You are here: / Alleged Discriminatory Acts Did Not Have an “Impact” in New...

Search Results

/ , ,

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

 

/

Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach Duty of Good Faith by Refusing to Offer a Settlement at the Policy Limit

The First Department determined the insurer’s failure to make a settlement offer at the policy limit was “imprudent” in hindsight, but did not constitute a breach of its duty of good faith:

We reject plaintiffs’ argument that defendant avoided acknowledging the underlying plaintiff’s potential damages such that a refusal to offer the policy limit constituted a reckless or conscious disregard of the excess insurer’s rights. While there was some indication that damages could be significant if the medical records substantiated the underlying plaintiff’s claim of a loss of smell from a severe blow to the head, the record established that defendant’s investigation presented a great deal of medical evidence tending to show that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries were primarily preexisting soft tissue injuries unrelated to the automobile accident on April 24, 1994. Defendant’s investigation included the medical opinion of four physicians that conducted independent medical examinations; one psychologist who conducted a review of the extensive medical records; experienced defense counsel; and separate monitoring counsel for the damages trial. The review of the numerous medical records, which included contradicting evaluations of the underlying plaintiff’s treating physicians, provided a justifiable basis to fairly evaluate potential damages and assess the relative risks of declining to offer a settlement of the policy limit.

Given this evaluation, defendant’s actions do not amount to bad faith. In hindsight, it is evident that defendant’s failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was not prudent. However, “[a]n insurer does not breach its duty of good faith when it makes a mistake in judgment or behaves negligently” … . Here, the assessment of the insured’s exposure and the failure to make a settlement offer of the policy limit was a mistake in judgment. It does not demonstrate that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to heed contrary evidence. Instead, the record shows defendant’s reasonable belief that, under the No Fault Law, the underlying plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident. Thus, we find that the record does not demonstrate any pattern of reckless or conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ rights.  General Motors Acceptance Corp v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02384, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

/

Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring

The First Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Labor Law 241(6) based upon his inhalation of toxic fumes inside an aeration tank, finding the tank constituted an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring:

The court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g). We find that, as a matter of law, the aeration tank is an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring … . Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g), the atmosphere of an unventilated confined area must be monitored “where dangerous air contaminants may be present or where there may not be sufficient oxygen to support life.” Here, the cement tank is a large container used to aerate and clean sewage. Entering the tank poses a potential hazard since, as admitted by a deputy superintendent for the DEP in his deposition, a person could experience oxygen depletion as gases “displace the oxygen.” Defendants contend that in order for an area to be a confined space, as defined by 12 NYCRR 12-1.3(f), it must have a restricted means of access, such as a trap door or a manhole. We reject this argument. An area does not need to be accessible only by a narrow opening in order to have a “restricted means of egress” (12 NYCRR 12-1.3[f]). Although the top of the tank was open to the air, access was still restricted as [plaintiff] needed to use a 20-foot ladder to enter and exit the tank. Therefore, given the tank’s use in the process of filtering sewage and its restricted means of access, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g) is applicable.  Cerverizzo v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02385, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

/ , ,

Tax Law Amendment Allowing New York to Collect Capital Gains Tax from a Nonresident Shareholder in an S Corporation Should Not Have Been Applied Retroactively to a Transaction Which Took Place Three and a Half Years Before the Amendment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a dissenting opinion, the First Department determined an amendment to the tax law should not be applied retroactively.  The amendment allowed New York to collect capital gains tax from a nonresident shareholder in an S corporation which has distributed an installment obligation under section 453 (h)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code:

Determining whether the retroactive application of a tax statute violates a taxpayer’s due process rights “is a question of degree” and “requir[es] a balancing of [the] equities”… . In James Sq. [21 NY3d 233], the Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed a three-prong test to determine whether the retroactive application of a tax statute passes constitutional muster. “The important factors in determining whether a retroactive tax transgresses the constitutional limitation are (1) the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of . . . reliance on the old law,’ (2) the length of the retroactive period,’ and 3) the public purpose for retroactive application'”… .

…[P]laintiffs had “no warning and no opportunity [in 2007] to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the [2010 amendment]”…. . * * *

In James Sq., the Court concluded that a retroactive period of 16 months “should be considered excessive and weighs against the State” (21 NY3d at 249). Here, the period of retroactivity was 3 1/2 years — nearly three times longer than the period found excessive in James Sq. As in James Sq., we conclude that this excessive period was “long enough . . . so that plaintiffs gained a reasonable expectation that they would secure repose in the existing tax scheme” … . * * *

The legislative history indicates that enactment of the legislation was necessary to implement the 2010-2011 executive budget by raising tax revenues by $30 million in that fiscal year. Indeed, defendants expressly state in their brief that the legislature made the law retroactive to prevent revenue loss. But “raising money for the state budget is not a particularly compelling justification” and “is insufficient to warrant retroactivity in a case [as here] where the other factors militate against it” (James Sq., 21 NY3d at 250). Caprio v New York State Dept of Taxation & Finance, 2014 NY Slip Op 02399l 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

 

/ ,

Elements of Prima Facie Tort Explained—Disinterested Malevolence Not Demonstrated

The Third Department, in finding the allegations insufficient to make out the cause of action, explained the elements of prima facie tort:

“To sufficiently allege a cause of action for prima facie tort . . . a plaintiff must plead the intentional infliction of harm without justification or excuse, which results in special damages, by one or more acts which would otherwise be lawful” … . Moreover, “there is no recovery in prima facie tort unless malevolence is the sole motive for the defendant’s otherwise lawful act” … . The act “must be a malicious one unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to injury and damage of another” … . Even egregious conduct by an attorney during the course of representing a client that aids to some degree the attorney’s client or the attorney’s practice generally will not satisfy the disinterested malevolence requirement of a prima facie tort, because such conduct is not motivated solely to harm the defendant … .

… While plaintiffs’ pleadings are liberally interpreted in the context of a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, such liberal standard “will not save allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions or factual claims that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence or are inherently incredible”  Wiggins & Kopko LLP v Masson, 517155, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

/ ,

Appraisal Report Lacking Required Supporting Data Properly Struck

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly struck the appraisal report offered by the petitioner in an effort to reduce the assessed value of petitioner’s golf courses.  The report was struck for failure to include supporting data (required by 22 NYSRR 202.59 [g][2]):

Petitioner’s appraisal report employed the income capitalization approach …, which purported to establish value by capitalizing the anticipated net operating income from a single year by a market oriented capitalization rate. The appraisal report used as a key component income and expenses from two other golf courses, and this information formed the basis for the operating expense ratio. However, the identity of the other two courses used in compiling this information was not provided, but was listed as “confidential” since petitioner’s appraiser had ostensibly obtained the information when working for such courses. We agree with Supreme Court that this information was critical and, since undisclosed, ran afoul of 22 NYCRR 202.59 (g) (2) … . *  *  *

We further note that, even if the presumption regarding the assessor’s value is rebutted, petitioner still had the burden of establishing overvaluation by a preponderance of the evidence …, and we generally accord deference to Supreme Court’s credibility determinations in analyzing the appraisal reports, as well as its decision, so long as they are “not based upon an error of law or against the weight of the evidence” … . Here, Supreme Court set forth several deficiencies in the appraiser’s report and the appraiser’s testimony that caused it to reject petitioner’s contention regarding value. Matter of Bove v Town of Schodack, 516416, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

/ ,

Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as Part of the Operation of a Business, Constituted a “Home Occupation” Requiring Approval by the Zoning Board

The Third Department determined the zoning board of appeals had properly ruled that petitioner was conducting a business inside his home without approval, a so-called “home occupation.”  The fact that large animals were kept outside petitioner’s home in permanent cages was found to be within the scope of the relevant definition of an “accessory structure:”

Petitioner contends that the activities occur in the cages on his property, not in any building on the property or any offsite location. There is no evidence in this record to show that business activities are conducted “inside the residence” or “at off-site locations,” so such activities must be conducted in “a legally constructed accessory building” to fall within the ordinance (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [42]). An “[a]ccessory [s]tructure” is defined as a building “which is located on the same lot” as, and “the use of which is incidental to that of,” a one- or two-family dwelling (Zoning Law[2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [1]). “Building” is defined as a one- or two-family dwelling or portion thereof “intended to be used for human habitation” but also “shall include accessory structures thereto” (Zoning Law [2008] of theTown of Mayfield § 202 [A] [10]). While cages would not generally be considered buildings, the Zoning Law contains a section on “[w]ord [u]sage” stating that “[t]he word ‘building’ includes the word ‘structure'” (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 201). That provision clarifies any ambiguity concerning the definitions of the relevant terms here, as a cage that is built into the ground – like these cages apparently are – can be considered a structure, and the cages are on the same lot as and incidental to the use of petitioner’s residence … .The code enforcement officer did not assert that the cages were illegally constructed. Thus, as petitioner is carrying on business activities in legally constructed accessory structures, he is operating a home occupation. Matter of Salton v Town of Mayfield Zoning Board of Appeals, 516523, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

/ , ,

Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should Not Be Added to the Jury Award to Determine the Amount of the Contingency Fee

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, explained how attorney’s fees should be calculated when there is a contingency fee agreement which does not make clear how the contingency fee is affected by the award of statutory attorney’s fees (in addition to the jury award) pursuant to the Human Rights Law.  The attorney claimed that the contingency should be calculated after adding the statutory fees to the jury award. The court disagreed:

…[B]oth federal precedent and instructive decisions from our sister states evince that,”absent a contractual provision to the contrary, the trend is to calculate the contingency fee based on the amount of the judgment exclusive of the fee award, and then credit the fee award to the client as an offset against the contingency fee owed. Under this approach, the attorney should be entitled to receive either the contingent fee calculated on the amount of the damage recovery exclusive of any court-awarded fees, or the amount of the court-awarded fee, whichever is greater”… .

In the context of the present case, concerning construction of retainer agreements in conjunction with attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the NYCHRL (New York city Human Rights Law), such an approach comports with our precedent holding that ambiguous fee agreements should be interpreted against the drafting attorney … .

In addition, permitting counsel to collect a statutory award that exceeds the amount due under a contingency fee agreement advances the “uniquely broad and remedial purpose” of the NYCHRL by incentivizing the private bar to represent civil rights plaintiffs even where any damage award is likely to be insubstantial … . In this regard, freedom of contract is also respected since, in the event that the statutory award is less than the contingency fee, deducting the court-awarded fees from the sum owed under the contract ensures that the attorney receives, and the client pays, no more or less than they bargained for … .

On the facts before us, we need not decide whether a retainer agreement entitling an attorney to court-ordered counsel fees in addition to the full contingency fee would be enforceable. We would note, however, that such an arrangement would be subject to requisite scrutiny under applicable laws and rules controlling the reasonableness of attorney compensation… .  Albunio v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02325, CtApp 4-3-14

 

/

Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not consider the appropriate factors before continuing with the trial without the defendant’s presence:

“A defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom during his or her trial is one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Federal and New York Constitutions, and by statute” … . Even where, as here, “a defendant has waived the right to be present at trial by not appearing after being apprised of the right and the consequences of nonappearance, trial in absentia is not thereby automatically authorized”… . Rather, it must also appear from the record that the trial court considered “all appropriate factors” before proceeding in defendant’s absence, “including the possibility that defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time, the difficulty of rescheduling [the] trial and the chance that evidence will be lost or witnesses will disappear” … . As the Court of Appeals has instructed, “[i]n most cases the simple expedient of adjournment pending execution of a bench warrant could provide an alternative to trial in absentia unless, of course, the prosecution can demonstrate that such a course of action would be totally futile” … .

Here, the record fails to demonstrate that Supreme Court considered any of the appropriate factors. When defendant failed to appear on the morning that trial was scheduled to commence, defense counsel represented to the court that he had no information as to defendant’s whereabouts and requested an adjournment. Supreme Court declined to grant an adjournment, issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest and pronounced its decision to proceed immediately to trial. People v June, 105292, 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