You are here: / Release Precluded Civil Rights Action; No Showing Release Signed Under...

Search Results

/ , ,

Release Precluded Civil Rights Action; No Showing Release Signed Under Duress; Releases Signed Under Duress Are Voidable Not Void

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s civil rights complaint based upon a release signed by the plaintiff.  The court determined that plaintiff’s allegations did not create a question of fact about whether the release was the product of duress.  The relevant legal principles, including the principle that contracts signed under duress are voidable, not void, were explained as follows:

Under  contract law, a signed release that is clear and unambiguous and knowingly and voluntarily entered into is binding on the parties unless cause exists to invalidate it on one of the recognized bases for setting aside written agreements, including illegality, fraud, mutual mistake, duress or coercion… .  A party such as plaintiff seeking to void a written contract on the ground of duress must meet her burden of demonstrating “(1) threats of an unlawful act by one party which (2) compel[] performance by the other party of an act which it had a legal right to abstain from performing”… .

Moreover, contracts executed under duress are, at most, voidable and not void and, by accepting and retaining the benefits of the second agreement for almost two years and not timely repudiating it, plaintiff affirmed or ratified that agreement, which is binding and no longer voidable on the grounds of duress, which objections are waived… .  Nelson v Lattner Enterprises of NY…, 515927, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

/

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Knowledge of Horse’s Vicious Propensities

The Third Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a case where plaintiff was injured by defendant’s horse.  Plaintiff was knocked unconscious when defendant’s horse “head swatted” him.  The Third Department determined the deposition testimony of a neighbor raised a question of fact about whether defendant was aware of the horse’s aggressive behavior.  The Third Department explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

As a general rule, an owner of a domestic animal  will only be  held  strictly liable for the  harm  caused  by such animal if he or she “‘knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities'”  Therefore, on his motion for summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of establishing that he had no prior knowledge that [his horse] had any vicious propensity ….  It is now well established that a vicious propensity is “the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” …, and includes behavior that would  not necessarily be  considered  dangerous  or ferocious if those behaviors reflect a “‘proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm'” … However, normal  or typical equine behavior is  insufficient  to  establish  a  vicious  propensity … . Carey… v Schwab, 516021, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

/

Guidelines With Pre-Authorized Specific Procedure List for Medical Tests and Services Held Valid; Variance Procedure for Tests and Services Not on List Held Valid

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined the Medical Treatment Guidelines created pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 13-a (5) were valid and enforceable.  The Guidelines were adopted as the standard of care for all medical treatment for workplace injuries rendered on or after December 1, 2010, relating to injuries to the back, neck, shoulder and knee. The Guidelines include a preauthorized-specific-procedure-list for many common medical tests and services which do not require prior authorization. The regulations set forth a variance procedure in which treatment providers may request approval for medical care or testing that is not preapproved upon a showing that the treatment is appropriate and medically necessary.  In the case before the court, the denial of claimant’s request for a variance for acupuncture treatment was affirmed.  The dissenting justice argued there was “no support for the majority’s position that the [Guidelines] were intended to create a preordained and exhaustive list of medically necessary treatments, thereby rendering all non-listed treatments presumptively not medically necessary and creating a presumption that the employers/carriers could ‘rely on’ in fulfilling their statutory obligation to provide medical care to injured claimants.”  Matter of Kigin v State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board…, 515721, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

/ , ,

Review Criteria for Municipal Disability Hearing Explained

The Second Department, in an Article 78 proceeding, explained the review criteria where there has been a disability hearing (re: a firefighter) held by a municipality pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a:

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law at which evidence is taken is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]…). Substantial evidence means more than a “mere scintilla of evidence,” and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides … .

When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, “the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists”… .. Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 207-a determination, a municipality is “free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another” … . Thus, even if “conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,” the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Solano v City of Mount Vernon, 2013 NY Slip Op 05322, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

/

Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling

The Second Department determined a Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed.  As plaintiff was attempting to paint the ceiling while standing on a ladder, a portion of the ceiling fell, causing injury.  In explaining why section 240 does not apply to the facts, the court wrote:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to provide workers with “scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to the workers (Labor Law § 240[1]). The purpose of the statute is to protect against “such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured”…. “With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'”… . Thus, to recover damages for violation of the statute, a “plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker” … . The plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” (id. at 268) or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”… . Flossos v Waterside Redevelopment Co LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05297, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

/ , ,

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined a police officer who was injured when she fell off the back of a flat bed truck while loading police barricades could not sue in negligence (based on the firefighter rule) but could sue under General Municipal Law 205-e based on an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a (which imposes a general duty to provide a safe work environment):

Re: the applicability of the firefighter rule:

…[T]he firefighter rule provides that “[p]olice and firefighters may not recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in that type of employment” …. The rule bars a police officer’s or a firefighter’s recovery ” when the performance of his or her duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury'” … * * *

While loading a flatbed truck may not be a task that is typically associated with police work, the alleged accident occurred while the plaintiff was on a police vehicle, loading police barriers, and while she was assigned to the barrier truck detail, a location and job detail to which she was exposed solely as a result of her duties as a police officer… .  * * *

Re: the viability of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action:

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Legislature has, on several occasions, “sought to ameliorate the harsh effects of the [firefighter] rule” …. To that end, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted General Municipal Law § 205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters who, while in the line of duty, are injured as a result of violations of statutes or regulations (see General Municipal Law § 205-a; L 1935, ch 800, § 2; L 1936, ch 251, § 1). In 1989, the Legislature enacted General Municipal Law § 205-e in direct response to Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393), which ,,,had extended the firefighter rule to police officers… .  * * *

…[T]he plaintiff has alleged that the defendants’ Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) violation is a predicate for her General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Section 205-e does not stand alone and must be predicated on a violation of a separate legal requirement. …[T]he Court of Appeals, in addressing the various amendments to General Municipal Law § 205-e, has stated “that we should apply this provision expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible”… .

Since section 27-a provides an objective standard by which the actions or omissions of a public employer, such as the City, can be measured for purposes of liability, Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) can serve as a predicate for a section 205-e claim… .  Gammons v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05298, Second Dept 7-17-13

 

/ ,

Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that two children born in Hong Kong, and living with their father in New York, did not meet the “dependency-on-the-family-court” requirement such that they could petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SJIS) pursuant to 8 USC1101 (which provides undocumented children with a gateway to lawful permanent residency in the US).  The court explained:

In New York, a child may request that the Family Court, recognized as a juvenile court (see 8 CFR 204.11[a]), issue an order making special findings and a declaration so that he or she may petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for SIJS … . Specifically, the findings of fact must establish that: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her home country (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]). With the declaration and special findings, the eligible child may then seek the consent of the Department of Homeland Security for SIJS (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]).  * * *

The requirement that a child be dependent upon the juvenile court or, alternatively, committed to the custody of an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, ensures that the process is not employed inappropriately by children who have sufficient family support and stability to pursue permanent residency in the United States through other, albeit more protracted, procedures. In this case, there has been no need for intervention by the Family Court to ensure that the appellants were placed in a safe and appropriate custody, guardianship, or foster care situation, and the appellants have not been committed to the custody of any individual by any court….

While the appellants met all of the other requirements for SIJS, the Family Court correctly determined that the dependency requirement had not been satisfied. A child becomes dependent upon a juvenile court when the court accepts jurisdiction over the custody of that child, irrespective of whether the child has been placed in foster care or a guardianship situation… . The Family Court has only granted applications for SIJS special findings where dependency upon the court was established by way of guardianship, adoption, or custody.  Matter of Hei Ting C, 2013 NY Slip Op 05310, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

/

Attorney for Child Could File Abuse Petition After Abuse Petition Withdrawn by Department of Social Services

The Second Department determined that the attorney for the child had the power to file a child abuse petition after the Department of Social Services withdrew its petition:

Although the primary responsibility for initiating a child neglect or abuse proceeding “has been assigned by the Legislature to child protective agencies” … , Family Court Act § 1032 also permits such a proceeding to be initiated by “a person on the court’s direction.” “The requirement for court approval or authorization for proceedings prompted by those other than child protective agencies indicates the Legislature’s concern that judicial proceedings touching the family relationship should not be casually initiated and imposes upon the courts the obligation to exercise sound discretion before permitting such petitions to be filed” … . Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record demonstrates that the attorney for the child was in fact authorized by the Family Court to file a new abuse petition on behalf of Amber A., and that the Family Court’s decision to authorize him to do so was a provident exercise of its discretion… .  Matter of Amber A, 2013 NY Slip Op 05308. 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

/

Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commissions Based On Misconduct, Including Post-Commission-Period Misconduct, Explained

The First Department discussed when a trustee can be denied commissions for misconduct, including misconduct after the commission period (a post-commission-period penalty is rare and none was imposed here):

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, whether the misconduct related to management of the whole trust and whether 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 (Second) of Trusts § 243, Comment a). Rather, it should be based on the trustee’s failure to properly serve the trust (see id.). Matter of Gregory Stewart Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 05290, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

/ , , , ,

Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied Because of Past Drug Convictions

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s order that petitioner, who had been convicted of two drug offenses (felonies) in the past, be certified as a NYC Department of Education school bus driver.  The First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

Where the applicant seeks employment with the New York City Department of Education, the School Chancellor’s regulations apply and Regulation C-105 establishes procedures to be followed …for background investigations of pedagogical and administrative applicants. Regulation C-105 incorporates by reference article 23-A of the Correction Law. Correction Law § 752 (et seq.) prohibits unfair discrimination against a person previously convicted of a crime “unless: (1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or (2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals.” Correction Law § 753(a) – (h), which set forth eight factors a public agency must consider in connection with an application for a license, include the person’s duties and responsibilities, the bearing, if any, the criminal offense(s) will have on the person’s “fitness or ability” to perform his or her duties, the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the crime(s), the seriousness of the crime, information about the applicant’s reputation, etc., and the legitimate interest of the agency in protecting the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Regulation C-105 provides further that in reviewing the record of an applicant who has a prior criminal conviction, DOE is particularly concerned with offenses, among others, that involve the possession, distribution or selling of controlled substances.

The Chancellor’s Regulation, like the Corrections Law, provides that where the applicant has a certificate of relief from disabilities, that certificate “shall” also be considered (Correction Law § 753[3]). The certificate, however, only creates a “presumption of rehabilitation” with respect to the crime the individual was convicted of, it does not create a prima facie entitlement to the license the person is applying for… .  Matter of Dempsey v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 05289, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

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