You are here: / Failure to Allege “Demand Futility” as Required Under Delaware...

Search Results

/

Failure to Allege “Demand Futility” as Required Under Delaware Law Required Dismissal of the Derivative Causes of Action

The First Department determined the derivative claims in the complaint against a Delaware corporation were properly dismissed for failure to allege demand futility, as required under Delaware law:

Under Delaware law, where, as here, no demand has been made on corporate directors to bring a lawsuit, a derivative action may be brought on the corporation’s behalf only where the complaint alleged particularized facts that such a demand would have been futile … . To allege demand futility, the complaint must set forth particularized facts sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that either (1) the directors are disinterested and independent, or (2) the challenged transaction was the result of a protected business judgment … . Whitecap (US) Fund I, LP v Siemens First Capital Commercial Fin LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07297, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

/ ,

Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”

The First Department affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication based upon the juvenile’s possession of an air pistol, which was discovered in a warrantless search of the juvenile’s backpack after the juvenile was handcuffed.  In explaining why the suppression motion was properly denied, the court wrote:

The police lawfully detained appellant as a suspected truant … . In the course of this detention, the police lawfully patted down appellant’s book bag, particularly since as appellant approached the police car, the bag hit the car, making a distinctive metallic sound that the officer recognized as the sound of a firearm. In patting down the bag, an officer felt the distinctive shape of a pistol, including its grip and trigger guard. The warrantless search of the bag, after appellant had been handcuffed and placed in the police car, was justified by close spatial and temporal proximity, as well as by exigent circumstances … . These circumstances included the fact that defendant resisted arrest, the officers’ knowledge that appellant was on probation in connection with a past robbery and that he had resisted arrest before, the officers’ high level of certainty that the bag actually contained a weapon, and the danger of appellant reaching the bag, despite being handcuffed, while seated in the police car next to the officer who had the bag. Matter of Kenneth S, 2014 NY Slip Op 07299, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

/ ,

Revised Retainer Agreement, Which Changed the Fee Arrangement from Hourly to a 40% Contingency, Was Not Unconscionable/the Continuing Representation Doctrine Will Not Extend the Statute of Limitations for an Action Seeking the Return of Gifts Made by a Client to Her Attorneys Where the Sole Basis for the “Continuing Representation” Is a Fee Dispute

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that, under the facts, a 40% contingent-fee retainer-agreement was not unconscionable.  The court further determined the six-year statute of limitations for an action seeking the return of gifts given to attorneys by their client was not tolled by the continuing representation doctrine because the doctrine is not applicable if the “continuing representation” is a fee dispute between the attorneys and client.  The underlying action was a suit by the beneficiaries of an estate worth $1 billion against the executor of the estate.  The estate litigation went on for more than 20 years.  The wife of the decedent, Alice Lawrence, after paying some $18 million in attorneys' fees under a retainer agreement, sought and negotiated a new contingent-fee agreement (40% of the amount recovered).  Lawrence was actively involved in the litigation and was apparently very savvy concerning financial affairs.  After the contingent-fee agreement was entered, the case took a sudden turn when the executor agreed to settle for more than $100 million, entitling Lawrence's attorneys to a fee of more than $40 million. Reversing the appellate division, the Court of Appeals determined the contingent-fee retainer agreement must be enforced:

Courts “give particular scrutiny to fee arrangements between attorneys and clients,” placing the burden on attorneys to show the retainer agreement is “fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by their clients” … . A revised fee agreement entered into after the attorney has already begun to provide legal services is reviewed with even heightened scrutiny, because a confidential relationship has been established and the opportunity for exploitation of the client is enhanced … . …[A]n unconscionable contract is generally defined as “one which is so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable according to its literal terms because of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties [procedural unconscionability] together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party [substantive unconscionability]” … . * * *

Absent incompetence, deception or overreaching, contingent fee agreements that are not void at the time of inception should be enforced as written … . …”[T]he power to invalidate fee agreements with hindsight should be exercised only with great caution” because it is not “unconscionable for an attorney to recover much more than he or she could possibly have earned at an hourly rate” … . * * *

We have never endorsed continuous representation tolling for disputes between professionals and their clients over fees and the like, as opposed to claims of deficient performance where the professional continues to render services to the client with respect to the objected-to matter or transaction. Nor do the rationales underlying continuous representation tolling support its extension beyond current limits. Matter of Lawrence, 2014 NY Slip Op 07291, CtApp 10-28-14

 

/ ,

Nail and Mail Service Not Valid—Not Calculated to Give Timely Notice of Order to Show Cause Challenging an Independent Nominating Petition

The Third Department determined that the method of service used for petitioner’s order to show cause challenging an independent nominating petition (naming a Libertarian Independent Party candidate for state senator) was not valid and reversed the granting of the application:

The manner of service provided in the order to show cause was not “‘reasonably calculated to give notice to the necessary parties so that receipt of such notice would normally be expected within the statutory 14-day period for commencing a proceeding concerning the validity of a designating petition'” … . To institute a proceeding “under Election Law § 16-102,” a petitioner “must commence the proceeding and complete service on all the necessary parties within the period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2)” … . In order to complete service, actual delivery must occur … . The Court of Appeals has held that the method of service employed here — affixing the order to show cause and papers to Bowman’s residence and mailing the same on the last day permitted for commencing a proceeding — is not a method of service reasonably calculated to give timely notice … . Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, our decision in Matter of Grimaldi v Board of Elections of the State of N.Y. (95 AD3d 1644 [2012]) is distinguishable. In that case, we concluded that service by affixing the papers to the respondent’s residence and either faxing or leaving a copy at the office of the respondent’s counsel on the last day to commence a proceeding was permissible; we did not permit affixing the papers to a residence and mailing the same on the last day to commence (id. at 1645-1646). Inasmuch as service was not completed within the time limit set forth in Election Law § 16-102 (2), the proceeding must be dismissed … . Matter of Wilson v Bowman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07289, 3rd Dept 10-24-14

 

/

In a Slip and Fall Case, Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether a Defect in a Concrete Slab Was More than “Trivial”—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined a slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the chip in a concrete slab was more than a trivial, nonactionable, defect:

Generally, whether a condition is dangerous or merely a nonactionable, trivial defect is a factual question for a jury to resolve … . An owner will not be liable, however, for “‘negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance,'” which may cause “‘a pedestrian [to] merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection'” … . Accordingly, it is sometimes appropriate, after “consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect . . ., including [its] width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance . . .[,] as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury” … to conclude as a matter of law that a defect is too trivial to be actionable … . * * *

Under these circumstances, and upon review of the color photographs of the defect, we conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the chip in the edge of the curb was a trivial defect … . In response to defendants’ prima facie showing, plaintiffs were obligated to submit “evidence to establish that the alleged defect has the characteristics of a trap, snare or nuisance” … . Given the undisputed circumstances of plaintiff’s fall, her attorney’s affirmation, which was of no probative value, was an insufficient response to defendants’ prima facie showing … . Gillis v Herzog Supply Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07220, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/ , ,

Review Criteria Re: Nonjury Trials Explained/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Including the Provision Requiring the Exercise of Care to Avoid Colliding with Bicyclists, Constituted Negligence Per Se

The Third Department affirmed a verdict in a nonjury trial finding a state trooper 70% responsible for injuries caused when the trooper’s car collided with plaintiff bicyclist.  The court explained its review powers re: a nonjury trial and noted that the trooper’s violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the provision requiring the exercise of care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist, constituted negligence per se:

When reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial, this Court independently considers the weight of the evidence and may grant whatever judgment is warranted by the record, all while deferring to the trial judge’s factual findings, especially where those findings are based on credibility determinations … . * * *

After weighing the eyewitness and expert testimony and considering it along with the physical evidence, the court determined that the collision occurred in claimant’s lane of travel, meaning that the trooper crossed at least somewhat into claimant’s lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). “[A]n unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . The court also reasonably determined that the trooper was negligent in cutting the corner while making his left turn, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b)… . Considering the trooper’s testimony that he never saw claimant until the moment of impact, along with evidence regarding the ample sight distance at the intersection and the legal concept that every driver has a duty to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses …., the court properly found that the trooper was additionally negligent for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (a), which requires drivers to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist” … . Smith v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07229, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/

1961 Royalties-Agreement Between Duke Ellington and Music Publishers Was Not Ambiguous and Could Not Be Interpreted to Refer to Parties (“Affiliates” of the Music Publishers) Which Did Not Exist In 1961—Therefore the Ellington Estate Was Not Entitled to a 50% Share of the Revenues Earned by Foreign Subpublishers With Which the Original Music Publishers Have Affiliated Since 1961

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over two dissenting opinions, determined that the terms of a 1961 royalties-agreement between Duke Ellington and music publishers were not ambiguous and must be applied as intended in 1961, even though the globalization of the music publishing business had a drastic effect on the royalty-revenues which could not have been anticipated in 1961.  The defendant music publishers which were parties to the 1961 agreement, in recent years, had become affiliated with a number of foreign subpublishers which did not exist in 1961.  The Ellington estate argued that the term “any other affiliate” (of the music publishers) in the agreement should be read to include all the recent foreign subpublishers so that the revenues earned by the foreign subpublishers would be shared by the estate. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that only the “affiliates” contemplated by the agreement in 1961 were bound by the agreement:

Absent explicit language demonstrating the parties' intent to bind future affiliates of the contracting parties, the term “affiliate” includes only those affiliates in existence at the time that the contract was executed … . Furthermore, the parties did not include any forward looking language. If the parties intended to bind future affiliates they would have included language expressing that intent. Absent such language, the named entities and other affiliated companies of EMI's predecessor which existed at the time are bound by the provision, not entities that affiliated with EMI after execution of the Agreement. As it is undisputed that the affiliated foreign subpublishers at issue here were not affiliates at the time the Agreement was executed, they are not [parties to the agreement]. Ellington v EMI Music Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07197, CtApp 10-23-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff’s Proof Was Insufficient to Show an Interconnected Attorney-Client Relationship—Continuing Representation Doctrine Did Not Apply to Toll Statute of Limitations

The Third Department determined the “continuing representation doctrine” did not toll the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action.  Plaintiff could not show an “interconnected” attorney-client relationship:

At all times, it was plaintiff’s burden to prove that the continuous representation doctrine applied here … . During the trial, even plaintiff conceded that while it was his hope that he would receive legal advice and guidance, neither [defendant] ever formally agreed to represent him … . * * * Plaintiff did not provide any written work product, nor was he able to recall the substantive content of any of the conversations he claims he had with [defendant]. In our view, Supreme Court was within its authority to credit the testimony of [defendants] that there was no legal relationship between them. Rather, because it was plaintiff alone who believed that he was being represented by [defendants], Supreme Court properly found that he did not establish the existence of an “interconnected” attorney-client relationship … . Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Deep v Boies, 2014 NY Slip Op 07215, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Before Sentencing (Based On a Guilty Plea) Required Vacation of the Sentence, Even in the Absence of Preservation of the Error

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined the defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated because defendant wasn’t informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) until sentencing (in the absence of preservation of the error):

The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether defendant was required to preserve her claim that her plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered where she first received notice of the imposition of a term of postrelease supervision (PRS) at sentencing, and submitted to sentencing with the PRS addition. We reverse, vacate the plea, and remit for further proceedings, holding that the court must notify defendant of a term of PRS sufficiently in advance of its imposition that defendant has the opportunity to object to the deficiency in the plea proceeding. In the absence of such an opportunity, preservation is unnecessary. * * *

We held in People v Catu that “[a] trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” (4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]). To meet due process requirements, a defendant “must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” (id. at 245). Without such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required (id.). People v Turner, 2014 NY Slip Op 07200, CtApp 10-23-14 

 

/ ,

Order Re: an Easement Allowing Plaintiffs Access to a Lake Was Specific Enough to Support Finding the Defendants in Civil Contempt (for Violation of the Order)—Willfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt—Mere Act of Disobedience Is Enough

The Third Department determined the defendants were properly found to be in contempt of an order concerning plaintiffs’ easement for access to a lake.  The court explained that the order was specific enough to justify the contempt finding and further explained that willfulness is not an element of civil contempt:

…[D]efendants thus contend that they were not prohibited from partially fencing the passageway or placing other property on it, provided that plaintiffs’ reasonable right of passage was not impaired … . However, the rule relied upon by defendants applies to rights-of-way that are not specifically defined or bounded by the language of the grant … . Here, the 2010 order determined that the deeds granted plaintiffs a defined 60-foot-wide easement and right-of-way consisting of the passageway, and that plaintiffs further possessed rights to construct, maintain and use a dock … . The 2010 order also expressly directed defendants to keep the passageway “free of all brush and tall grasses, junk boats, debris, and other personal property” that interfered or could interfere with plaintiffs’ rights, and to maintain the passageway in an unobstructed fashion. Defendants raised no factual challenge to plaintiffs’ claim that the fencing was partially obstructing the passageway, that they had permitted tall grass and brush to grow, and that they had allowed the accumulation of personal property and debris upon the passageway. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly found that they violated a clear and unequivocal mandate in these respects … .

Although the 2010 order did not specify the precise location where plaintiffs were to construct their dock, it did direct defendants not to interfere with plaintiffs’ right to construct and use a dock “within the northerly extensions” of the passageway. Plaintiffs submitted a survey map and other evidence demonstrating that defendants had placed their dock in the center of the passageway in such a manner that insufficient space was left in the northerly end for plaintiffs to position or use a dock without infringing on the rights of a neighboring landowner. * * *

We reject defendants’ claim that the contempt finding was improper in that they allegedly believed their actions were justified and, thus, were not willfully disobedient. No finding of willfulness or deliberate disregard is required to sustain a civil contempt determination; “the mere act of disobedience, regardless of motive, is sufficient . . . if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party”… . Hush v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 07231, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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