You are here: / Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided...

Search Results

/

Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided by District Court Which Dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Title VII Constructive Discharge Claim

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined plaintiff was estopped from bringing her retaliation action in state court because the issue raised had necessarily been determined when the District Court dismissed her federal complaint. The plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against after she told management about allegedly discriminatory practices. The retaliation was alleged to have been the failure to act quickly to address a dispute with a coworker:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies where “[f]irst, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action, and second, the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue . . . had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” (id. at 456).In considering plaintiff’s Title VII constructive discharge claim, the District Court examined, as it was obliged to do, the question of whether defendant “intentionally subjected her to an intolerable work environment”… . An integral part …of the court’s determination that defendant had not done so was its explicit finding that defendant “responded promptly after [p]laintiff’s complaint” and “the next day … attempted to address [p]laintiff’s concerns within the constraints of [defendant’s] staffing situation”… . Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 01407, 1st Dept 2-27-14

 

/ ,

Statements to Police Officer by Victim at the Scene Were “Nontestimonial” and Were Admissible as Excited Utterances

The Third Department determined a police officer’s testimony about what the assault victim, Stokes, said at the scene and a video of the officer’s encounter with the victim did not violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses because the admitted statements were “nontestimonial” and “excited utterances.” Stokes had died before the trial:

The officer testified that Stokes said that she had been hit in the head with a bat, described her assailant, and said that he was in a nearby community center. The officer further testified that police then began looking for defendant. The video reveals that the officer encountered Stokes immediately upon arriving at the scene. She was bleeding profusely from her head and complaining of dizziness. The officer asked Stokes about her assailant’s location, description and name, where the attack had occurred, and whether there were other victims, promptly relaying her answers to other police officers and emergency medical personnel who were dispatched to locate and assist Moore and pursue defendant. After the first few minutes, the officer asked no further questions about the incident, concentrating instead on attempting to calm Stokes as she became increasingly agitated and apprehensive about, among other things, the fact that defendant had not been found. County Court correctly determined that the statements by Stokes were admissible as excited utterances … . Further, we find no constitutional violation. The video reveals that the officer’s primary purpose in questioning Stokes was “to enable the police to meet an ongoing emergency and apprehend the perpetrator, not to provide evidence for later prosecution,” and Crawford [541 US 36} does not preclude such nontestimonial statements…. People v Anderson, 105060, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

/ ,

Post-Conviction DNA Test Results Warranted New Trial Under 2012 Amendment to CPL 440.10

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial based on DNA evidence which was not analyzed until after the defendant was convicted. The DNA collected from under the victim’s fingernails did not match the defendant’s. The defendant’s conviction was based solely on the victim’s identification of the defendant made three weeks after she was attacked. The defendant had produced an alibi witness at his trial. The court explained the application of the recent amendment of Criminal Procedure Law 440.10:

Pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(g-1), which became effective October 1, 2012, the court may grant a defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment when forensic DNA testing is performed after the entry of judgment upon a conviction and “the court has determined that there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant.” Unlike a motion under CPL 440.10(1)(g), a defendant relying on the results of DNA testing no longer has to show that the results of such testing is newly discovered evidence in order to seek vacatur of a judgment of conviction. The defendant only has to show that there is a reasonable probability that he would have obtained a more favorable verdict. The newly amended statute, permitting relief at any time after the entry of judgment, applies to this case… . People v Hicks, 2014 NY Slip Op 01376, 1st Dept 2-27-14

 

/

Questions of Fact About Defamatory Meaning and Malice Re: Statements Concerning a Public Figure

The Third Department determined plaintiff, a public figure, had raised questions of fact about whether defamatory advertisements were done with malice:

Plaintiff was a public figure … and, as such, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant made a false statement with actual malice … . Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion … . Further, summary judgment dismissing a defamation action may be avoided where the statement is a “‘mixed opinion’ implying a basis in undisclosed fact” or “‘pure opinion’ that accuses the plaintiff of engaging in criminal conduct”… .Since defendant’s statement includes both a strong inference that he knows undisclosed facts that support his assertion that plaintiff engaged in “numerous unscrupulous dealings” when he previously was Town Supervisor and includes an example that indicated possible unlawful abuse of that office, we agree with Supreme Court that the statements are sufficiently susceptible to a defamatory meaning to avoid summary judgment … . Moreover, defendant essentially acknowledged at his deposition that he had no basis for some of his accusations, and when this proof is viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, there is adequate evidence in the record to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant acted with actual malice… . Baker v Galusha, 517125, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

/

Criteria for a Civil Contempt Finding

The Second Department, in finding defendant had violated a court order with respect to discovery (and therefore was in contempt), explained the criteria for civil contempt:

“To sustain a finding of civil contempt, a court must find that the alleged contemnor violated a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, of which that party had knowledge, and that as a result of the violation a right of a party to the litigation was prejudiced” … . The movant bears the burden of proving the civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence… . DeMaio v Capozello, 2014 NY Slip Op 01291, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

/ , ,

Unjust Enrichment Does Not Require a Wrongful Act by the One Enriched

The Second Department explained the criteria for determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and the elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action. Unjust enrichment does not require a wrongful act:

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … .”The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether … it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . A plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’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 … .”Unjust enrichment . . . does not require the performance of any wrongful act by the one enriched” … . “Innocent parties may frequently be unjustly enriched” … . “What is required, generally, is that a party hold property under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain it'” … . Alan B Greenfield MD PC v Beach Imaging Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01285, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

/

Stipulation of Settlement Not Unconscionable/Provision Relating to Child Support Invalid Because No Indication Parties Were Advised of the Relevant Portions of the Child Support Standards Act

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have vacated a stipulation of settlement as unconscionable. However, the provision in the stipulation relating to child support was invalid because it did not indicate the parties were advised of the relevant portions of the Child Support Standards Act. The court explained the criteria for unconscionability in this context:

“A stipulation of settlement which is made in open court by parties who are represented by counsel and who unequivocally agree to its terms will not be set aside absent a showing that the stipulation was tainted by mistake, fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability” … . As relevant here, a stipulation of settlement is unconscionable if it “is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the … judgment of any person of common sense” … . However, a stipulation of settlement is not unconscionable “simply because it might have been improvident or one-sided” … . The defendant here, as the party seeking to vacate the stipulation of partial settlement, had the burden of showing that its terms were unconscionable … . O’Hanlon v O’Hanlon, 2014 NY Slip Op 01303, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Valuation of Vacant Land Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly valued the condemned vacant land. Supreme Court rejected the village’s contention that Supreme Court had improperly incorporated the enhancement of value resulting from the inclusion of the property in the village’s urban redevelopment plan. The court explained the criteria for determining the value of vacant land:

In a case involving the taking of property, “[t]he measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time” … .Where an increment is added to the value of vacant land to reflect its development potential, “the specific increment which is selected and applied must be based on sufficient evidence and be satisfactorily explained” … . Moreover “[i]t is … necessary to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the property’s highest and best asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future, and a use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement may not be accepted as the basis for an award” … .”[A] condemnee may not receive an enhanced value for its property where the enhancement is due to the property’s inclusion within a redevelopment plan” … . Thus, for example, property zoned for industrial use “should be valued in accordance with the industrial zoning designation which would apply if the redevelopment plan did not exist,” for “[a] condemnee is only entitled to compensation for what it has lost, not for what the condemnor has gained”… . Matter of Village of Haverstraw (AAA Electricians Inc), 2014 NY Slip Op 01332, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

/

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted Awarding Sole Custody to Plaintiff

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had correctly found a change in circumstances justifying a change in the custody arrangement (sole custody awarded to the plaintiff). Despite the stipulation allowing liberal visitation by the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply with the agreement:

“Where parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time [*2]of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children'” … . In determining the child’s best interests, the court must look to the totality of the circumstances … . “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [c]ourt’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .In this case, the critical issue facing the Supreme Court was the parties’ relative abilities to foster a relationship with the noncustodial parent and to cooperate in coordinating long-distance visitation. As we have stated, “one of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” … . In contrast, “[w]illful interference with a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation is so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” … . Alvarez v Alcarez, 2014 NY Slip Op 01286, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

/

Father Demonstrated Child Was Constructively Emancipated/Child Support Obligation Terminated

The Second Department determined Family Court should have terminated father’s child support obligation because the child was “constructively emancipated:

””It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21″ … . “However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment”… . ” [W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his [or her] child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his [or her] visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent’… . Such a breakdown in communication between a parent and a child may result from the parent’s “malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse” … . Where a child justifiably refuses to continue a relationship with a parent due to such parental conduct, the child will not be deemed to be self-emancipated … . “The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it”… . * * *The evidence at the hearing established that the father consistently made a serious effort to maintain a relationship with the subject child during the relevant time period. The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the father regularly called the subject child at the mother’s home, but his calls would either go unanswered, or, according to the mother, the subject child would refuse to speak with him. The father testified that he left messages indicating his willingness to participate in counseling with the subject child, but these offers were not accepted. On special occasions, the father left gifts and cards for the child that the child did not acknowledge. The father also contacted the child’s therapist and suggested therapeutic visitation with the child. However, the child refused this offer. In addition to demonstrating the father’s serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child, the evidence demonstrated that, during the relevant period of time, the father’s behavior was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with the subject child. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the father satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the subject child was constructively emancipated, and a finding in the father’s favor in connection with this issue is warranted by the facts. Matter of Jurgielewicz v Johnston, 2014 NY Slip Op 01325, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

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