You are here: / Question of Fact About Whether Horse Owner Liable for Injuries to Novice...

Search Results

/ , ,

Question of Fact About Whether Horse Owner Liable for Injuries to Novice Rider

The Fourth Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the owners of a horse which allegedly brushed up against a tree, injuring the novice rider.  The court explained that the “knowledge of vicious propensities” doctrine applied here because there was evidence the defendants knew the horse had a propensity to ride too close to trees, the general release signed by plaintiff was void as against public policy, and the defendants did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff had assumed the increased risk of horseback riding alleged here:

It is well settled that “the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … .  “[A]n animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” (id. at 447).  In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, wherein she testified that defendant and a guide employed by the Ranch instructed plaintiff to push off of the trees if the horse walked too closely to the trees on the single-file woodland trail.  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants conclusively demonstrated that plaintiff executed the release, we conclude that, under these circumstances, where the riding lesson was ancillary to the recreational activity of horseback riding, General Obligations Law § 5-326 renders the release void as against public policy… .* * *

Finally, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risk of horseback riding.  Horseback riding “[p]articipants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks” … .  Here, defendants submitted evidence that raised a question of fact whether they unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by using a bitless bridle on their horses, which did not provide plaintiff with the ability to control the horse, and by failing to give plaintiff, who was a novice rider, adequate instructions on how to control the horse … .  Vandeerbrook v Emerald Springs Ranch…, 855, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

/ , ,

City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of an Article 78 petition. In granting the petition, Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the city code and charter were unconstitutional as applied with respect to searches of petitioner’s property in connection with the issuance of certificates of occupancy.  In reversing that determination, the Fourth Department wrote:

We have previously upheld as constitutional the City’s CO requirement as well as its procedure for issuing judicial warrants for inspections of premises in cases where the City has failed to obtain the consent of the homeowners or tenants … .  Petitioner concedes that the laws at issue are valid on – their face, but contends that the determination that he violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d) is unconstitutional because, as a result of the determination, he will be required to consent to a warrantless inspection of his property or risk prosecution and fines.  That contention, however, was specifically considered and rejected by this Court in Matter of Burns v Carballada (101 AD3d 1610, 1611-1612), which involved facts nearly identical to those herein.  The petitioners in Burns commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of the Municipal Code Violations Bureau finding that they violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d), the same provision at issue here, by owning rental property that was occupied without a valid CO (id. at 1610).  In the Burns petition, like the petition in this case, petitioners asserted, inter alia, that the determinations that they failed to comply with the City Code CO provision violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution (id.).  Specifically, petitioners contended that the City’s CO inspection and warrant system was unconstitutional as applied to them because it prevented them from obtaining a CO without first consenting to a warrantless search of their properties (id. at 1611-1612).  We rejected that contention and stated that, “[u]nder the City’s ordinance, . . . an inspection can take place either upon consent or upon the issuance of a warrant (see City Charter § 1-11).  On the record before us, petitioners have not shown that they were actually penalized for refusing to allow an inspection inasmuch as there is no evidence that they ever applied for a CO and thereafter refused to consent to the required inspection of their properties” (id. at 1612).  Matter of Capon v Carballada…, 858, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

/ ,

Criteria for County’s Immunity from Village Ordinances Explained

In remitting the matter to create a more complete record, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for determining whether the county is immune from the requirements of village ordinances prohibiting the use of the village sanitary system for a county jail within the village limits:

We agree with the Village that the record is inadequate to make a determination, based upon a “balancing of public interests,” whether the County is immune from the requirements of those amendments with respect to its siting of the proposed Facility … .  The factors to be weighed in making that determination are “the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests[,] . . . the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, . . . alternative methods of providing the needed improvement[,] . . . intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard” … .  Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance… . Matter of County of Herkimer v Village of Herkimer, 937, 4th Dept 9-27-13.

 

/

Math Tutor Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee

The Third Department affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a math tutor, was an independent contractor, not an employee:

Although claimant maintains that he was erroneously considered an independent contractor in connection with earnings received from tutoring services through TestQuest, Inc. and that such funds should be utilized as covered employment to establish his claim, we cannot agree.  As noted earlier, TestQuest, Inc. tutors such as claimant were deemed by this Court to be independent contractors (Matter of Leazard [TestQuest, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d at 1415-1416), which decision is conclusive and binding upon all such persons employed by TestQuest, Inc. (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [b]).  As such, those earnings cannot qualify for inclusion as remuneration in the base periods… . Matter of Tkachyshyn…, 516210. 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

/

Claimant Who Sold Educational Materials Was an Employee

The College Network (TCN) sells educational materials for personal study from home to obtain college credits through testing. Claimant was retained by TCN to promote and selling the materials. After claimant stopped working for TCN he filed a claim for unemployment insurance. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld the decision that claimant was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance.  The Third Department affirmed:

It is well settled that “the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … .  “The predominant consideration in making this inquiry is evidence of the alleged employer’s control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with the latter being more important” … .  Here, there is ample evidence that TCN exercised control over many aspects of the program advisors’ work.

Notably, TCN established the program advisors’ sales territory and provided them with sales leads as well as product knowledge training.  Although the program advisors could pursue these leads or develop their own, they were paid commissions based upon percentages set by TCN depending on the manner in which the sale was generated.  The program advisors were required to report to TCN the results of company-generated leads and were only allowed to use advertisements and promotional materials approved by TCN.  TCN provided program advisors with company email addresses and business cards, and reimbursed them for the expenses of attending some training.  Notably, at times, regional sales managers accompanied the program advisors on sales calls to ensure they were providing customers with accurate information. In addition, TCN maintained a corporate calendar by which it would schedule appointments for the program advisors depending upon their availability.  Significantly, the program advisors were expected to contact nine customers within a 90-day period, and TCN retained the right to terminate them if they were underperforming.  TCN also prohibited the program advisors from working for competitors for a two-year period.  Matter of Smith…, 515773, 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

/

Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who Loaded and Unloaded Equipment Were Not Employees

The Third Department determined that, for purposes of assessing unemployment insurance contributions, musicians on tour were employees of, not independent contractors for, Columbia Artists Management, but the workers who loaded and unloaded the equipment used by the musicians were independent contractors, not employees:

… [T]here are a number of factors that establish that Columbia retained control over important aspects of the musicians’ work.  Specifically, Columbia paid the musicians a flat fee per week for the duration of the tour as well as the costs of transportation, lodging and miscellaneous expenses, supplied them with sheet music on occasion and prohibited them from taking on engagements that conflicted with the tour.  Most significantly, under the written contracts, Columbia retained the right to ensure the artistic quality of the show by insisting that a performance be changed if it found it to be inappropriate. In addition to retaining broad overall control over the musicians’ performances, Columbia retained the right to dismiss any musician for drug or alcohol abuse.  In view of this, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship between Columbia and the musicians … .

We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the loaders.  There is nothing in the record to indicate that Columbia exerted any type of control over either the means or the results of the work of these individuals.  All communications involved in retaining the loaders occurred through the union representative at the venue, who dictated the terms of payment as well as the number of loaders needed.  The Columbia representative present at the time the trucks were unloaded was there solely for the purpose of paying the loaders and provided no equipment or instruction to assist them in performing their work.  Matter of Columbia Artists Management LLC…, 515768, 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

/

Sentencing Court Could Amend Restitution Amount But First Must Give Defendant Opportunity to Withdraw Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined County Court had the authority to amend the amount of restitution initially ordered at sentencing.  However, the change required giving the defendant the right to withdraw the guilty plea:

Notably, “in the normal course of events, the People must ‘advise the court at or before the time of sentencing that the victim seeks restitution . . . and the amount of restitution . . . sought’ (Penal Law § 60.27 [1]), and the trial court must determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing” … .  Nevertheless, “the court’s continuing jurisdiction to impose restitution has been recognized where the claim for restitution is raised at or prior to sentencing and the modification or correction of the sentence occurs within a reasonable time thereafter” … .

Here, we do not find the delay between defendant’s September 2009 sentencing and the modification of the restitution order in September 2010 following a hearing unreasonable given the various factors presented by this case … .  “Nonetheless, [a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” … .  Thus, in light of the fact that the amended restitution amount unquestionably exceeds the total amount to which defendant agreed at the time of her plea and she seeks, among other things, vacatur of that plea herein, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter for the purpose of allowing defendant the opportunity to either accept the enhanced restitution amount or withdraw her plea… . People v Mahar, 103960, 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

/

Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commission for Misconduct Explained (Commission Was Not Denied Here)

The First Department explained the criteria for determining whether a trustee can be denied an annual commission for misconduct.  The court ultimately concluded the commission should not be denied in this case:

We conclude that courts have the discretion to take into consideration all of a trustee’s misconduct in determining the grant of annual commission, even conduct that occurred after the period applicable to the commission. Although there are no appellate cases on point, no New York case holds otherwise. As a basic principle, the Surrogate has broad discretion to deny commission to a trustee if the trustee has engaged in misconduct … . In determining if a commission should be denied, misconduct that is not directly related to the commission being sought may be taken into consideration … . The Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 243 supports this conclusion with a multi-factor analysis (Comment c). Among the factors to be considered under the Restatement in determining if a commission should be denied are whether the trustee acted in good faith, if the misconduct related to management of the whole trust and if the trustee completed services of value to the trust (id.). We conclude, therefore, it is within the court’s discretion to determine whether the trustee’s later misconduct bars her from receiving commission.

Trustees can be denied commission “where their acts involve bad faith, a complete indifference to their fiduciary obligations or some other act that constitutes malfeasance or significant misfeasance” …. The denial of a commission, however, should not be “in the nature of an additional penalty” (Restatement 243, Comment a). Rather, it should be based on the trustee’s failure to properly serve the trust, not designed as an additional punishment … . Indeed, even the beneficiaries in this case state that it will be rare that a trustee’s later misconduct will serve as the basis for a denial of commission. Matter of Gregory Stewart Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 06079, 1st Dept 9-26-13

 

/

Criteria for Suspension of Judgment in Neglect Proceeding

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department explained the criteria for a suspension of judgment in a permanent neglect proceeding:

A dispositional order suspending judgment is a dispositional alternative, upon a finding of permanent neglect, that affords “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” … . In essence, an order suspending judgment provides the parent with a second chance, but it may be utilized only when the court determines that a second chance is in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633…). Moreover, the maximum duration of a suspended judgment is one year, unless the court finds at the conclusion of that period that “exceptional circumstances” require an extension of that period for one additional period of up to one year (Family Ct Act § 633[b]…). * * *

Family Court Act § 633© provides that an order suspending judgment “must set forth the . . . terms and conditions of the suspended judgment” (see also 22 NYCRR 205.50[b]) so that the Family Court may determine whether the parent has violated it … . Matter of Jesse D…, 2013 NY slip Op 06001, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

/

Emergency Doctrine Explained; Admissibility of Deposition Excerpts Re: Summary Judgment Motion Explained; Bicyclist Injured When Path Allegedly Blocked to Protect Child

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiff-bicyclist was injured when, it is alleged, one of the defendants stepped into the bicyclist’s path to protect children who were crossing the street. The court explained the admissibility requirements for excerpts of deposition testimony and an unsworn police report, as well as the emergency doctrine:

The unsigned excerpts of …defendants’ deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, were admissible under CPLR 3116(a) since they were submitted by the party deponents themselves and, accordingly, those transcripts were adopted as accurate by those deponents … . Additionally, although the defendants initially failed to submit the certification page of the depositions of nonparties …, as well as those for the depositions of …defendants, they submitted those certifications in reply papers in response to the plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition … . Under the circumstances of this case, the late submission did not prejudice the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court properly considered these certifications …. Furthermore, although unsigned, as noted above, the transcripts … were certified, and the plaintiffs did not raise any challenges to their accuracy. Thus, the transcripts qualified as admissible evidence for purposes of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment … . However, the unsigned, uncertified excerpt of the injured plaintiff’s deposition was not in admissible form, nor was the uncertified, unsworn police report submitted by the defendants. Accordingly, neither of these items should have been considered in determining whether the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden … . * * *

“Under the emergency doctrine, when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . ” This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed'” … . ” Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party’s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact'” … . Pavane v Marte, 2013 NY Slip Op 05991, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

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