You are here: / Antenuptial Agreement Was a Valid Contract Which Controlled Interpretation...

Search Results

/ , ,

Antenuptial Agreement Was a Valid Contract Which Controlled Interpretation of Trust Documents

The Third Department applied general principles of contract-interpretation to an antenuptial agreement and trust documents to determine objections to property distribution raised by the surviving wife:

Although the [trust document] makes no explicit mention of the antenuptial agreement, the [trust document] fulfilled decedent’s obligation under that agreement by explicitly creating a trust to benefit [the wife] during her lifetime in an amount in excess of that required by the antenuptial agreement. Further, the [trust document] provides that the trust to benefit [the wife] be funded with assets that “qualify for the marital deduction,” which is consistent with the intentions of the parties as explicitly set forth in the antenuptial agreement. The structure of the [trust document] creates an estate plan that is inconsistent with [the wife’s] claim. The plain language provides for a trust to benefit [the wife] that meets the specific minimum requirements set out in the antenuptial agreement, and the [trust document] conforms to the parties’ intentions regarding tax deductibility expressed in the agreement. Considering this evidence, Surrogate’s Court properly determined that there is no issue of material fact on [the wife’s] claim, because decedent intended to fulfill his obligation under the antenuptial agreement through the [trust] …, and that trust was funded in an amount greater than required by the antenuptial agreement … . Matter of Rich, 2014 NY Slip Op 02982, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/

Slip and Fall On Sidewalk Near Place of Employment Was Not a Work-Related Accident

The Third Department determined a slip and fall on a sidewalk near claimant’s place of employment did not, under the facts, constitute a work-related accident:

Inasmuch as the accident here occurred near claimant’s place of employment, his claim falls within “a gray area where the risks of street travel merge with the risks attendant with employment and where the mere fact that the accident took place on a public road or sidewalk may not ipso facto negate the right to compensation” … . In order for an incident to be compensable under those circumstances, “there must be (1) a special hazard at the particular off-premises point and (2) a close association of the access route with the premises, so far as going and coming are concerned” … .While the public sidewalk here was near the government center, it was open to the public and there was no showing that it was “otherwise controlled by the employer, that workers were encouraged to use it or that it existed solely to provide access to the” workplace … . The ice on the sidewalk, moreover, constituted “a danger that existed to any passerby traveling along the [sidewalk] in that location” and bore no relation to claimant’s employment… . Matter of Trotman v New York State Cts, 2014 NY Slip Op 03002, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/

Company Exercised Sufficient Control Over “Agents” to Justify Finding They Were Employees

The Third Department determined that Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly found that claimants were employees of Just Energy New York Corporation and were thus entitled to unemployment insurance payments from the employer:

The record establishes that some indicia of control by Just Energy was mandated by law, such as requiring the agent to carry a photo identification badge bearing Just Energy’s name and logo, which, alone, is not sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. Nevertheless, “it can still be considered as part of the overall determination of control exercised over” the agents  … . Here, the Board was not convinced that all the indicia of control that Just Energy exercised over the agents was required by applicable state law. Specifically, Just Energy advertised for and interviewed the agents before hiring them. Just Energy provided the agent agreement and set the commission rate, both of which could be changed only by Just Energy. Just Energy provided the agent with the customer contracts. Contracts were required to be submitted on a weekly basis, approval by Just Energy was required before the contracts became effective, and Just Energy reviewed the contracts and returned them to the agent if any corrections needed to be made. Significantly, the agreement precluded the agents from working for any competitor during the term of the contract, as well as for three weeks following the termination of the agreement. Agents were required to attend two half-day orientation sessions, and received a training manual and code of conduct, which, if not adhered to, could result in termination of the contract. Just Energy would field questions from agents. Furthermore, any complaints were handled by Just Energy, which could investigate and maintain a file on an agent. Although there is evidence to support a contrary conclusion, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that the extent of the control exercised by Just Energy over the agents evinces an employer-employee relationship … . Matter of Cohen (Just Energy Mktg Corp—Commissioner of Labor), 2014 NY Slip Op 02984, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/

Plaintiff Deemed to Be In the Foreseeable Zone of Danger Re: a Fireworks Display

The Third Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in a case stemming from a malfunction of a fireworks display.  The malfunction caused a projectile to fly horizontally toward plaintiff who injured her arm in attempting to protect her daughter from the projectile. Supreme Court had dismissed the action as unforeseeable because the projectile travelled beyond the usual zone of danger.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty to him or her, that the defendant breached that duty and that such breach was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained … . “The existence and scope of [the] alleged tortfeasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for determination by the court” — giving due consideration to “whether the relationship of the parties is such as to give rise to a duty of care, whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks” … . Once it is determined that a particular duty exists, whether — and the extent to which — that duty was breached and whether any such breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries generally are factual issues for the trier of fact to resolve … .

Here, defendants possessed, furnished, set up and ignited “a large supply of dangerous fireworks” … and, as such, were bound to exercise “a high degree of care” in order to prevent injury to others … . As to the foreseeability of a malfunction, one of defendants’ representatives testified at his examination before trial that, although he had not experienced a “blow by” prior to the Ticonderoga show, such an event was “an occurrence in the industry,” that “the chance for a malfunction [was] obviously there” and that malfunctions can be dangerous. As to whether plaintiff was in the zone of foreseeable harm, plaintiff estimated that she was sitting approximately 700 feet from where the shells were being launched (well outside the purported safety radius) and, as noted previously, acknowledged that the debris from the first malfunctioning shell did not reach her location. Plaintiff also testified, however, that the second shell exploded “[v]ery close” to where she was sitting, causing sparks to land around her group, and one of defendants’ representatives conceded that “hot flaming debris” from this second shell was propelled into the crowd of spectators. Further, when plaintiff returned to the ball field the following day, she observed scorch marks on the grass — presumably caused by flaming debris from the detonated shell — approximately 20 feet away from where she had been sitting. Moreover, the police report prepared in this matter makes reference to a witness who claimed that the second shell exploded “15-20 feet away from the civilians sitting by Burgoyne [R]oad.” Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm … . Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in finding that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff.  Evarts v Pyro Eng’g Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02996, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/ ,

Email Acknowledging Debt Raised Question of Fact About Whether Period of Limitations Was Restarted by the Email

The Second Department determined an e-mail acknowledging plaintiff’s entitlement to a commission raised a triable issue of fact about whether the statute of limitations was restarted:

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the applicable six-year statute of limitations expired before the plaintiff commenced this action (see CPLR 213…). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether an email message, purportedly sent by the defendant …, acknowledged the plaintiff’s entitlement to a brokerage commission and demonstrated the defendants’ intent to pay it, thus restarting the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101…). ” Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case'” … . Here, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue. Georg Tsunis Real Estate Inc v Benedict, 2014 NY Slip Op 02899, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

/ ,

Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court improperly denied defendant’s [Eastern Athletic’s] motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff had fallen off an exercise ball during an exercise class.  The Second Department found plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court ruled the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant were inadmissible because they were not certified, a ground that had not been raised by the parties.  The Second Department held that a dispositive motion can not be denied on a ground that was not raised by the parties:

Here, the Supreme Court denied the subject motion for summary judgment on a ground that the parties did not litigate. The parties did not have an opportunity to address the issue relating to the certification of the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying that dispositive motion. The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process. It is significant that, in Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 519), the Court of Appeals cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” (id. at 519).

The Supreme Court erred in denying Eastern Athletic’s motion for summary judgment by deciding that the plaintiff’s deposition transcript was uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, where that ground of admissibility was not raised by the plaintiff herself. Notably, the plaintiff’s deposition transcript recites that the plaintiff was duly sworn. Moreover, in civil cases, “inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection may be considered and given such probative value as, under the circumstances, it may possess” … .

Had the plaintiff argued in opposition to Eastern Athletic’s motion that her deposition transcript was inadmissible because it was uncertified, Eastern Athletic could have submitted a certification in its reply papers and, if the plaintiff were not prejudiced, the Supreme Court may have considered it … . Eastern Athletic’s failure to submit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the plaintiff’s deposition was an irregularity and, as no substantial right of a party was prejudiced, the court should have ignored the defect (see CPLR 2001). Rosenblatt v St George Health & Racqetball Assoc LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02917, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

/ ,

Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced to Plead Guilty Required Assignment of New Counsel

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s denial of defendant’s claim he was forced to plead quilty by defense counsel’s telling him a rejection of the plea offer would result in a much greater sentence effectively made defense counsel a witness against her client.  A new attorney should have been assigned at that point to protect defendant’s right to counsel.  People v Barr, 2014 NY Slip Op 02949, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

/

Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s admonition to defense counsel to confine her opening statement to what she intended to prove did not shift the burden of proof:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s admonitions to defense counsel to confine her opening statement to what she intended to prove did not shift the burden of proof. The court thoroughly instructed the jury that the defense did not have to make an opening statement, that the burden of proof remained with the People, and that the defendant had no burden … . Furthermore, the court’s comments did not prevent defense counsel from completing her opening statement, or overly restrict her opening statement … . Under the circumstances of this case, there is no realistic view that the court’s remarks could be interpreted so as to skew the burden of proof .. . The court’s remarks were brief, isolated, and innocuous in context … . People v Robles, 2014 NY Slip Op 02960, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

/ , ,

Shortened Statute of Limitations in Policy Enforced

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the shortened statute of limitations in the insurance policy was enforceable:

“The parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations. Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … . “Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentation in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to” … .

* * * The plaintiff did not offer evidence that the defendant’s conduct lulled him into inactivity based on a belief that his claim would ultimately be processed, or that he was “induced by fraud, misrepresentation or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action” … .  John v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02905, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

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