You are here: / Plaintiff Cannot Proceed With Case Taking a Position Different from That...

Search Results

/

Plaintiff Cannot Proceed With Case Taking a Position Different from That Taken in a Prior Action

The First Department determined plaintiff could not proceed with her discrimination action against an organization (ECEC) which had agreed to hire her because there had been a determination in another discrimination action that she was employed by the defendant (East Bronx Day Care) in that action.  The court explained the doctrine of judicial estoppel:

The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party who assumed a certain position in a prior proceeding and secured a ruling in his or her favor from advancing a contrary position in another action, simply because his or her interests have changed … . Also known as the “doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions” …, the doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise” … . Applying this doctrine, we find that plaintiff has failed to show that she was “qualified” for the ECEC position, as required to make out a prima facie case of discrimination since plaintiff is judicially estopped from denying that, at the time she was allegedly discriminated against by defendants, she was actually employed with East Bronx Day Care, which would make it impossible for her to carry out her duties for defendants. Becerril v City of New York Dept of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2013 NY Slip Op 06783, 1st Dept 10-17-13

 

/ , ,

Issues to Be Determined in Inquest After Default in Contract Action Explained; Viability of Fraud Cause of Action in Action Based on Contract Explained

In a contract action, the Third Department noted that: (1) a limitation of liability clause in a contract can be raised by the defaulting party after a default in the inquest on damages; (2) the court can determine whether the defaulting party stated valid causes of action; and (3) allegations of deceptive practices aimed at the general public state a cause of action under General Business Law 349.  In explaining why the fraud cause of action was valid in this contract-based case, the Third Department wrote:

In order to recover on the third cause of action for fraud, the defrauded party must allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact known to be false and made with the intent to deceive, as well as justifiable reliance and damages … .  While it is the general rule that “[a] separate cause of action seeking damages for fraud cannot stand when the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract” …, defendants’ allegations of fraud do not concern any express terms of the contract or third-party defendants’ failure to perform those term ….  Rather, defendants allege that third-party defendants fraudulently induced them into entering the contract by falsely representing that they were skilled, competent and experienced in providing construction management services.  Those allegations are not redundant of the breach of contract cause of action, which claims that third-party defendants failed to perform the terms of the contract … .  Defendants also alleged that they relied on the representations …, and the allegations permit us to infer that the reliance was justified.  Nor is there anything in the complaint or contract that would suggest that their reliance was unjustified … .  84 Lumber Co LP v Barringer…, 516235, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ , , ,

Criteria for Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract Rights Explained in Context of Requirement that Health Insurers Reimburse Customers Pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4308

Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff health insurer on the ground that certain portions of Insurance Law section 4308 constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights.  The Third Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted (on grounds unrelated to a determination of constitutionality).  In the course of the decision, the court explained the constitutional analytical criteria:

Plaintiff is a not-for-profit health insurer that offers various types of health insurance to its subscribers, including – insofar as is relevant here – community-rated, large-group insurance and health maintenance organization policies. Historically, insurers such as plaintiff were required to obtain prior approval from the Superintendent of Insurance1 before increasing or decreasing premium rates (see Insurance Law former § 4308 [c] [1]…).  In 1995, however, the Legislature replaced this system with a “file and use” methodology, whereby insurers could increase or decrease premiums at their discretion, so long as the “anticipated incurred loss ratio” for the affected insurance pool fell within statutory minimum and maximum percentages… .  If the actual loss ratio fell below the statutory minimum, the insurer was required to “issue a refund to its subscribers or credit a dividend against future premiums”; if the actual loss ratio exceeded the statutory maximum, the insurer “increase[d] its premium rates accordingly”… .

In response to growing concerns that steady increases in premium rates were making health insurance less affordable, the Legislature amended Insurance Law § 4308 again in 2010 (see L 2010, ch 107, § 2) – reinstating the prior approval requirement and setting the minimum loss ratio for all coverage pools at 82% loss ratio for its large-group coverage pools fell below the 82% requirement.  As a result, defendant Superintendent of Financial Services directed that plaintiff issue refunds or credits totaling $3,349,976 to policyholders enrolled in community-rated large-group contracts. * * *

US Constitution, article I, § 10 provides that “[n]o [s]tate shall . . . pass any . . . [l]aw impairing the [o]bligation of [c]ontracts.”  The prohibition contained in the Contract Clause, however, is not absolute, as states “retain the power to safeguard the vital interests of [their] people” … .  “Thus, the [s]tate may impair [private] contracts by subsequent legislation or regulation so long as it is reasonably necessary to further an important public purpose and the measures taken that impair the contract are reasonable and appropriate to effectuate that purpose” … .  Analysis of a claimed Contract Clause violation “require[s] consideration of three factors: (1) whether the contractual impairment is in fact substantial; if so, (2) whether the law serves a significant public purpose, such as remedying a general social or economic problem; and, if such a public purpose is demonstrated, (3) whether the means chosen to accomplish this purpose are reasonable and appropriate”… . Healthnow New York Inc … v NYS Insurance Dept, 516179, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Nonsignatory Could Not Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under Direct Benefit Estoppel Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversed the appellate division and determined a party who was not a signatory to an agreement which included an arbitration clause could not be compelled to arbitrate under the direct benefit estoppel doctrine.  In explaining the doctrine, the court wrote:

Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits” the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement … .

Where the benefits are merely “indirect,” a nonsignatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate a claim.  A benefit is indirect where the nonsignatory exploits the contractual relation of the parties, but not the agreement itself … .  Matter of Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc, 149, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ , ,

Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (over a substantial partial dissent which dealt with defense counsel’s antagonistic behavior toward the judge and degrading comments about the defendant), the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge, who had represented the defendant in the past on an unrelated matter (about which the judge had no specific memory), properly denied defendant’s recusal request which alleged bias on the judge’s part:

Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law § 14, a judge’s decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion … .  “This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of nonjuridical data” … .  We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” … .  People v Glynn, 155, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ , ,

School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Education

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division and found plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss:

Defendants are of course correct that evidence only that the principal made stray discriminatory comments without any basis for inferring a connection to the termination would be insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308 [comments made years before the plaintiff’s termination failed to raise a triable issue of fact in light of the clear evidence of plaintiff’s misconduct]).  But that is not the case here.  Plaintiff has offered evidence of, among other things: defendant principal’s repeated homophobic remarks directed at plaintiff; his decision to report to the Department of Education (DOE) allegations that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct while working at an after-school program that he did not supervise; his close relationship with the alleged victims of the misconduct; his independent decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment; and the after-school program supervisor’s opinion that plaintiff had not engaged in any misconduct worthy of reporting to the DOE. This is sufficient to deny defendants’ motion for summary dismissal.  Sandiford v City of New York Dept of Education, 157, CtApp 10-17-15

 

/ ,

Damage to Building Caused By Excavation Next Door Constituted “Vandalism”

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals answered two certified questions from the Second Circuit.  The case involved damage to a building caused by the excavation of a parking garage next door. The question was whether the damage could fall within the meaning of “vandalism” in the building owner’s insurance policy, even though the alleged acts were not directed at the damaged building.  The Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative:

It is true that, in some cases of alleged vandalism not directed at particular property, the term does not intuitively seem to fit.  … The word vandalism, which derives from the sack of Rome by the original Vandals in 455 AD (see IV, Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at 246-248 [Folio Society 1986]), more readily brings to mind people who smash and loot than business owners who seek their own profit in disregard of the injury they do to the property of others.  We conclude, however, that there is no principled distinction between the two.  An excavator who is paid to dig a hole, and does so in conscious disregard of likely damage to the building next door, is, for these purposes, not essentially different from an irresponsible youth who might dig a hole on the same property, with the same effect, whether in search of buried treasure or just for fun. …

In common speech, and by the express terms of the policy in suit, vandalism is “malicious” damage to property.  The Second Circuit’s second question asks, in essence, what state of mind amounts to “malice” for these purposes.  We answer by adopting, insofar as it relates to property damage, the formulation we have used in reviewing awards of punitive damages. Conduct is “malicious” for these purposes when it reflects “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that [it] may be called willful or wanton”… .  Georgitsi Realty LLC v Penn-Starr Insurance Co, 156, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Son’s Application for Succession to Mitchell-Lama Apartment Should Not Have Been Denied Because of Mother’s Failure to File Income Affidavit

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, with three dissenters, the Court of Appeals determined that his mother’s failure to file an income affidavit did not warrant the denial of her son’s [Murphy’s] application for succession to the Mitchell-Lama apartment vacated by his parents:

In this case, DHCR [Division of Housing and Community Renewal] contests neither Murphy’s status as a family member, nor that he lived in the apartment during the relevant two-year period of 1998-1999.  The sole basis for DHCR’s denial of Murphy’s application was that his mother did not file the requisite income affidavit for 1998, the year prior to Murphy’s high school graduation.  Given the overwhelming evidence of primary residence, and the absence of any indication that the failure to file was related to Murphy’s status as a co-occupant or an income-earner,  we hold that it was arbitrary and capricious for DHCR to deny succession on the basis of the failure to file a single income affidavit.

There is no doubt that DHCR has a compelling interest in encouraging the timely filing of income affidavits in order to fairly and efficiently administer the Mitchell-Lama program. Housing companies and supervising agencies like DHCR rely on these affidavits to monitor both the number and aggregate income of occupants, information that is crucial to determining the appropriate amount of rent and to ensuring that tenants remain eligible for the rental subsidy.  Accordingly, failure to file income affidavits can result in harsh penalties: the tenant can be charged a surcharge on rent for the applicable year (as occurred here), or can be evicted (see 9 NYCRR §§ 1727-2.6 [a] and 1727-5.3 [a] [7]).

In the succession context, however, the principal purpose of the income affidavit is to provide proof of the applicant’s primary residence… . As both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division noted, Murphy provided ample evidence in support of his succession application evincing that he resided in the apartment during 1998 and 1999.  Indeed, DHCR does not dispute Murphy’s residency for the past 32 years.  DHCR instead cites only his mother’s technical non-compliance for a single year to justify evicting him from the only home he has ever known.

Notwithstanding the importance of the income affidavit requirement, given the overwhelming evidence of residency provided in this case, and the lack of relationship between the tenant-of-record’s failure to file and Murphy’s income or cooccupancy, DHCR’s decision to deny Murphy succession rights was arbitrary and capricious.  Matter of Murphy v NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 146, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Eliot Spitzer, Former New York Attorney General, Was a Necessary Party in FOIL Proceeding Seeking His Private Emails In Connection With Civil Enforcement Action against AIG Chief Financial Officer

Petitioner, former Chief Financial Officer of AIG, was the subject of a civil enforcement action against him brought in 2005 by then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  Supreme Court granted petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for access to private emails of Spitzer.  The Third Department determined that, given the nature of the documents requested, and Spitzer’s current status as a private person, he was a necessary party to the action:

Since at this juncture the object of this proceeding is Spitzer’s private email account(s), and the outcome of this appeal could be a directive to respondent to gain access to and review those private accounts, Spitzer would certainly be “inequitably affected by a judgment in th[is] [proceeding]” and “ought to be [a] part[y] if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to [this proceeding]” (CPLR 1001 [a]).  As such, Spitzer is a necessary party herein … .  While not raised directly by the parties, “the court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties” … .  “The rule . . . insures fairness to third parties who ought not to be prejudiced or ’embarrassed by judgments purporting to bind their rights or interest where they have had no opportunity to be heard'” … .

In this matter, resolution of the disputed FOIL demand directly impacts the personal property of Spitzer, now a private citizen who is not before this Court and whose significant private rights and property cannot be said to be protected by the current respondent, which admittedly does not represent Spitzer’s private interests.  However, “[t]his [C]ourt has previously held that a court may not, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party” (…see CPLR 1003).  Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to order Spitzer to be joined if he is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and, if not, to permit Spitzer’s joinder by stipulation, motion or otherwise and, “if joinder cannot be effectuated, the court must then determine whether the [proceeding] should be permitted to proceed in the absence of necessary parties”… .  Matter of Smith v NYS Office of the Attorney General, 515758, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Stay During Appellate Process Expires Five Days After Court of Appeals Denies Leave to Appeal

A police officer was dismissed from the force just before his retirement pension vested. The dismissal was vacated by Supreme Court because of flaws in serving the officer with notice of the charges.  The First Department affirmed and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.  The First Department noted that the stay of the proceedings which was in effect during the appeals process (CPLR 5519(a)) terminated five days after the Court of Appeals denied leave (CPLR 5519(e)(ii)).  The commissioner’s failure to hold a new hearing and issue a new dismissal order within thirty days of the denial of leave resulted in the automatic vesting of the officer’s pension. Matter of Toolasprashad v Kelly, 2013 NY Slip Op 06772, 1st Dept 10-17-13

 

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