You are here: / Criteria for Accountant’s Liability to Third Parties in Absence of Contractual R...

Search Results

/ ,

Criteria for Accountant’s Liability to Third Parties in Absence of Contractual Relationship Explained

In finding that the complaint did not state a cause of action against an accountant for negligent misrepresentations made to third parties with no contractual relationship, the Second Department explained:

In certain circumstances, accountants may be held liable for negligent misrepresentations made to third parties with whom they have no contractual relationship, but who have relied to their detriment on inaccurate financial statements prepared by the accountant… . In order to establish such liability, the relationship between the accountant and the party must be found to approach privity, through a showing that the following prerequisites are satisfied: “(1) the accountants must have been aware that the financial reports were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes; (2) in the furtherance of which a known party or parties was intended to rely; and (3) there must have been some conduct on the part of the accountants linking them to that party or parties, which evinces the accountants’ understanding of that party or parties’ reliance”… . Signature Bank v Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05564, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

/

Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition Explained

The Second Department reiterated the summary-judgment proof-requirements for a lack of constructive notice of a hazardous condition in a slip and fall case:

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . In order to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . A movant cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall because it offered no evidence as to when the subject stairway was last cleaned or inspected.. .  Campbell v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 05553, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

/ ,

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel’s colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” …. Excluding defense counsel’s experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover’s testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover’s testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

 

/ ,

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim—results which ruled out the defendant—did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]” … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not “invariably necessary”; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

 

/ ,

Published Information Gleaned from Court Submission Privileged

The First Department determined that news articles based upon papers filed in court proceedings were privileged pursuant to Civil Rights Law section 74:

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all of the published material was absolutely privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74, which protects “the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding.” Supreme Court granted the motion, and we affirm.

It is undisputed that all statements claimed to be libelous are part of a “report of [a] judicial proceeding” (Civil Rights Law § 74) since the article reports on court papers, i.e., the FBI affidavit. Russian Am Found Inc v Daily News LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05549, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

/

Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1) Action

The First Department determined that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on her Labor Law 240(1) claim which was based on injuries from sheetrock boards which slipped from where they were leaning against a wall and resting on blocks of wood two feet high.  The two-foot height differential was sufficient to implicate 240(1).  However the record was not sufficient to find, upon a summary judgment motion, that the injuries were proximately caused by the absence of a safety device.  Rodriguez v DRLD Dev Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05548, 1st Dept 8-6-13.

 

/

Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act

The Third Department, over a dissent, declined to follow the 2nd Department in its application of CPL 440.46 (Drug Law Reform Act).   The defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing based upon his offense, but, under the sentence defendant was serving at the time of his application for resentencing, he was not entitled to a merit time allowance pursuant to the Correction Law.  The Third Department determined defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing:

Although defendant, having been sentenced pursuant to his drug offense convictions as a persistent felony offender, is serving a sentence that would preclude him from earning merit time pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]; Penal Law § 70.10 [2]), he was not convicted of an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available” (CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii] [emphasis added]; see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [1]; 220.39).  This distinction is significant.  The Penal Law states:

“‘Offense’ means conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law, local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, or by any order, rule or regulation of any governmental instrumentality authorized by law to adopt the same” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]).

Defendant’s offense and his sentence are thus two separate components that we decline to conflate for purposes of depriving an otherwise eligible person of the benefits of the remedial legislation that we are tasked with interpreting here.  To the extent that the [2nd] Department held to the contrary in People v Gregory (80 AD3d 624 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 806 [2011]), we decline to follow that case.  Accordingly, we find that defendant is eligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, and County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion.  People v Coleman, 104851, 3rd Dept 8-1-13

 

/

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply

Plaintiff lost fingers operating a table saw which was alleged not to have had a blade guard.  In determining the homeowner’s exception to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply, the Second Department wrote:

With respect to the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the appellant claimed the homeowners’ exemption for owners of one and two-family homes who did not supervise the work. In order to receive the protection of the homeowners’ exemption, a defendant must satisfy two prongs: that the work was conducted at a dwelling that is a residence for only one or two families, and the defendant did not direct or control the work … . Summary judgment on this issue was properly denied, as the evidence described above raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant supervised or controlled the work and, further, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant intended to use the subject house as rental property… .  Murillo v Porteus, 2013 NY slip Op 05517, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

/

Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action

Plaintiff was standing on the second highest rung of a ladder when he lost his balance and fell.  In reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the Second Department explained:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . ” To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries'” .. . “The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided” … . There must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Where a plaintiff falls off the ladder because he or she lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … . To impose liability under such circumstances would make a defendant an insurer of the workplace, a result which the Legislature never intended in enacting Labor Law § 240(1) … .  Hugo v Sarantakos, 2013 NY Slip Op 05512, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

/ ,

Cause of Action Alleging Retaliation for Sexual Harassment Complaint in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law Dismissed

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging that defendant Prison Health Service (PHS) retaliated against the plaintiff after she made a sexual harassment complaint.  The retaliation was alleged to have violated the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).  Plaintiff claimed she was subjected to excessive demands for her professional credentials and health clearance forms and the denial of overtime work.  In explaining the proof requirements, the Second Department wrote:

…”In assessing retaliation claims that involve neither ultimate actions nor materially adverse changes in terms and conditions of employment, it is important that the assessment be made with a keen sense of workplace realities, of the fact that the chilling effect’ of particular conduct is context-dependent, and of the fact that a jury is generally best suited to evaluate the impact of retaliatory conduct in light of those realities” … .

… [T]o make out an unlawful retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) his or her employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[7]…). Once the plaintiff has met this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its actions … . Then, if the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff has the obligation to show that the reasons put forth by the defendant were merely a pretext… .  Brightman v Prison Health Serv Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05510, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

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