You are here: / Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled...

Search Results

/ , , ,

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that a corporation created by the Seneca Nation for the operation of a golf course (Lewiston Golf) was not entitled to sovereign immunity and, therefore, could be sued by the company with which the Seneca Nation contracted to build the golf course.  The contractor brought suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien:

Indian tribes possess the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers, unless waived. In Matter of Ransom, we set out several factors for courts to [*6]use to determine whether an entity, such as a corporation or agency, that is affiliated with an Indian tribe has the right to claim sovereign immunity against suit.

“Although no set formula is dispositive, in determining whether a particular tribal organization is an ‘arm’ of the tribe entitled to share the tribe’s immunity from suit, courts generally consider such factors as whether: [1] the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; [2] the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; [3] the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; [4] the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; [5] tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and [6] the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether [7] the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether [8] a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether [9] the subentity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the subentity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559-560 [internal quotation marks, citations, and square brackets omitted; numbering added].) * * *

…[T]he primary purpose of creating the golf course in Lewiston was to act as a regional economic engine and thereby serve the profit-making interests of the Seneca Nation’s casino operations in the area. While this may result in more funds for government projects on the Seneca Nation’s reservations and elsewhere that benefit members of the tribe, … the purposes of Lewiston Golf were sufficiently different from tribal goals that they militate against Lewiston Golf’s claim of sovereign immunity. However, the purposes factor of Ransom is not determinative… . While some of the remaining Ransom factors favor the conclusion that Lewiston Golf is protected by sovereign immunity, the most important ones strongly support the opposite conclusion. Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Corporation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08218, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/ , ,

Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the children in two families who were successive tenants of the same apartment were restricted to recovery for exposure to lead paint to a single policy limit, and not multiple policy limits based upon annual policy renewals.  The two families’ recoveries were limited to the single $500,000 policy limit:

In September 1991, Allstate Insurance Company issued a policy of liability insurance to the landlord of a two-family house in Rochester. The policy was renewed annually for the years beginning September 1992 and September 1993. It stated on the declarations page a $500,000 limit for “each occurrence,” and contained the following noncumulation clause:

“Regardless of the number of insured persons, injured persons, claims, claimants or policies involved, our total liability under the Family Liability Protection coverage for damages resulting from one accidental loss will not exceed the limit shown on the declarations page. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.”

Felicia Young and her children lived in one of the two apartments in the house from November 1992 until September 1993. In July 1993, the Department of Health notified the landlord that one of the children had been found to have an elevated blood lead level and that several areas in the apartment were in violation of State regulations governing lead paint. The Department listed the violations and directed the landlord to correct them. The landlord made some repairs, and the Department advised him in August 1993 that the violations “have been corrected.”

After the Young family moved out of the apartment in September 1993, Lorenzo Patterson, Sr. and Qyashitee Davis moved in with their two children. Again a child was found to have an elevated blood lead level, and the Department of Health sent another letter saying that violations had been found and instructing the landlord to correct them. (This letter was sent in December 1994, but the parties seem to assume that the elevated readings resulted at least in part from events on or before September 29, 1994, the last day of Allstate’s coverage.) * * *

Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were exposed to the same hazard, lead paint, in the same apartment. Perhaps they were not exposed to exactly the same conditions; but to say that the “general conditions” were not the same would deprive the word “general” of all meaning. Nesmith argues that, because the landlord made an effort to correct the problem after Young’s children were exposed and before Nesmith’s grandchildren moved in, the “conditions” that injured her grandchildren must have been new ones. But she makes no claim, and the record provides no basis for inferring, that a new lead paint hazard had been introduced into the apartment. The only possible conclusion from this record is that the landlord’s remedial efforts were not wholly successful, and that the same general conditions — the presence of lead paint that endangered children’s health — continued to exist. Because Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were injured by exposure to the same general conditions their injuries were part of a single “accidental loss,” and only one policy limit is available to the two families. Nesmith v Allstate Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08217, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Residential Facility Exercised the Care a Reasonable Parent Would Have Provided In Supervising Infant Plaintiff Who Wandered Away from the Facility and Was Struck by a Car

Reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined there was a question of fact whether a residential facility (Saint Cabrini) in which infant plaintiff had been placed (as a neglected child) exercised reasonable care in supervising her. Plaintiff left the facility without permission and moved away when approached by staff members. She ultimately walked into the road where she was struck by a car:

The dissenting Justices concluded that Saint Cabrini had not “carried its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether its staff met [the] duty to provide the degree of care to plaintiff that a reasonable parent would provide” (id.). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we agree that Saint Cabrini has not met its threshold burden. It is up to the jury to decide if a parent of ordinary prudence in similar circumstances would have necessarily employed different means to protect plaintiff under the facts of this case.  DT v Rich, 2014 NY Slip Op 08223, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/ , , ,

Class Action Mechanism Is Available Where the Relevant Statute Imposes a Non-Mandatory Penalty and the Penalty Is Waived by the Class

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that class action suits brought by tenants pursuant to CPLR 901 (b) were properly allowed to go forward.  The suits alleged the tenants, who were in rent-stabilized apartments, were overcharged when the landlords decontrolled the apartments despite their receipt of tax benefits under the J-51 program.  The Court of Appeals, in 2009, determined that the receipt of J-51 tax benefits precluded the landlords from decontrolling the apartments.  The central issue was the availability of the class action mechanism, which is generally not available where the suit seeks the imposition of a penalty.  Here the treble damages (penalty) provision of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL 26-516) was waived by the plaintiffs. The waiver was deemed valid, clearing the way for the class actions:

CPLR 901 (b) prohibits any claim for penalties to be brought as a class action. It states, “[u]nless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action” (CPLR 901 [b]). The language of CPLR 901 (b) itself says it is not dispositive that a statute imposes a penalty so long as the action brought pursuant to that statute does not seek to recover the penalty. * * *

From a policy standpoint, permitting plaintiffs to bring these claims as a class accomplishes the purpose of CPLR 901 (b). Preemptively responding to the argument raised by defendants here, the State Consumer Protection Board emphasized the importance of class actions: “The class action device responds to the problem of inadequate information as well as to the need for economies of scale” for “. . . a person contemplating illegal action will not be able to rely on the fact that most people will be unaware of their rights — if even one typical person files a class action, the suit will go forward and the other members of the class will be notified of the action either during the proceedings or after a judgment is rendered in their favor” (Mem of State Consumer Protection Bd, Bill Jacket, L 1975, ch 207).

Where a statute imposes a non-mandatory penalty, plaintiffs may waive the penalty in order to bring the claim as a class action … . Borden 400 E 55th St Assoc LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 08211, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/ ,

The Failure of the Record to Indicate Whether Notes from the Jury Were Properly Addressed by the Court Constitutes a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a partial dissent, determined the failure of the record to indicate whether notes from the jury were properly addressed by the court (pursuant to People v O’Rama, 88 NY2d 270) constituted “mode of proceedings” errors requiring reversal in the absence of preservation:

Although not every violation of CPL 310.30 is immune from normal preservation principles …, a failure to apprise counsel about the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenants of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error … . The record therefore must indicate compliance with adequate procedures under O’Rama because reviewing courts “cannot assume” that the proper procedure was utilized when the record is devoid of information as to how jury notes were handled … . The “presumption of regularity” … cannot salvage an … error of this nature … . People v Silva, 2014 NY Slip Op 08215, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/

Disclaimer Notice Sent to Insureds’ Insurer, But Not to Insureds, Invalid

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that the failure to notify the insureds of a disclaimer of liability invalidated the disclaimer.  The property owner and managing agent were insured under two different policies.  They were named insureds under their own policy (with GNY) and additional insureds under a contractor’s insurer (Scottsdale). An employee of the contractor was injured. The contractor’s insurer sent the notice of disclaimer to the insureds’ own carrier (GNY), but not to the insureds themselves.  The notice did not meet the requirements of Insurance law 3420(d)(2):

Insurance Law § 3420 (d) (2) says:

“If under a liability policy issued or delivered in this state, an insurer shall disclaim liability or deny coverage . . . it shall give written notice as soon as is reasonably possible of such disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant” … .

It is undisputed that Scottsdale did not give notice of its disclaimer directly to its additional insureds or to the lawyer who had been retained to represent them. Scottsdale argues that the disclaimer notice it sent to GNY was sufficient to satisfy the statute. We disagree.

GNY was not an insured under Scottsdale’s policy; it was another insurer. While GNY had acted on the insureds’ behalf in sending notice of the claim to Scottsdale, that did not make GNY the insureds’ agent for all purposes, or for the specific purpose that is relevant here: receipt of a notice of disclaimer. GNY’s interests were not necessarily the same as its insureds’ in this litigation. There might have been a coverage dispute between GNY and the insureds, or plaintiff’s claim might have exceeded GNY’s policy limits. Because the insureds had their own interests at stake, separate from that of GNY, they were entitled to notice delivered to them, or at least to an agent — perhaps their attorney — who owed a duty of loyalty in this matter to them only. … [T]he obligation imposed by the Insurance Law is “to give timely notice of disclaimer to the mutual insureds . . . not to . . . another insurer.” Sierra v 4401 Sunset Park LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08216, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/

Defendant’s Conviction Properly Reversed Because the Verdict Was Inconsistent/Repugnant—Charge Which Was the Subject of Conviction in the Inconsistent/Repugnant Verdict Can Be Presented to a New Grand Jury

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that defendant’s conviction was properly reversed because the verdict was inconsistent/repugnant, but that the People should be allowed to resubmit that charge to a new grand jury. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime, but the jury acquitted defendant of manslaughter in the first degree.  Because, to aquit, the jury must have found that at least one of the elements of manslaughter in the first degree was not proven, the manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime necessarily suffered from the same failure of proof.  The People argued that the jury instructions gave the jurors the impression they could acquit on the non-hate-crime manslaughter and still find the defendant guilty of the hate-crime manslaughter:

The rationale for the repugnancy doctrine is that the defendant cannot be convicted when the jury actually finds, via a legally inconsistent split verdict, that the defendant did not commit an essential element of the crime … . Given that premise, “a verdict is repugnant only if it is legally impossible — under all conceivable circumstances — for the jury to have convicted the defendant on one count but not the other,” and, “[i]f there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support in a particular case” … .

Accordingly, repugnancy does not depend on the evidence presented at trial or the record of the jury’s deliberative process, and “[t]he instructions to the jury will be examined only to determine whether the jury, as instructed, must have reached an inherently self-contradictory verdict” … . In making these determinations, it is inappropriate for the reviewing court to “attempt to divine the jury’s collective mental process” … . “Jurors are allowed to compromise, make mistakes, be confused or even extend mercy when rendering their verdicts” … . * * *

There is no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error. Given that New York’s repugnancy jurisprudence already affords defendants greater protection than required under the Federal Constitution, permitting a retrial on the repugnant charge upon which the jury convicted, but not on the charge of which the jury actually acquitted defendant, strikes a reasonable balance. This is particularly so given that a reviewing court can never know the reason for the repugnancy. Accordingly, the People may resubmit the crime of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury … . People v DeLee, 2014 NY Slip Op 08212, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/

Notifying One’s Broker of an Accident Does Not Constitute Notification of the Insurer

The Court of Appeals, over a partial dissent, determined that the plaintiff’s providing notice of an accident to plaintiff’s broker did not constitute notice to the insurer.  The decision focuses on distinguishing Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co. (47 NY2d 12 [1979]) where the roles of the broker the insurer were “uncommonly intertwined:”

We have long held that a policyholder’s timely notice to a broker does not “constitute the notice contemplated by the [insurance] policy since a broker is normally the agent of the insured and notice to the ordinary insurance broker is not notice to the liability carrier” Our decision in Mighty Midgets does not alter this fundamental principle. Strauss Painting Inc v Mt. Hawley Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08214, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/ , ,

Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, determined that there was a question of fact whether the city had a special relationship with the plaintiff, such that the city had a duty to protect the plaintiff from her abusive husband. After police officers assured plaintiff her husband (Coleson), who had been arrested, was going to jail, she was attacked and stabbed by him.  Plaintiff’s seven-year-old son was with her when she was attacked but did not witness the stabbing because he had been placed in a closet for protection by a bystander.  Because plaintiff’s son did not see the stabbing, the court concluded he was not in the “zone of danger” when his mother was stabbed:

Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function “turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . “[A] duty to exercise reasonable care toward [a] plaintiff” is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . This Court has determined that 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 in the face of a known blatant and dangerous safety violation”… .

In Cuffy v City of New York (69 NY2d 255), we listed the requisite elements for a duty voluntarily assumed:

“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking (id. at 260). We noted that “the injured party’s reliance is . . . critical” (id. at 261).

Applying the Cuffy factors here, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first factor, a jury could conclude that the police officers made promises to protect plaintiff. Plaintiff was notified by the police that Coleson was arrested, that he was in front of a judge to be sentenced, would be in jail for a while, and that the police would be in contact with her. As to the second factor, the police officers conceivably knew that Coleson would harm plaintiff if he was not apprehended, as evidenced by his arrest and the issuance of an order of protection to plaintiff. Given that plaintiff was told by Officer Reyes that everything was in process and she would keep in contact, there is an issue of fact as to whether the police knew that their inaction could lead to harm. The third factor is easily met, as plaintiff had direct contact with the police, by the police responding to her call about Coleson’s threats, making an arrest, escorting her to the police precinct, and plaintiff’s phone call with Officer Reyes. Finally, regarding a party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking, given the assurances that plaintiff received from Officer Reyes that Coleson was in jail and that he would be there for a while, a jury could find that it was reasonable for plaintiff to believe that Coleson would be jailed for the foreseeable future, and that the police would contact her if that turned out not to be the case. Coleson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08213, CtApp 11-24-14

 

/

Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand Jury—Conviction Reversed

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department determined defendant was not given adequate time to decide whether he wished to testify before the grand jury:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1) (c) because he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury. The prosecutor notified defendant and his counsel at the arraignment on the felony complaint that the matter would be presented to the grand jury the next morning, in less than 24 hours. Later that day, defense counsel notified the court that he could no longer represent defendant due to a conflict of interest. The following morning, after the grand jury voted to indict defendant, he was assigned new counsel. Defense counsel objected to the short notice of the grand jury proceeding and gave the prosecutor written notice of defendant’s intent to testify. The prosecutor offered defendant the opportunity to testify before the grand jury before it filed the indictment, but refused defendant’s request to testify before a different grand jury.

We agree with defendant that he was not given “reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” before the grand jury (CPL 190.50 [5] [a]). “CPL 190.50 (5) (a) does not mandate a specific time period for notice; rather, reasonable time’ must be accorded to allow a defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before a [g]rand [j]ury” … . Under “the particular facts” of this case (id. ), including the less than 24 hours’ notice of the grand jury proceeding and assigned counsel’s withdrawal from representation, we conclude that defendant did not have reasonable time to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before the case was presented to the grand jury … . People v Hymes, 2014 NY Slip Op 08202, 4th Dept 11-21-14

 

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