You are here: / DEFENDANT CORPORATION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT...

Search Results

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT CORPORATION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE LOAN DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO DO SO; PLAINTIFF CANNOT RELY SOLELY ON THE PURPORTED AGENT’S ASSERTIONS OF AUTHORITY, BUT RATHER MUST MAKE A REASONABLE INQUIRY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant corporation in this foreclosure action raised a question of fact whether Wing Fung Chau had apparent authority to sign the loan documents on behalf of the corporation at the time of the closing:

“One who deals with an agent does so at his [or her] peril, and must make the necessary effort to discover the actual scope of authority” … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his [or her] own acts imbue himself [or herself] with apparent authority” … . “‘It is axiomatic that apparent authority must be based on the actions or statements of the principal'” … . “[T]he existence of apparent authority depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentations of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal—not the agent” … . “A third party cannot rely on the alleged agent’s own action and statements, since apparent authority cannot be based upon the agent’s acts” … . Furthermore, the third party “may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … .

Here, the corporation submitted, among other things, affidavits from its president and secretary/vice president, as well as a shareholder agreement dated December 15, 2017, and the corporation’s bylaws, which demonstrated that Wing Fung Chau held no corporate office and did not have the authority to execute the consolidated note and mortgage on behalf of the corporation, and that the corporation had not communicated to the plaintiff, as a third party, words or conduct that gave rise to the appearance and reasonable belief that Wing Fung Chau possessed authority to execute the consolidated note and mortgage on behalf of the corporation … . While the plaintiff relied on the purported bylaws it received from Wing Fung Chau that identified him as the sole shareholder of the corporation and the loan documents he signed that identified him as the president, the plaintiff produced no evidence that it took any further steps to assure itself that Wing Fung Chau had the authority to enter into the loan transaction … . Thus, the record showed only that any authority of Wing Fung Chau’s arose from his own acts, by which he could not “imbue himself with apparent authority” … . “This is especially true where, as here, the [plaintiff] failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the scope of [Wing Fung Chau’s] alleged authority” … . BP3 Capital, LLC v 5120 Realty Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03286, Second Dept 5-27-26

Practice Point: Here there is a question of fact whether the person who signed the loan documents on behalf of the corporation had the apparent authority to do so. One who deals with a purported agent must make an effort to learn the scope of the purported agent’s authority and cannot rely solely on the purported agent’s assertions.

 

/ , , ,

THIS TENANT ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT RENT OVERCHARGES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND CODE IS APPROPRIATE FOR A CLASS ACTION; THE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenants’ motion for class certification in this action alleging fraudulent rent overcharges and violations of the NYC Rent Stabilization Law and Code should not have been dismissed:

CPLR 901(a) sets forth the five requirements for certification of a class action: “1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable; 2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; 3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; 4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and 5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” “These factors are commonly referred to as the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . “[T]he court’s inquiry ‘vis-à-vis the merits is limited to a determination as to whether on the surface there appears to be a cause of action which is not a sham'” … .

… [T]he issue of whether the defendant overcharged tenants in violation of the rent stabilization laws pursuant to a fraudulent scheme predominates over the questions affecting the individual class members … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs demonstrated that they “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” … . Because the plaintiffs’ attorneys had “assume[d] responsibility for litigation expenses, the [plaintiffs’] personal financial condition [was] irrelevant” … . The plaintiffs also demonstrated that a class action was the superior vehicle for addressing their allegations … . Abdelrazek v 12-15 Broadway Astoria, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03283, Second Dept 5-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the criteria for a class action are applied to allegations of fraudulent rent overcharges.

 

/

THE FEDERAL “SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME (SSI)” PROGRAM PROPERLY USES AN SSI APPLICANT’S BENEFITS TO REIMBURSE NEW YORK FOR “SAFETY NET ASSISTANCE (SNA)” PAID BY NEW YORK TO THE APPLICANT DURING THE SSI APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH CAN TAKE MONTHS OR YEARS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a three-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined New York’s Safety Net Assistance program (SNA program) was entitled to reimbursement of the funds provided to applicants awaiting the receipt of the federal Supplemental Security Income program (SSI program) benefits. It may take months or years before an SSI applicant starts receiving SSI payments. During the waiting period an SSI applicant may apply for New York’s SNA program benefits. The applicant is required to work to receive the SNA payments which are based on the federal minimum wage.  The SSI applicants, who are required to work for the SNA benefits during the waiting period, receive the same payments as SNA recipients who do not work. The SSI applicants (the petitioners in this case) argued that using an SSI applicant’s federal SSI benefits to reimburse New York’s SNA program violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving them of the wages earned during the waiting period. The majority rejected that argument:

… 42 USC § 1383 (g) [SSI program] expressly authorizes the government to withhold benefits payable to an applicant in “an amount sufficient to reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for . . . assistance financed from State or local funds and furnished for meeting basic needs” … . Petitioners do not dispute that SNA generally qualifies as interim assistance, or that 42 USC § 1383 (g) authorizes states to be reimbursed for interim assistance from a retroactive SSI award … . Instead, petitioners effectively ask us to read an exception into 42 USC § 1383 (g) for interim assistance that is conditioned on participation in work activities. But the plain language of the statute does not distinguish between assistance that is conditioned on work activities and assistance that is not so conditioned (e.g., because the recipient is unable to work). Nor is there an obvious reason why Congress would have wished to distinguish between the two types of assistance. Both fulfill the same portion of an SSI applicant’s basic needs during the relevant waiting period, which the federal government would otherwise be financially obligated to cover. Matter of Andersen v Hein, 2026 NY Slip Op 03259, CtApp 5-26-26

 

/ , ,

THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROMPTED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT PROMISED PROBATION FOR A D FELONY; ONCE IT WAS CLEAR DEFENDANT MUST BE SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION, THE JUDGE GAVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, WHICH HE DECLINED TO DO; SENTENCE AFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s guilty plea should not be vacated. Defendant unsuccessfully argued that the plea agreement had not been honored by the prosecutor. The plea agreement was unenforceable because it called for an illegal sentence—probation for a D felony. Once it was clear defendant must be sentenced to incarceration, the judge gave defendant the option of withdrawing his guilty plea, which he declined to do. The opinion is fact-intensive and cannot be fairly summarized here. People v Flesch, 2026 NY Slip Op 03258, CtApp 5-26-26

 

/ ,

THE CONTRACTOR RETAINED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER TO INSTALL AN OIL TANK; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF THE TANK BROKE OFF AND STRUCK HIM; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WERE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against a contractor, Controlled Combustion, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s employer was retained by Controlled Combustion to install an oil tank. A piece of the tank broke off and struck the plaintiff. Controlled Combustion did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

Controlled Combustion is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because it established that it did not “actually exercise[] supervisory control over” plaintiff’s work … . General oversight, regular inspections, and authority to stop unsafe work are insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence … . Plaintiff testified that while installing an oil tank in the basement of a building owned by 2350 Broadway, he was struck by a base piece of the tank when the piece detached and fell from an electric chain hoist, which was owned by his employer. Controlled Combustion, a commercial heating company, was retained to perform work in the building, and it in turn retained plaintiff’s employer to install the oil tank. Plaintiff also testified that his employer came up with the plan to move the base piece with a hoist and that all orders of how to do his job came from his employer, not Controlled Combustion. Rosario v C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03279, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “supervision and control” over a plaintiff’s work such that the contractor which hired plaintiff’s employer can be liable to plaintiff under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence.

 

/

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH GENERALLY PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER CAN BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO HOLD A CONSTRUCTION SITE OWNER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR WHICH ROTATED INTO HIM (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Industrial Code provision at issue was not specific enough to support a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action for plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff was struck by the back corner of an excavator which rotated into him. Industrial Code 23-4.2 (k) provides “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged by or falling from such equipment” … :

The references to “area” and “endangered” in section 23-4.2 (k) represent the type of “broad, nonspecific regulatory standard[s]” that this Court has held insufficient to support “an action against a non-supervising owner or general contractor” … . Section 23-4.2 (k) does not include a minimum distance that must be maintained between a worker and any excavation equipment, and its protections are not limited to any specific class of worker. The section also does not identify any protective measures or reasonable precautions that a site owner must take in order to comply with the section. Nor does section 23-4.2 (k) provide clear guidance about how owners and contractors should provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers. It merely states a general prohibition with broad applicability, lacking any specific directions. While the safety of workers is a critical concern, the language of section 23-4.2 (k) does not meet the legal standard for specificity required to hold site owners vicariously liable under the Labor Law.  Mann v Mezuyon, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03257, CtApp 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the level of specificity required before an Industrial Code provision can be the basis for holding a construction site owner vicariously liable for a worker’s injury pursuant to Labor Law 241(6). Here the Industrial Code’s general prohibition against allowing workers in an area where they can be struck by excavation equipment was not specific enough to render the owner vicariously liable.

 

/ ,

THE STENOGRAPHER DELIBERATELY FAILED TO TRANSCRIBE PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL TESTIMONY, INSTEAD RECORDING “BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,” “OMITTED,” AND “UNTRANSCIBABLE;” THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY SENT THE MATTER BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING AND THE RECONSTRUCTED TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO AN APPEAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) the Appellate Division, holding the appeal in abeyance, properly sent the matter back for a reconstruction hearing because the seriously flawed trial transcript omitted testimony, and (2) the reconstruction of the transcript was adequate to allow appellate review. Defendant’s conviction was affirmed:

During the trial of Joseph A. Meyers, the primary stenographer failed to capture substantial portions of the proceedings and frequently recorded “blah blah blah,” “blah blah,” “omitted,” “untranscribable” or undecipherable characters instead of the words actually spoken. Those transgressions by the court reporter were first discovered during the pendency of Mr. Meyers’s appeal. The Appellate Division ordered a reconstruction hearing, at which Supreme Court took testimony from the trial judge who heard the case, the attorneys who tried it and court clerks who helped administer it, and also supplemented the record with the extensive notes the judge took during the trial. Although Supreme Court did not, at the conclusion of the reconstruction hearing, identify the contents of the reconstructed record, the Appellate Division affirmed Mr. Meyers’s convictions based on the original trial record as supplemented by the proof established at the reconstruction hearing. The core issues before us are: (1) whether the Appellate Division appropriately ordered a reconstruction hearing instead of summarily reversing Mr. Meyers’s criminal convictions and ordering a new trial; and (2) if the Appellate Division properly required a reconstruction hearing, whether that hearing produced a record sufficient to protect Mr. Meyers’s right to an appeal that comported with due process. Although the transcript prepared by the court reporter at trial is utterly inexcusable, we affirm the Appellate Division’s holding that, on the unique facts of this case, the results of the reconstruction hearing were sufficient to protect Mr. Meyers’s right to an appeal. People v Meyers, 2026 NY Slip Op 03261, CtApp 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how trial testimony omitted from the transcribed record can be reconstructed such that defendant’s right to an appeal is protected.

 

/ ,

THE MURDER TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 20; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 21 AND INDICTED ON THAT CHARGE ALONE; SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON FORENSIC EVIDENCE (BALLISTIC AND DNA), DEFENDANT WAS SEPARATELY INDICTED FOR MURDER COMMITTED WITH THE SAME WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 20; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY INDICTED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THE TWO OFFENSES WERE NOT PART OF “THE SAME CRIMINAL TRANSACTION” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant was properly separately indicted for (1) possession of a weapon and (2) using that weapon to commit murder. Criminal Procedure Law 40.40(2) prohibits separate indictments for joinable offenses. The majority concluded that the possession-of-a-weapon was not part of the “same criminal transaction” as the murder:

Defendant contends that County Court properly dismissed the murder indictment under CPL 40.40 (2) and, as relevant here, argues that the charges were part of the same criminal transaction because there was no break in possession between her use of the weapon in the murder on November 20, 2021 and her possession of the weapon the next day, November 21. The prosecution responds that the passage of time between defendant’s completion of the homicide on November 20 and her subsequent apprehension on November 21 while in possession of the firearm used to commit the offense separates the criminal acts into different criminal incidents, allowing separate prosecution of the possession and the murder charges. The prosecution has the better argument. We conclude that the Appellate Division properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and reinstated the murder indictment. People v Harris, 2026 NY Slip Op 03260, CtApp 5-26-26

Practice Point: Here criminal possession of a weapon on November 21 and murder using that same weapon on November 20 were deemed offenses which were not part of the same criminal transaction. Therefore the two offenses were properly indicted separately. The separate indictments did not violate the prohibition of separate indictments for joinable offenses in CPL 40.40(2).

 

/ , , , , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IS A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT WORKING FOR A NONDOMICILIARY EMPLOYER, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE REGULAR VISITS TO HER EMPLOYER’S CLIENT IN NEW YORK CITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED, IN NEW YORK CITY, BY THE CLIENT’S EMPLOYEE; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT “HAD AN IMPACT IN NEW YORK,” NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York had jurisdiction over this employment discrimination action brought under the NYS Human Rights Law and the NYC Human Rights Law. The plaintiff is a New Jersey resident and Ethicon, alleged to be her employer, is a New Jersey corporation. Plaintiff alleged she was assigned to a sales account for Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. which required her to meet regularly with an manager at Mount Sinai in New York City. Plaintiff alleged Ethicon knew that she would be subject to sexual harassment by the Mount Sinai manager. The First Department held that the term “employer” in the Human Rights Law included the nondomiciliary Ethicon because the discriminatory conduct at issue “had an impact in New York.” ​

​… [T]he issue here is how we should interpret the State HRL’s definition of an “employer” as used in the phrase “all employers within the state” for purposes of liability under the State HRL (Executive Law § 292 [5]). The motion court read this definition as requiring an employer to have a physical presence in New York and therefore found both the State HRL and the City HRL inapplicable to Ethicon, “a New Jersey employer of [plaintiff,] a New Jersey resident.”  * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals in Hoffman v Parade Publs. (15 NY3d 285 [2010]), adopted an impact test for nonresidents who seek the protection of the City HRL and found that test “relatively simple for courts to apply and litigants to follow, leads to predictable results, and confines the protections of the City HRL to those who are meant to be protected—those who work in the city” …. . * * *

Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York regardless of the residency of the parties. Here, plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that Ethicon, her nondomiciliary employer, assigned her to service a New York-based account, requiring her regular presence at Mount Sinai’s hospital where the alleged traumatic sexual harassment occurred. Plaintiff further alleges that Ethicon was aware of the harassment and nevertheless required her to continue the assignment because of the account’s importance. At the pleading stage, plaintiff’s allegations, among other discriminatory acts, that her Ethicon manager discouraged her from complaining and “coached her to ‘lean into’ the sexual harassment so Mount Sinai would continue using Ethicon’s services” are more than sufficient to allege sexual discriminatory conduct having a concrete impact on plaintiff within New York to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s residency outside New York does not preclude application of the State HRL or City HRL where the alleged misconduct occurred in New York City and affected plaintiff while she was working there. Arizzo v Ethicon, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03262, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into subject matter jurisdiction under the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law. If a nonresident employee of a nondomiciliary corporation, as part of her job, meets regularly with a client in New York City and is sexually harassed by the client, New York has subject matter jurisdiction over Human Rights Law causes of action.​

 

/ , , , , ,

MOTHER STABBED HER TWO CHILDREN AND FILED AN INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL; THE SURVIVING DAUGHTER AND FATHER SUED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL ALLEGING MOTHER WAS NEGLIGENTLY TREATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE STABBING; MOTHER WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT AND RELATED PRIVILEGES BY FILING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF MOTHER’S MEDICAL RECORDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined non-party mother had waived the physician-patient and related privileges by filing a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the prior criminal trial. Mother had stabbed her two children. The instant personal injury action is brought by the surviving child and her father alleging mother was negligently treated by defendant hospital shortly before the stabbing. The plaintiffs sought discovery of mother’s medical records:

Generally, medical records are protected from disclosure (see CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege]; 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c] [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities]). However, a patient can waive those privileges “either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue” … . However, simply denying the allegations in a complaint does not constitute such a waiver … . * * *

… [W]aiver of the physician-patient and related privileges in a criminal action generally carries over to a subsequent civil action, provided the defendant’s mental condition remains at issue … . * * *

We are of the view that … the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the criminal case was sufficient to demonstrate that [mother]  placed her mental condition at issue so as to waive her privilege to confidentiality of her medical, psychiatric, and mental health records maintained by [defendant]. . S.M. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Filing a notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in a criminal trial waives the physician-patient and related privileges and the waiver carries over to a subsequent related civil action.

 

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