You are here: / County Not Entitled to Dismissal of Suit Seeking Refund of Taxes Declared...

Search Results

/ ,

County Not Entitled to Dismissal of Suit Seeking Refund of Taxes Declared Wrongly Collected by the Court of Appeals

The Second Department determined that the plaintiffs’ action seeking the refund of taxes wrongfully collected on “mass property” was properly allowed to proceed.  “Mass property” includes things like power lines, poles, transformers, etc. The defendants had been collecting ad valorem taxes on the mass property for garbage collection.  Ultimately the Court of Appeals held that such taxes could not be collected on mass property, which did not produce garbage.  The defendants argued that they were not obligated to refund the taxes paid and moved to dismiss on that ground.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Second Department explained that the invalidation of the ad valorem tax did not meet the criteria for when a court holding should be given only prospective application in the context of taxation:

…[W]here a municipality has reasonably relied upon a widespread and longstanding practice … or a statute is later invalidated …, and where applying the invalidation retroactively would call into question “a settled assessment roll or property rights based thereon,” a court may exercise its discretion by giving its holding only prospective application … . Here, the County defendants’ submissions have not demonstrated that awarding the plaintiffs the refunds they seek would call into question settled assessment rolls or property rights based thereon. Keyspan Generation LLC v Nassau County, 2014 NY Slip Op 01721, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/

“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)

The Second Department determined  a company (Draghi) hired by the home builder (Majestic)  to do framing work and general supervision was not liable to plaintiff (who was injured when he tripped while using stilts to work on the ceiling) under Labor Law 241(6):

Draghi demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against it by establishing that it was not an owner, general contractor, or statutory agent of the owner or general contractor … . Draghi did not hire any contractors and was not charged with “the duty of co-ordinating all aspects of [the] construction project” … . Rather, Draghi merely assumed a role of “general supervision,” pursuant to which it checked the progress of the work and reported to Magestic … . Draghi demonstrated that it did not have the ability to control the activity which brought about the plaintiff’s injury … . Thus, Draghi established that it could not be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6)… . Gonzalez v Magestic Fine Custom Home, 2014 NY Slip Op 01713, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/

Bicyclist’s Negligence as a Matter of Law Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment to Defendant (Bus Driver, etc.)/There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident

The Second Department determined that the fact that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street (negligence as a matter of law)  did not mandate summary judgment for the defendant bus driver (Wright).  There can be more than one proximate cause to an accident and defendant failed to demonstrate it was free from fault:

Although the plaintiff concedes that he was negligent as a matter of law by traveling the wrong way on Adams Street in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127(a) …, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and the proponent of a motion for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law … .

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing as a matter of law that Wright was free from any comparative fault in the happening of the accident. There are triable issues of fact as to whether Wright failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses …, failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a]…), or was traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed as he approached the intersection in light of the conditions then present … . Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01707, 2nd Dept 3-1914

 

/ ,

County Not Necessary Party In Suit to Recover Taxes Wrongfully Paid to Town

The Second Department determined plaintiff [Verizon] could seek the refund of wrongfully collected taxes against the town which collected them and the town could then seek reimbursement from the county.  The county was not a necessary party in the action brought by the plaintiff.  Plaintiff was the owner of “mass property” (power lines, poles, transformers, etc) which had been subject to taxes for refuse collection.  The Court of Appeals ruled “mass property,” which produced no garbage, could not be so taxed:

Pursuant to the County Guaranty, the County is liable for refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . However, in the actions at bar, Verizon chose to seek refunds from the Town, to which the payments had been made, rather than from the County directly. That was proper in light of our determination that the County is not a necessary party to actions seeking refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . Accordingly, while the Town may seek indemnification from the County pursuant to the County Guaranty, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Town is liable for these refunds in the first instance, and can be sued directly by a taxpayer. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in entering the judgments against the Town defendants.  New York Tel Co v Supervisor of Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 01726, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/

“Relation-Back” Doctrine Applied Where City Mistakenly Not Named in the Complaint and Statute of Limitations Had Run

The Second Department determined the amended complaint against the city should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff tripped and fell on the Brooklyn Bridge.  Plaintiff’s notice of claim named the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) and the city.  However, when the plaintiff commenced an action, only the DOT was named in the complaint.  The city moved to dismiss after the statute of limitations had run.  The Second Department held that the “relation-back” doctrine applied and the city was compelled to accept the amended complaint.  In explaining the “relation-back” doctrine, the court wrote:

Although the statute of limitations had expired on the cause of action insofar as asserted against the City, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a basis for application of the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 203[b]…). In order for claims against one defendant to relate back to claims asserted against another, a plaintiff must establish that ” (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that the new party will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits by the delayed, otherwise stale, commencement and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s claim against the City and the claim against the DOT arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, and the City is united in interest with the DOT such that it can be charged with notice of the action commenced by the plaintiff against the DOT … . Moreover, no prejudice can be asserted by the City, given that a notice of claim was timely served upon both the City and the DOT, and the City proceeded to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff further demonstrated that her initial failure to name the City as a defendant was a mistake, rather than an intentional decision not to assert the claim in order to gain a tactical advantage… . Headley v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01717, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward

The First Department determined the contract cause of action must be dismissed under General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10) because there was no mention of the rate of compensation,  but that there were sufficient allegations to allow the quantum meruit cause of action to go forward:

In Davis & Mamber, this Court held that for a writing evidencing a contract “[t]o satisfy the Statute of Frauds . . . a memorandum must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter” … . … Davis & Mamber precluded a contract claim for failure to satisfy the applicable provision of the statute of frauds, because the relied-on writings lacked any reference to the agreed-on compensation; however, it permitted a quantum meruit claim, because the rule for a writing establishing quantum meruit claims is less exacting, requiring only that the writing “evidenced the fact of plaintiff’s employment [by defendant] to render the alleged services” …. Here, as in Davis & Mamber, the emails … fail to make any reference to payment terms, and accordingly fail to satisfy the statute of frauds as to the contract claim … . However, they suffice to show that [defendant] employed plaintiff, and are therefore enough to satisfy the statute for purposes of plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim.  Chapman, Spira & Carson LLC v Helix BioPharma Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 01685, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

/ , ,

Hearsay in Medical Records Should Have Been Redacted/Not Relevant to Diagnosis and Not Clearly Attributable to Plaintiff as an Admission

Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined hearsay statements should have been redacted from the plaintiff’s medical records.  The plaintiff alleged the police had pushed him over a fence, causing injury.  The defendants alleged plaintiff jumped.  The medical records included references to the plaintiff’s “jumping.” The jury found for the defendants.  The court explained how hearsay in a medical report should be handled:

Hearsay entries regarding the cause of an injury contained in a medical record come into evidence under the business records exception if they are germane to the treatment or diagnosis of plaintiff’s injuries … . Alternatively, the entry may be admissible as an admission, but only if there is evidence that connects the party to the entry … . The challenged entries were neither germane to treatment or diagnosis, nor were they admissions.

There was simply no evidence supporting defendants’ position that the medical doctors needed to know whether plaintiff jumped or was pushed from the fence in order for doctors to determine what medical testing he needed upon admission to the hospital. No medical expert provided such testimony … . Defendants’ only expert, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert, opined that plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with a jump from a height and not a push to a fall. He did not give any opinion on issues relating to treatment or diagnosis. This is not a case where the conclusion is so obvious that no medical testimony is needed to lay the appropriate evidentiary foundation … .

The particular challenged entries cannot be characterized as admissions. Although the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center Admission Assessment form has a box checked that “patient” is the source of the information, the particular entry on that record, “he jumped off the fence,” is not clearly a direct statement attributable to or a quote of plaintiff. The Ambulance Call Report form identifies “PO” or the police officer as the source of the information that plaintiff “jumped off a fence.” No other evidence in the record identifies plaintiff as being the source of this information. Nor is there any evidence connecting plaintiff to the 1/21/97 entry in the Progress Record that “s/p fell from a fence after being chased by police officers” or the 1/23/97 entry “fall from 2 storeys [sic]” to make them admissible as admissions by him. These entries should have been redacted from the medical records received in evidence.  Benavides v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 01682, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

/ , , ,

Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (Which Was Alleged to Have Damaged the Taxi Owners in the Amount of Over $15 Million) Was Found Arbitrary and Capricious

The First Department determined a ruling by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), which was found to be arbitrary and capricious by the Court of Appeals, did not entitle the petitioners (taxi owners who lease their taxis to drivers) to damages. The court determined the damages were not “incidental” within the meaning of Article 78 and were not available in an Article 78 proceeding (under the facts). The court futher determined the TLC was immune from suit because the ruling at issue was an exercise of discretion . The ruling by the TLC had effectively reduced the amount a taxi owner could charge a driver by requiring that tax payments for which the owner is responsible be included in the amount charged for the lease (called a “lease cap”). After that ruling was found arbitrary by the Court of Appeals, the taxi owners sought “incidental damages” of over $15 million:

Petitioners seek damages based on the Court of Appeals’ determination that the TLC’s effective reduction of the taxi “lease cap” had no rational basis. The Court of Appeals’ determination, however, does not lead to a conclusion that the damages are “incidental to the primary relief sought” (CPLR 7806). Contrary to petitioners’ argument, monetary injury incurred as a result of agency action does not necessarily constitute incidental damages simply because a court later finds the action to have been arbitrary and capricious. Certainly, whether damages are characterized as incidental “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Even so, incidental damages are generally confined to monies that an agency either collected from or withheld from a petitioner and then was obligated to reimburse after a court annulled a particular agency determination. * * *

CPLR 7806 explicitly limits the availability of damages in an article 78 proceeding … . That article 78 permits the court, in certain circumstances, to award damages in an action that also reviews the validity of a government determination does not create a right to damages that does not otherwise exist. * * *…

[T]he TLC’s determination in this case, however unjustified it may have been, was an exercise of discretion; the TLC did consider the issue of imposing the tax rule and decided to impose it. Putting aside the merits of its decision, there is no escaping that the TLC exercised its discretion. Indeed, a governmental function such as rulemaking is necessarily an “exercise of judgment and discretion performed in the public interest,” and is protected as a discretionary act … . Accordingly, in a plenary action, governmental immunity would preclude petitioners from recovering incidental damages. Metropolitan Taxicab Bd of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 01683, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

/

No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Defendant”

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined  a 2012 Court of Appeals case (Georgia Malone & Co Inc v Reider, 19 NY3d 511) did not change the law of unjust enrichment and explained the nature of the relationship between the parties which must be alleged in the pleadings:

It is well established that to successfully plead unjust enrichment “[a] plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … . A claim for unjust enrichment “is undoubtedly equitable and depends upon broad considerations of equity and justice” … . A plaintiff is not required to allege privity. It must, however, “assert a connection between the parties that [is] not too attenuated” … . Thus, although a plaintiff could satisfy this requirement by alleging that the benefit was conferred at the behest of the defendant …, the Court of Appeals has never required such a relationship. Rather, the pleadings merely have to “indicate a relationship between the parties that could have caused reliance or inducement” … . Philips Intl Invs LLC v Pektor, 2014 Slip Op 01700, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

/

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing On His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Newly Discovered Evidence Someone Else Confessed to the Crime

The Third Department determined defendant had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction.  The court found no indication the new evidence could have been discovered with due diligence at the time of trial and the new evidence (the confession of another to the crime) was not merely impeachment evidence:

…[W]e find that the affidavit of Maurice Miller proffered by defendant was sufficient to warrant a hearing.Miller’s affidavit was subscribed to in January 2012 and alleged, among other things, that he had witnessed another drug dealer,Alexander Llanos, sell crack to Grimsley on the day of the shooting, that defendant was not present in the area, and thatLlanos later confessed to the shooting. First addressing whether the evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to trial, a court must keep in mind “the practicalities of the situation” and weigh the “limited resources generally available” to a defendant … . Miller averred that he had not contacted police at the time of the crime because he feared retaliation. Defendant was 16 years old, incarcerated and had assigned counsel. Under these circumstances, there is no indication that defendant’s failure to discover this witness was the result of a lack of due diligence … .

Turning to the question of whether the evidence proffered was merely impeachment evidence, the confession of Llanos to the crime was material to the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence … . Furthermore, a defendant has a fundamental right to offer into evidence the admission of another to the crime with which he or she is charged and, therefore, a hearing should have been held to determine the probative value of Miller’s testimony and its probable effect on the verdict … . Accordingly, we find a hearing necessary to promote justice inasmuch as the issues raised are “‘sufficiently unusual and suggest searching investigation'” … . People v Page, 2014 NY Slip Op 105312, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

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