You are here: / Penalty Which Effectively Made It Impossible for an Architect to Practice...

Search Results

/ , ,

Penalty Which Effectively Made It Impossible for an Architect to Practice His Profession Too Severe

The First Department found the punishment imposed by the Department of Buildings (DOB) on an architect for falsely representing he was licensed during a six-month suspension from practice was too severe:

…[W]e find that the penalty imposed is excessive upon considering the following factors: DOB did not place any temporal limitation on the prohibition of petitioner filing documents, nor did it explain why such a permanent penalty was imposed; petitioner is a solo practitioner for whom over ninety percent of his business is in New York City; the prohibition applies to the entire city, and would essentially end petitioner’s independent architectural business, thus depriving him of his livelihood; and respondent has never alleged, much less made any showing, that the falsehood at issue pertained to the substance or content of the building plans and thus presented potential safety risks which Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-211.1.2 was designed to address… . Matter of Benlevi v New York City Dept of Bldgs, 2014 NY Slip Op 02396, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

/

Criteria for Submission of Lesser Included Offense Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly refused to submit the lesser included offence of reckless manslaughter to the jury.  The victim died of a deep, forceful stab wound.  The pathologist testified the wound could not have been inflicted by waving a knife around, which is what the defendant claimed he did.  In explaining the criteria for submission of a lesser included offense, the Court of Appeals wrote:

A party who seeks to have a lesser included crime charged to the jury must satisfy a two-pronged inquiry. First, the crime must be a lesser included offense within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20 (37). Here, defendant asked the trial judge to charge second-degree manslaughter, which is a lesser included crime of second-degree intentional murder … . Second, the party making the request for a charge-down “must then show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that [the defendant] committed the lesser included offense, but not the greater” (…Criminal Procedure Law § 300.50 [1]…). In assessing whether there is a “reasonable view of the evidence,” the proof must be looked at “in the light most favorable to the defendant” …, which requires awareness of “the jury’s right to accept some part of the evidence presented by either side and reject other parts of that proof” … . We have never, however, “countenance[d] selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness as to whom credibility, or incredibility, could only be a constant factor” … .

A “reasonable view of the evidence” does not mean, as defendant insists, that a trial court must charge reckless manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder unless the record “completely excludes the possibility that the defendant acted recklessly.” People v Rivera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02379, CtApp 4-8-14

 

/ ,

No Private Right of Action for Unequal Pay Under Civil Service Law Section 115

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined Civil Service Law section 115 does not create a private right of action concerning unequal pay for the same work.  Rather, section 115 merely states a policy, unenforceable by the courts:

Civil Service Law Article VIII, “Classification and Compensation of Employees”, contains three titles, the first of which (Title A), entitled, “Classification and Allocation of Positions”, begins with section 115, “Policy of the state,” which provides:”In order to attract unusual merit and ability to the service of the state of New York, to stimulate higher efficiency among the personnel, to provide skilled leadership in administrative departments, to reward merit and to insure to the people and the taxpayers of the state of New York the highest return in services for the necessary costs of government, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to provide equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay in proper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase of equality of work demonstrated in service.”

Courts of this State have routinely interpreted section 115 and its predecessor, the nearly identically-worded former Civil Service Law § 37, as merely enunciating a policy, conferring no jurisdiction on a court to enforce what is simply that – a statement of policy… .   * * *

It is clear that Section 115 is a preamble to Civil Service Law article VIII, and no private right of action flows from it. Article 14 of the Civil Service Law (the Taylor Law) provides the mechanism for represented employees to challenge alleged wage disparities between classifications. Matter of Subway Surface Supervisors Assn v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02380, CtApp 4-8-14

 

/ , ,

A Union Is Not an Entity Separate from Its Members—A Union, Therefore, Can Not Be Sued By a Member Unless Every Member Participated In the Action Which Gave Rise to the Suit

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, upheld the so-called “Martin” rule (Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276 [1951]) which prohibits a suit against an unincorporated association, here a union, unless the suit can be maintained against every member of the association.  The executive board of the union decided against taking plaintiff’s grievance to arbitration. Because only the executive board participated in the decision, plaintiff’s suit against the union was prohibited by statute:

In a 4-3 decision authored by Judge Desmond, this Court held in Martin that a voluntary unincorporated association “is neither a partnership nor a corporation. It is not an artificial person, and has no existence independent of its members” (303 NY at 280). The Court determined that “for better or worse, wisely or otherwise, the Legislature has limited . . . suits against association officers, whether for breaches of agreements or for tortious wrongs, to cases where the individual liability of every single member can be alleged and proven” (id. at 282). Although there were policy considerations that might suggest a different result, the Martin Court was “under the command of a plainly stated, plainly applicable statute, uniformly held by this court, for many years, to require pleading and proof of authorization or ratification by all the members of the group” (id. at 280). That statute, General Associations Law § 13, is entitled “Action or proceeding against unincorporated association” and provides:”An action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer of such an association, to recover any property, or upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally. Any partnership, or other company of persons, which has a president or treasurer, is deemed an association within the meaning of this section.”The Martin Court also noted that McCabe v Longfellow (133 NY 89 [1892]), the leading case on the right to maintain an action against an unincorporated association, held that a plaintiff could not maintain an action against the officer of an unincorporated association “unless the debt which he seeks to recover is one upon which he could maintain an action against all the associates by reason of their liability therefor” (303 NY at 281…), and that there had been a “line of consistent decisions to that effect” since McCabe. Ultimately, the Martin Court concluded that, because a labor union is a voluntary unincorporated association, the plaintiff was required to plead and prove that each member of the union authorized or ratified the alleged wrongful conduct.  Palladino v CNY Centro Inc, 2014 NY Slip Po 02378, CtApp 4-8-14

 

/ ,

Gabriela A’s Actions Constituted Disobedience Under PINS Criteria, Not Criminal Actions (Resisting Arrest/Obstruction of Governmental Administration) Under Juvenile Delinquency Criteria

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined, under the facts,  a “Person In Need of Supervision (PINS)” should not have been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent.  Gabriela A., a PINS who had left the non-secure facility where she was placed, apparently resisted to some extent when police officers came to return her to the facility. After the fact-finding hearing, Gabriela A was placed in a secure facility pending disposition. Family Court ultimately determined Gabriela A was a juvenile delinquent finding Gabriele A had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offenses of obstruction of governmental administration and resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals did not rule out the procedure used by Family Court, which essentially converted a PINS proceeding to a Juvenile delinquency proceeding. Rather, the court determined, under the facts, Gabriela A’s behavior was properly characterized as PINS behavior, not criminal behavior:

The crime of resisting arrest requires that a person intentionally prevent “an authorized arrest” (Penal Law § 205.30). The restraint of a PINS pursuant to Family Court Act § 718, however, is not the same as a criminal arrest … . A PINS proceeding is fundamentally civil in nature. … Thus, a PINS who resists being restrained or transported back to a placement facility is not resisting arrest within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.30.

Next, a person is guilty of the misdemeanor of obstructing governmental administration when he or she “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Probation officers qualify as “public servants” within the broad definition supplied in the Penal Law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [15]), and Gabriela A. admitted that she wanted to “make it hard” for Officer Flores and the other probation officers to handcuff and take her to the non-secure facility. On the other hand, the legislature has defined a PINS to include someone who is “habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of . . . lawful authority” (Family Court Act § 712 [a]). Thus, a PINS’s disobedience and obstruction of “lawful authority” is not necessarily the same as an adult’s. Since Family Court Act §§ 720 (1) and (2) forbid placement of a PINS in a secure facility, the legislature surely did not intend the type of behavior that might cause a child to be designated a PINS in the first place to become the basis for secure detention … .  Matter of Gabriela A, 2014 NY Slip Op 02376, CtApp, 4-8-14

 

/ ,

Despite the Absence of a Motion to Dismiss on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds, the Court Properly Dismssed the Action on that Ground (After Briefing by the Parties)/The Fact that the Underlying Transaction Was to Be In American Dollars Was Not Enough to Justify Bringing the Action (Involving Foreign Banks and Parties) in New York State

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the action on “forum non conveniens” grounds, even though no motion to dismiss on that ground had been made.  Although Supreme Court raised the issue, the court asked to parties to brief it.  In addition, the Court of Appeals noted that, although the underlying dispute involved millions of dollars, the fact that American dollars were involved was not enough to hold the case in New York State.  The dispute was between a bank in Dubai and a partnership (AHAB) in Saudi Arabia.  The third-party defendant, Al-Sanea, was a citizen of Saudi Arabia, and another third-party defendant, Awal Bank BSC, was headquartered in Bahrain:

We held in VSL Corp. v Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc. (70 NY2d 948 [1988]) that it was error for the Appellate Division to dismiss a complaint sua sponte on forum non conveniens grounds, adding that such a dismissal may occur “only upon the motion of a party” (id. at 949). Here, though no party formally moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint because of the inconvenience of the forum, the issue was briefed and argued at Supreme Court. We hold that VSL did not bar the court from dismissing the complaint under these circumstances. We also hold that, on this record, Supreme Court was correct as a matter of law in dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. *  *  *

While the idea of dismissing the main complaint on forum non conveniens grounds was first mentioned by the Supreme Court Justice, he gave the parties a full opportunity to address the issue — indeed, he asked them to do so. Al-Sanea argued in favor of dismissing the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, though he did not serve motion papers seeking that relief. We see no reason to read CPLR 327(a) as prohibiting a forum non conveniens dismissal where only the formality of a document labeled “notice of motion” was lacking, and where AHAB, the only party opposed to dismissal, neither objected to nor was prejudiced by the omission of that formality. * * *

Our State’s interest in the integrity of its banks is indeed compelling, but it is not significantly threatened every time one foreign national, effecting what is alleged to be a fraudulent transaction, moves dollars through a bank in New York. Indeed, the parties here agree that, as a practical matter, any dollar transaction comparable in size to the one now at issue must go through New York … . That does not mean that every major fraud case in the world in which dollars are involved belongs in the New York courts. New York’s interest in its banking system “is not a trump to be played whenever a party to such a transaction seeks to use our courts for a lawsuit with little or no apparent contact with New York” … . Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaib i & Bros Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02381, CtApp 4-8-14

 

/ , ,

Alleged Discriminatory Acts Did Not Have an “Impact” in New York—Therefore the Lawsuit Could Not Be Maintained Under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Law

The First Department determined a lawsuit based on alleged violations of  New York State and New York City Human Rights Law could not be maintained because the defendants were out-of-state residents and because the discriminatory actions complained of took place outside the United States, despite plaintiff’s being employed in New York:

The State and City Human Rights Laws do not apply to acts of discrimination against New York residents committed outside their respective boundaries by foreign defendants … . In analyzing where the discrimination occurred, “courts look to the location of the impact of the offensive conduct” … . A non-New York City resident cannot avail him or herself of the protections of the City Human Rights Law unless he or she can demonstrate that the alleged discriminatory act had an impact within the City’s boundaries … . Although plaintiff does not reside in New York City, she resides within the state and is employed by the NBA which is based in New York City. However, the order on appeal addresses plaintiff’s claims against [defendants], none of which are residents of this state. Thus, the focus is on whether the actions these defendants are alleged to have committed had an impact within the respective boundaries of the City and State of New York, in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff contends that the decision to reassign her and later reduce her responsibilities took place within the City boundaries and, therefore, her place of employment is where the impact of the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. However, it is the place where the impact of the alleged discriminatory conduct is felt that controls whether the Human Rights Laws apply, not where the decision is made … . This standard applies whether the claim is made under the City or State Human Rights Laws … . Without more, plaintiff’s mere employment in New York does not satisfy the “impact” requirement. Hardwick v Auriemma, 2014 NY Slip Op 02383, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

/ ,

Application for “Special Immigrant Juvenile” Status Need Only Assert Reunification with One Parent Is Not Possible

The Second Department reiterated  that an application for “special immigrant juvenile” status need only be supported by the allegation that reunification with one parent is not possible:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110—457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant juvenile” is a resident alien who is, inter alia, under 21 years of age, unmarried, and “declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such [*2]a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]). For a juvenile to qualify for SIJS status, it must also be determined that reunification with “1 or both” of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law (id.), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interest to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]). As previously determined by this Court, the “1 or both” language requires only a finding that reunification is not viable with one parent … .  Matter of Gabriel HM…, 2014 NY Slip Op 02587, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

/

Purchaser of a Firearm is an Accomplice of the Seller for Corroboration Purposes

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a witness against the defendant (Lewandowski) was an accomplice as a matter of law (requiring corroboration of his testimony) was reversible error. Lewandowski bought a firearm from the defendant and therefore was an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes:

“A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Pursuant to CPL 60.22, an accomplice is a person who “may reasonably be considered to have participated in . . . [t]he offense charged; or . . . [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2] [emphasis added]). Notably, the definition of an accomplice for the purpose of the corroboration rule differs significantly from the definition of an accomplice for purposes of accomplice criminal liability (…compare CPL 60.22 with Penal Law § 20.00). CPL 60.22 broadens the definition of an accomplice “‘in order to provide a more equitable, operable and consistent standard for the courts in determining when the requirement of corroboration is applicable'”… . Thus, to be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness “must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial” … .

Here, the evidence established that Lewandowski did not have a license to possess the handgun he bought from defendant. Thus, although Lewandowski could not be subject to prosecution for criminal sale of a firearm, he was potentially subject to prosecution for – and was, in fact, charged with – criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree since he unlawfully possessed the weapon as soon as he made the purchase (see Penal Law §§ 265.01 [1]; 265.20 [a] [3]). Just as the purchaser in a drug sale is, as a matter of law, an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes …, here Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law with respect to defendant’s weapon sale and possession charges since he could have been (and was) charged with a crime “based upon some of the same facts or conduct” upon which the charges against defendant were based (CPL 60.22 [2] [b]…). County Court was therefore required to instruct the jury that Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law as to those charges, and that defendant could not be convicted on Lewandowski’s testimony absent corroborative evidence… . People v Medeiros, 105941, 3rd Dept 4-3-13

 

/ , , ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary

After sorting out professional malpractice claims (negligence—three-year S/L) from breach of contract claims (intentional—six year S/L), the Third Department explained the elements of a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action in the context of actuarial services (provided by SGRisk):

Actuaries are not considered professionals for the purpose of the shortened statute of limitations applicable to malpractice claims … . Despite not being deemed professionals in that context, actuaries can still develop relationships of trust and confidence sufficient to give rise to a fiduciary duty. Courts must conduct a fact specific inquiry to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists based on confidence on one side and “resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that SGRisk “held itself out as being a skilled and competent actuarial” firm that “adhered to accepted professional standards,” that it rendered services for the trusts’ benefit, provided advice and created “a relationship of trust and confidence between” itself and the trusts. Plaintiff also alleged that SGRisk agreed to exercise “good faith and undivided loyalty” when determining appropriate valuation of the trusts’ future claims liability and the trusts reasonably relied on this, placing confidence in SGRisk that it would accurately produce truthful annual actuarial reports with correct estimates of future claims reserves. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that SGRisk breached the duty by knowingly and consistently underestimating the claims liabilities and necessary reserves and failing to identify dangerous underfunding … .  New York State Workers’ Compensation Board… v SGRisk LLC, 517387, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

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