant's waiver should have been accepted, but whether there was even a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive in the first place. The court need only reach the issue of whether the waiver was properly accepted or denied after it has been established that there was a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive. I find that on this record, no conflict or potential conflict of interest existed. * * *

Here, defendant and Stephens were arrested in connection with the same incident, but Stephens's case was already concluded by the time of Fisher's disqualification and, again, there was no evidence or suggestion that information concerning Stephens was ever shared with Fisher. Indeed, Fisher acknowledged that he would be barred from viewing his office's file on Stephens or using the address on file to try to locate Stephens; similarly no other attorney would have had access to NYCDS's file either. Thus … it cannot be said that the prior representation of Stephens by the same public defense organization created a potential conflict of interest. Although this Court is aware that the trial court's “discretion is especially broad” when balancing the right to counsel of a criminal defendant's choosing and the right to effective assistance of counsel free of conflicts … , under the specific circumstances here, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying defendant's counsel. People v Watson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08383, 1st Dept 12-2-14


 

/ ,

Criteria for an “Open and Obvious” Defense and an “Intervening or Superseding Cause” Defense Described—Effect of Plaintiff’s Intoxication and Lack of Memory Re: the Accident Discussed

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff's fall from a roof into an unprotected airshaft could go forward.  The roof was accessed through an apartment window.  The Court of Appeals had reversed the First Department's dismissal of the action (on the ground the accident was not foreseeable).  On remand, the First Department addressed the defendant's arguments that the condition was open and obvious, that plaintiff's climbing onto the roof while intoxicated was the intervening, superseding or sole proximate cause of the accident, and the effect of the facts that no one witnessed the accident and plaintiff has no memory of it:

To establish an open and obvious condition, a defendant must prove that the hazard “could not reasonably be overlooked by anyone in the area whose eyes were open” … . However, “even visible hazards do not necessarily qualify as open and obvious” because the “nature or location of some hazards, while they are technically visible, make them likely to be overlooked” … . The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the condition that caused the plaintiff to sustain injury was readily observable by the plaintiff employing the reasonable use of his senses … . Furthermore, “whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that a triable issue of fact exists whether the unguarded opening from the setback roof to the air shaft was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous. * * *

“An intervening act will be deemed a superseding cause and will serve to relieve defendant of liability when the act is of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuates defendant's negligence from the ultimate injury that responsibility for the injury may not be reasonably attributed to the defendant” … . “[L]iability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence” … . To establish that a plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, a defendant must show that the plaintiff engaged in reckless, unforeseeable or extraordinary conduct, i.e. that the plaintiff recognized the danger and chose to disregard it … .

On the record before us, defendants have not established as a matter of law that plaintiff's act of walking out onto the setback roof was a superseding or intervening cause that severed the causal connection between his injuries and any negligence on their part. Plaintiff had never been to the building before the night in question, and defendants did not establish that plaintiff either knew, or should have known, that his conduct was dangerous, notwithstanding that he apparently fell during his second trip onto the setback roof. The fact that plaintiff was legally intoxicated does not alone render his actions a superseding cause … .

Defendants argue that plaintiff cannot make out a case of proximate cause because the accident was unwitnessed, and plaintiff does not recall what happened, and thus there can be no showing that a parapet or railing would have prevented the accident. However, plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of his fall other than the premises defects alleged … . Regardless of whether plaintiff slipped, tripped, or fell, an issue of fact exists whether his fall down into the air shaft was, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the setback roof was open to the unguarded shaft. Powers v 31 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08382, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Timely Raise a Late-Notice Defense to Coverage May Constitute a Waiver of the Defense

The First Department determined there existed a triable issue of fact whether the insurer of a gas plant operated by Long Island Light Company (LILCO) waived a late-notice-based disclaimer of coverage.  Under the common law, the failure to assert a known policy defense may constitute a waiver:

Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right and must be predicated upon knowledge of the facts upon which the existence of the right depends … . The failure to assert a known policy defense may constitute a waiver … . “Whether an insurer has waived the defense of late notice is ordinarily a question of fact, which is proved by evidence that the insurer intended to abandon that defense” … .

The evidence supports an inference that defendants knew of facts supporting a late notice defense long before disclaiming coverage in their answers. Long Is Light Co v American Re-Insurance Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08363, 1st Dept 12-2-14


 

/ ,

If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies

The collection of assessments by the defendant from hydroelectric power plants was deemed illegal in a federal lawsuit brought by a hydroelectric power plant.  Plaintiff, a different hydroelectric power plant, thereafter sought return of the assessments it had paid for six years (between 2002 and 2008) in an action for unjust enrichment.  The Third Department determined that action could have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding challenging the assessments as they were imposed.  Therefore the four-month Article 78 statute of limitations applied, rendering the action untimely:

…Supreme Court erred in applying a six-year statute of limitations because, even though plaintiffs have now labeled their cause of action as one for unjust enrichment, they could have raised their claim for refunds in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging each annual assessment, for which the applicable statute of limitations is four months (see CPLR 217 [1]).

“Where, as here, governmental activity is being challenged, the immediate inquiry is whether the challenge could have been advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . Thus, whether plaintiffs’ “claims are subject to the four-month statute of limitations period under CPLR article 78 . . . turns on whether the parties’ rights could have been resolved in an article 78 proceeding” … . Indeed, the analysis does not depend upon how plaintiffs label their claims but, rather, we “must look to the underlying claim and the nature of the relief sought and determine whether such claim could have been properly made in another form” … . The purpose of this rule, which results in the imposition of a short statute of limitations to governmental action, is to ensure “that the operation of government [will] not be trammeled by stale litigation and stale determinations” … . Northern Elec Power Co LP v Hudson River-Black Riv Regulating District, 2014 NY Slip Op 08280, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ , ,

Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the defendant’s verdict in a vehicle collision case:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . “It is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that the defendant was not negligent. The defendant testified that, when she was stopped at the intersection, her view to her left, the direction from which the injured plaintiff was coming, was obstructed, yet she proceeded anyway. The fact that the defendant proceeded into the intersection without having a clear view of the traffic on Wilson Avenue and without yielding the right-of-way after a stop sign demonstrated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) … . Such violations constitute negligence as a matter of law, and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Consequently, on these facts, the jury could not have reached its verdict that the defendant was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Zhubrak v Petro, 2014 NY Slip Op 08332, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

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