You are here: / Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing

The Third Department determined there were triable issues of fact about whether the occupants of a golf cart were exposed to more than the usual hazards associated with golf.  The cart tipped over on an incline.  There was (disputed) evidence indicating wet leaves were on the ground and the tires of the cart were “bald:”

A person who chooses to participate in an athletic or recreational activity “‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . “[G]olfers are deemed to assume the risks of open topographical features of a golf course” …and they are “held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts” … . Nevertheless, liability may be found where the participant proves “a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … .

Although plaintiff was an experienced golfer, he had not previously played on this particular course. He claimed that he was driving slowly and cautiously when the car simply slid out of control on wet leaves. Defendant acknowledged that the golf course path where the accident occurred was steep and winding. While defendant disputes the amount of wet leaves that plaintiff contends were on the path, it is uncontested that there were leaves present and that defendant’s employees had inspected the area earlier in the day. Significantly, plaintiff produced proof via the testimony of the person with whom he was golfing that, after the accident, he observed that the tires on the golf cart were “bald.” Rose v Tee-Bird Golf Club Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02481, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/ ,

No Negligence Cause of Action Against Commissioner of Mental Health (Based Upon Alleged Statutory Violations)

The Third Department determined claimant, an insanity acquittee, could not bring a negligence cause of action against the Commissioner of Mental Health based upon alleged violations of Criminal Procedure Law 330.20.  The court explained the applicable law re: the liability of a governmental agency (special duty/special relationship):

The rule is well established “that an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . A special duty will only arise from a special relationship, which can be formed in three ways: “(1) when the [governmental entity] violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the [governmental entity] assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . Inasmuch as claimant asserts that CPL 330.20 creates a statutory duty for the benefit of the class of which he is a member, i.e., insanity acquittees, only the first of these categories is potentially applicable.

Significantly, “[t]o form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action” … . Because CPL 330.20 does not expressly confer upon insanity acquittees the right to seek civil damages for any failure by the Commissioner to follow the statute’s provisions, “recovery may be had only if a private right of action can be implied” … . A private right of action may be fairly implied when all of the prerequisites are fulfilled, namely: “(1) the [claimant] is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . In our view, the legislative history supports the finding of the Court of Claims that CPL 330.20 was primarily enacted to benefit the public, rather than insanity acquittees … . Justice v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02483, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/ , ,

Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of a Notice of Claim on the New York City Transit Authority

The First Department determined the service of a notice of claim on the City did not constituted the service of a notice of claim on the New York City Transit Authority:

It is well settled that service of a notice of claim on the City through the Comptroller’s Office is not service upon a separate public authority … . Since plaintiff did not comply with the condition precedent of service of a notice of claim upon the Transit Authority defendants, and they deny having received the notice of claim from the Comptroller’s Office, dismissal is required.  Glasheen v Valera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02512, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

/ ,

Corporate Officer Personally Liable for Outstanding Sales and Use Taxes

The Third Department determined the evidence was sufficient to hold a corporate officer personally liable for outstanding sales and use taxes.  The court explained the criteria for such personal liability:

Tax Law § 1133 (a) imposes personal liability on any person who is responsible for collecting tax under Tax Law article 28. A person required to collect tax (a responsible person) includes “any officer, director or employee of a corporation . . . who . . . is under a duty to act for such corporation . . . in complying with any requirement of [Tax Law article 28]” (Tax Law § 1131 [1]). Whether a person has a duty to act for a corporation and is responsible for collecting sales tax is a factual determination to be made on a case by case basis (…20 NYCRR 526.11 [b] [1], [2]). The factors that the courts have considered relevant to this determination include (1) authority to sign corporate checks, (2) responsibility for managing the corporation and maintaining its books, (3) ability to hire and fire employees, (4) status as a corporate officer, and (5) receipt of substantial income from the corporation or stock ownership … . Significantly, this Court has stressed that “[w]hat must be considered is [the person’s] authority and responsibility to exercise control over the corporation, not his [or her] actual assertion of such authority” … . Matter of Ippolito v Commissioner of NY State Dept of Taxation & Finance, 2014 NY Slip Op 02475, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/

General Business Law 349 Action Must Be Based Upon a Deceptive Act Which Has an Impact on the General Public

The Third Department determined an action pursuant to General Business Law 349 was properly dismissed because the underlying financial service (re: tax deferred retirement plans) was offered to school districts, not the general public:

“A cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 349 has three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act” … . “The threshold requirement of consumer-oriented conduct is met by a showing that ‘the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large’ in that they are ‘directed to consumers’ or ‘potentially affect similarly situated consumers'” .. . “Consumers,” in turn, generally are defined as “those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or household use” … . An act or practice will be deemed to be deceptive where it “is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … .

Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is readily apparent that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. As a starting point, the underlying complaint fails to sufficiently allege that defendant’s purportedly “deceptive practices [were] aimed at the general public” … . In this regard, it is undisputed that defendant contracted with the plan sponsors, i.e., the relevant school districts, and not the districts’ individual employees, the latter of whom selected their particular investment options from the list of service providers chosen by their employers. School districts, as business-like entities, cannot properly be viewed as consumers for purposes of General Business Law § 349 … . Benetech Inc v Omni Fin Group Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02480, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/ ,

Statutory Notice Requirements for Tax Foreclosure Me

The Third Department determined the tax foreclosure proceedings were valid.  The motion to reopen the default judgment was untimely and the statutory notice requirements were met:

A motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment'” … . Significantly, “‘the statute of limitations set forth in RPTL 1131 applies even where, as here, the property owner asserts that he or she was not notified of the foreclosure proceeding'”… .

…[W]e reject respondent’s contention that the statute of limitations period for its motion to vacate never commenced running because petitioner failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPTL 1125. Pursuant to RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i), notice of a foreclosure proceeding shall be sent to a party entitled to notice by certified mail and first class mail and “notice shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States postal service within [45] days after being mailed” … . Further, where one of the notices is not returned within the requisite period, a petitioner is “‘not obligated to take additional steps to notify [the] respondent of the foreclosure proceeding'” … . Here, the first class mailing sent to respondent in October 2011 was never returned to petitioner. Additionally, although the November 2011 first class and certified mailings were both returned, that did not occur within 45 days; they were returned more than 100 days after being mailed. As a result, the mailings were deemed received and petitioner’s obligation to provide notice under the statute was satisfied … . Matter of County of Clinton, 2014 NY Slip Op 02486, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/ ,

Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No Duty Independent of the Contract Itself

The First Department determined that the negligence causes of action were subsumed in the breach of contract allegations and could not be separately pled:

Breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . Allegations of negligence based on defects in construction of a condominium sound in breach of contract rather than tort … . A claim for negligent misrepresentation is not separate from a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff fails to allege a breach of any duty independent from contractual obligations … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any legal duty that would give rise to an independent tort cause of action. Neither General Business Law art 23-A nor its regulations create a special duty or support a private right of action. Thus, the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claim and did not state a cause of action. Board of Mgrs of Soho N 267 W 124th St Condominium v NW 124 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02513, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

/

Detention by Immigration Officials Did Not Disqualify Claimant from Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits

The Third Department determined detention by immigration officials did not disqualify claimant from receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits.  Claimant had been convicted of a felony sex offense, but was sentenced to probation, not incarceration:

We cannot agree with the employer’s argument that claimant’s detention by immigration officials amounts to incarceration “upon conviction of a felony,” thereby rendering him ineligible to receive benefits pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (4). That statutory language was enacted in 2007 to codify existing case law (see L 2007, ch 6, § 37; Governor’s Program Bill Memo, Bill Jacket, L 2007, ch 6…). In our view, giving plain meaning to each of the words used, the statute reflects an intent that benefits should not be paid if a sentence of incarceration is imposed as punishment for a felony conviction. While claimant was convicted of a felony, his punishment did not include incarceration. Rather, he was sentenced to 10 years of probation. His confinement for immigration purposes, on the other hand, was civil and nonpunitive in nature, and its purpose was to determine whether he should be deported (see 8 USC § 1226…). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that claimant was “incarcerated upon conviction of a felony” as that phrase is used in the statute. Matter of Islam v BD Constr & Bldg, 2014 NY Slip Op 02474, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

/ ,

No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest

The First Department determined probable cause for defendant’s arrest did not exist when defendant was handcuffed and the act of handcuffing constituted an arrest, not a detention pending information providing probable cause:

During a buy and bust operation, a ghost undercover detective issued a radio transmission identifying defendant as a participant in a drug sale, made to another undercover officer. Based on that radio transmission describing defendant and his location, a third officer approached defendant on the sidewalk, identified himself, and asked defendant to put his hands up. When defendant acted “a little resistant,” the officer attempted to handcuff him. Defendant then resisted, and the police forcibly handcuffed him.

The suppression court [ruled] that although when the officer stopped the defendant, he did not have probable cause to arrest him based on the information that he had received from the radio transmission, the officer obtained probable cause to arrest defendant after the purchasing undercover officer subsequently radioed his confirmatory identification. …[By] finding that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant until the confirmatory identification, the court implicitly found that the initial apprehension, which preceded that identification, was a proper temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion and that the application of handcuffs on defendant did not transform the detention into a full-scale arrest.

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances … . In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. People v Blanding, 2014 NY Slip Op 02508, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

/

Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Is Not Identity Theft Where the Card Owner’s Identity Is Not Otherwise Assumed/Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Can Constitute Possession of Stolen Property

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined: (1) the use of another’s credit card number does not constitute identity theft unless the person using the number assumes the other’s identity; and (3) the use of another’s credit card number constitutes possession of stolen property: THIS CASE HAS BEEN REVERSED

This appeal raises questions about the elements of identity theft and whether intangible property can be criminally possessed, where a defendant used his associate’s credit card number to pay for hotel expenses without authorization. Specifically, we are called upon to determine, first, whether assumption of identity is a discrete element of identity theft or whether it occurs automatically when a person uses another’s personal identifying information, and second, whether criminal possession of stolen property includes intangible property, namely a credit card number. Regarding the first issue, we find that to secure a conviction for identity theft the People must prove not only that a defendant used another’s personal identifying information, but that he or she consequently assumed the identity of that person. Because the hotel was aware of defendant’s identity, he did not assume the identity of his associate by charging the credit card and, accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of identity theft. As to the second issue, we have determined that the legislature intended intangibles, including credit card numbers, to fall within the ambit of criminal possession of stolen property. Defendant constructively possessed his associate’s stolen credit card number, and thus he was properly convicted of the latter offense. People v Barden, 2014 NY Slip Op 02527, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

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