You are here: / Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in...

Search Results

/

Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the First Action Precluded by Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that a prior ruling had res judicata effect even though the subsequent action sought damages for a different period of time:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … , so long as “the party to be barred had a full and fair opportunity to litigate any cause of action arising out of the same transaction and the prior disposition was a final judgment on the merits” … . Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” … . Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” … .

Here, the record reflects that plaintiff had a full opportunity to litigate the issues relating to his small claim for unpaid wages in City Court and such court’s disposition was a final decision on the merits. It is also evident that the claim brought by plaintiff in City Court and the instant action arise out of the same series of transactions in connection with his work for defendants. Although the present action concerns wages allegedly owed for a different time period than the City Court claim, inasmuch as it had matured at the time that plaintiff commenced the prior action …, plaintiff could have also raised the current claim at that time … . Tovar v Tesoros Prop Mgt LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05233, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares

The Third Department determined a shareholders’ agreement. although it did not address the particular problem at issue, must be read to avoid a result which would be at odds with the clear purposes of the agreement.  One of the three shareholders of the closely held corporation (the defendant) was convicted of a felony and the other shareholders terminated his employment and sought to buy his shares. The defendant sought to prohibit the buy-out by arguing it was untimely under the terms of the shareholders’ agreement.  Because the corporation distributed alcoholic beverages, if the defendant remained a shareholder the corporation would lose its distributor’s license:

A shareholders’ agreement — like any other contract — should be enforced according to its terms … . In so doing, “[t]he contract must be read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent, and it should be interpreted in a way [that] reconciles all its provisions, if possible” … . To that end, “the goal should be a practical construction of the language used so that the reasonable expectations of the parties are realized” …, and “the contract must be interpreted so as to give effect to, not nullify, its general or primary purpose” … .

Here, the shareholders’ agreement reflects “[t]he shareholders[‘] desire to establish a market value for their shares, to effectively control the management of the company, for their mutual best interests, and to protect against divisive relationships which would arise if outsiders with incompatible management philosophies gained interests in the company.” Consistent with that stated objective, the agreement further recognizes that “[t]he company is dependent upon and derives substantial benefit from the continued active interest and participation of those shareholders who participate in the management of the company.” In an attempt to preserve the closely-held nature of the corporation, the agreement provides that when a shareholder’s employment with the corporation ceases, “he or she shall be treated as though he or she were selling all of his or her shares under paragraph A of . . . [s]ection [t]wo [of the agreement],” which outlines the procedures to be followed when a shareholder, during the course of his or her lifetime, “transfer[s] any of his or her shares to anyone other than a family member.” In such case, the shareholder is to give notice of his or her intention to sell and, “[f]or a period of thirty [30] days after the notice is delivered, the [corporation] shall have an option to purchase all or any part of the offered shares on the payment terms specified in [s]ection [f]our [of the agreement].” If the corporation does not exercise such option, then the remaining shareholders are granted an additional 30-day option to purchase any or all of the available shares. * * *

…[R]eading the agreement as a whole and affording it a practical construction that is consistent with and gives proper effect to the parties’ stated intentions …, we are satisfied that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel [defendant] to sell his shares to the corporation — even if that option to purchase was not timely exercised. To hold otherwise and permit [defendant] to retain his shares due to the asserted noncompliance with the time period set forth in the shareholders’ agreement not only would effectively rewrite the parties’ agreement and undermine its stated purpose, i.e., to retain managerial control within the closely-held family corporation, but would place the corporation at risk of losing its distributor’s license, thereby rendering its stock worthless… . A Cappione Inc v Cappione, 2014 NY Slip Op 05230, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons Are Placed on the Record

The Third Department found the error harmless, but it noted that, even in a nonjury trial, the defendant should not be in shackles in the courtroom unless reasons for the restraint are put on the record:

Even in a nonjury trial, a defendant should not remain restrained in the courtroom unless the trial court sets forth particularized reasons for such restraint on the record … . People v Whitehead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05213, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea

The Third Department described the types of fundamental errors which survive a guilty plea. The prosecutor’s alleged failure to inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses in not one of them:

By his plea of guilty, defendant forfeited this argument. “As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered” … . As relevant here, a claim “that the District Attorney did not inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as required by CPL 190.50 (6) . . . does not activate a question of jurisdiction or constitute a constitutional defect and, thus, does not survive a guilty plea” … . People v McCommons, 2014 NY Slip Op 05215, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant under the long-arm statute and under federal due process principles:

In deciding whether an action may be maintained in New York against a nondomiciliary defendant, the court must first determine whether jurisdiction exists under New York’s long-arm statute (see CPLR 302) based upon the defendant’s contacts with this state; and, if it does, the court then determines “whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process” … . The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such requirements have been met … .

Here, plaintiffs assert that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), which confers jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act outside New York that causes injury to a person or property within the state and the defendant “expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . *  *  *

Based on the record before us, we likewise find that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is compatible with federal due process standards. Generally, “a State may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over non-domiciliary defendants, provided they had certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” … . The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant “purposefully avai[led] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . Under the circumstances here, inasmuch as defendant targeted New York consumers through a network of distributors that rendered it likely that its products would be sold in New York, “it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [this state] if its allegedly defective merchandise has . . . been the source of injury to [a New York resident]” … . Darrow v Hectronic Deutschland, 2014 NY Slip Op 05239, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Where There Has Been a Failure of a Material Condition of a Judicial Instrument of Surrender (of Guardianship and Custody of a Child), the Parent May Bring an Action to Revoke the Surrender Instrument

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined, where a parent agrees to surrender guardianship and custody of a child pursuant to a judicial instrument of surrender, a substantial failure of a material condition of the instrument allows the parent to bring an action to revoke the instrument.  In this case the persons specified in the surrender would not adopt the child:

In Matter of Christopher F. (supra), we were presented with a biological parent’s application to revoke a judicial instrument of surrender. We concluded that, although no procedures beyond notification of the parent were set forth in the statute at that time (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [former (c)], as added by L 1990, ch 479, § 2), “based upon our common-sense interpretation of the applicable statutory framework,” the failure of the provision of the surrender instrument conditioning the biological parent’s surrender on adoption of the child by the person specified in the surrender “permitted [the biological parent] to revoke her consent to the adoption” … . Accordingly, we granted the parent’s application for revocation of the judicial surrender. “‘The Legislature is . . . presumed to be aware of the decisional and statute law in existence at the time of an enactment'” … . Since the subsequent statutory amendments did nothing to abrogate or replace the relevant portions of our holding in Matter of Christopher F. (260 AD2d at 99-101), we conclude that, when there has been a substantial failure of a material condition of a judicial instrument of surrender, the procedure we endorsed in Matter of Christopher F. (supra) remains the appropriate procedure. In such a circumstance, the surrendering parent may bring an application before the court — either by petition or by motion — for revocation of the instrument (see id. at 101). Matter of Bentley XX, 2014 NY Slip Op 05222, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding that Allowing a Child to Wander Away Near a Four-Lane Highway Constituted Maltreatment

The Third Department determined the Commissioner of Children and Family Services properly denied a petition to have a report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment amended to be unfounded and expunged.  Petitioner called law enforcement because her grandchild had wandered away from her front yard and was found unharmed about 200 yards away.  There was no fence and the home faced a four-lane highway:

Substantial evidence supports the finding of maltreatment. In order to establish maltreatment, the agency was required “to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that ‘the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition ha[d] been impaired or [was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the [caregiver’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care'” in providing the child with appropriate supervision … . Upon review of such an administrative determination, “this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence” … . A determination is supported by substantial evidence “when reasonable minds could adequately accept the conclusion or ultimate fact based on the relevant proof” … .

Although petitioner’s home is at the end of a dead-end street, testimony by respondent Michelle Kelley, a caseworker for the Saratoga County Department of Social Services, and photographs introduced into evidence established that the home also faces a four-lane divided highway with a speed limit ranging from 45 to 55 miles per hour. Notably, the same evidence showed that there is no fence, or any similar physical barrier, directly between petitioner’s front yard and this highway. Matter of Cheryl Z v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 05226, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ , ,

Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s representation to the insurance carrier that the property was a two-family dwelling, when it actually was a three-family dwelling, was a material misrepresentation justifying rescission of the policy:

“To establish the right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must show that its insured made a material misrepresentation of fact when he or she secured the policy” … . “A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented” … . “To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” … . * * *

…[T]he defendant submitted an affidavit from its underwriting manager and its “Homeowners Selection Rules,” which showed that it would not have issued the same policy if the application had disclosed that the subject premises was a three-family dwelling … . Lema v Tower Ins Co of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 05162, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/

Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained

The Second Department determined injury from a stone block falling from a pallet was covered by Labor Law 240(1).  The court also explained the requirements for common law indemnification:

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Labor Law § 240(1) mandates that owners and contractors “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.” The statute imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors whose failure to “provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site” proximately causes injury to a worker … . The defendants failed to show that the injured plaintiff’s alleged injuries resulted from a general hazard encountered at a construction site and were not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide” an adequate device of the sort enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) … . Those devices are intended to protect “against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” (id. at 603). The defendants’ submissions did not establish that the accident was not the result of a failure to provide a protective device contemplated by the statute … . * * *

The key element of a cause of action for common-law indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but rather, is a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor … . ” Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine'”… . Desena v North Shore Hebrew Academy, 2014 NY Slip Op 05149, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/

Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony Should Not Have Been Included

The Second Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority, under Mental Hygiene Law 9.60, to go beyond the treatment plan and recommendations testified about by the psychiatrist in a proceeding to order Raymond G to comply with Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT).  In the absence of any recommendations about Raymond G’s use of his car, the court ordered the impoundment of his car. The Second Department reversed that part of the AOT order and explained what can be included in an AOT order under the terms of the controlling statute:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, commonly known as Kendra’s Law, “provides a framework for the judicial authorization of involuntary outpatient treatment programs for persons suffering from mental illnesses” (Matter of William C., 64 AD3d 277, 279). It sets forth, inter alia, the types of outpatient services that may be ordered by the court as part of an AOT plan, the requirements for the petition, and the procedures for a hearing on the petition (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[a][1]; [e][2]-[3]; [h][1]). * * *

The statute requires that the petition be accompanied by an affirmation or affidavit of an examining physician who recommends AOT (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[e][3][I]), and directs that the court “shall not order [AOT]” unless it is provided with a proposed written treatment plan developed by a physician appointed by the applicable community services or hospital director, which includes “all categories of services, as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which such physician recommends that the [patient] receive,” “no later than the date of the hearing on the petition” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][1]). Further, the statute provides that the court “shall not order [AOT] unless [the] physician appearing on behalf of [the] director testifies to explain the written proposed treatment plan [and] state[s] the categories of [AOT] recommended, the rationale for each such category, [and] facts which establish that such treatment is the least restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][3]).

Following the hearing, the court “may” order AOT if it finds by “clear and convincing evidence that the [patient] meets the criteria for [AOT], and there is no appropriate and feasible less restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order must include specific findings “by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed treatment is the least restrictive treatment appropriate and feasible for the [patient],” and “state an [AOT] plan, which shall include all categories of [AOT], as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which the [patient] is to receive” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order “shall not include any such category that has not been recommended in both the proposed written treatment plan and the [physician’s hearing] testimony” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]).  Matter of Raymond G…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05183, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

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