You are here: / “Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined

Search Results

/ ,

“Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined

The First Department explained what “direct financial loss” means in the context of bonds issued to indemnify a commodities futures broker [MF Global] for loss caused by a wrongful act by an employee:

In the bonds, plaintiffs agreed to indemnify MF Global for losses “sustained at any time for . . . any wrongful act committed by any employee . . . which is committed . . . with the intent to obtain financial gain for [the employee]” (emphasis omitted). “Loss” means “the direct financial loss sustained by [MF Global] as a result of any single act, single omission or single event, or a series of related or continuous acts, omissions or events.” The bonds exclude coverage for “[i]ndirect or consequential loss.” A “[w]rongful act,” with respect to trading in commodities and futures, is defined as “any . . . dishonest . . . act committed with the intent to obtain improper financial gain for . . . an employee” … .. * * *

The motion court properly concluded that MF Global’s loss constituted a “direct financial loss.” Although that term is not defined in the bonds, “[a] direct loss for insurance purposes has been analogized with proximate cause”… …

Here, [a broker’s] conduct in making unauthorized trades beyond his margin was the direct and proximate cause of MF Global’s loss… . New Hampshire Ins Co v MF Global, 2013 NY Slip Op 05291, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

/

Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli (which dealt with many corporation law issues not mentioned here), the First Department determined the complaint alleged sufficient facts to meet the criteria for piercing the corporate veil:

To make out a cause of action for liability on the theory of piercing the corporate veil because the corporation at issue is the defendant’s alter ego, the complaining party must, above all, establish that the owners of the entity, through their domination of it, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the party asserting the claim such that a court in equity will intervene … . Piercing of the corporate veil is not a cause of action independent of that against the corporation; it is established when the facts and circumstances compel a court to impose the corporate obligation on its owners, who are otherwise shielded from liability… . “Because a decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, the New York cases may not be reduced to definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when the power may be exercised” … . Indeed, this Court has observed:  “In determining the question of control, courts have considered factors such as the disregard of corporate formalities; inadequate capitalization; intermingling of funds; overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel; common office space or telephone numbers; the degree of discretion demonstrated by the alleged dominated corporation; whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; and the payment or guarantee of the corporation’s debts by the dominating entity . . . [n]o one factor is dispositive”… .   Tap Holdings LLC v Orix Fin Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05293, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

/ , ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion

In affirming the conviction, the Third Department determined the waiver of appeal (re; the harshness of the sentence) was not valid and defendant’s counsel had not take a position adverse to the defendant with respect to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although defense counsel responded negatively when the court asked if counsel knew of any legal basis for defendant’s motion, the Third Department explained that counsel was unaware of the contents of the motion at the time the court asked about it:

County Court failed to adequately distinguish the right to appeal from  those rights that are automatically forfeited upon  a guilty plea, thus rendering defendant’s appeal waiver invalid…. Moreover, no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was  also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence …. Nor do we  find that the deficiencies in the allocution are cured by defendant’s written appeal waiver…  * * *

…[D]efense counsel’s negative  response  to County  Court’s inquiry  at the outset of the hearing as to whether  “there [was] any  legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion – which counsel had not yet reviewed – and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine  the arguments  that defendant sought to present to the court… .  People v Pimentel, 104070, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

/

Criteria for Constructive Trust Not Met

In affirming Supreme Court’s ruling that plaintiff had failed to establish money given to the defendant (plaintiff’s son) by the plaintiff, originally for the purchase of a lake house, was held by the defendant as a constructive trust, the Third Department explained:

Plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of a constructive trust, which include a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon and  unjust enrichment….    Although plaintiff contends that there was a relationship of trust at the time the money was given to defendant based on the familial relationship and plaintiff’s belief that, despite his criminal history, defendant had  turned his life around,  this argument  is contradicted  by plaintiff’s own testimony that he and defendant were “never too friendly,” his relationship with defendant was  “at arm’s length” and he felt defendant was “always . . . hiding something from me.”    Furthermore, there was no indication that defendant attempted to take advantage of plaintiff’s trust by encouraging the transfer or that plaintiff was under defendant’s influence in any way.    The record supports Supreme Court’s finding that the idea of buying a lake house was eventually abandoned and the money was given to defendant for placement in a mutual fund account in his name alone by plaintiff, who had significantly more education, business and  financial experience  than  defendant.  Garcia v Garcia, 515582, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

/ ,

Executor’s Motion to Be Substituted for Decedent in Negligence Action Too Late

In affirming the dismissal of an executor’s motion to be substituted as a party in a negligence action (on behalf of the decedent), the Second Department explained:

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate.” CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … . The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit….

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute himself as a party plaintiff and granting the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint, in light of the 21-month delay in obtaining preliminary letters testamentary, the further one-year delay in seeking substitution, the failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delays, the absence of any affidavit of merit, and the prejudice to the defendant… .  Terpis v Regal Hgts Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05200, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

/ ,

Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a).  The plaintiff had sought a notice to admit that a vehicle owned by the defendant and operated by defendant’s employee ‘was in contact with the plaintiff.”  The Second Department wrote:

“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial”…. Here, the plaintiff’s notice to admit improperly sought the defendant’s admission concerning a matter that went to the heart of the controversy in this case…. Moreover, ” the purpose of a notice to admit is not to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, such as the taking of depositions before trial'” …. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for a protective order. Ramcharran v NY Airport Services LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05195, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

/

“John Doe” Party Who Was Not Served Waived Objection to Personal Jurisdiction

The First Department determined that an informal appearance by a “John Doe” party who was not served with the complaint waives any objection to personal jurisdiction.  The action stemmed from plaintiff’s decedent’s drowning at Coney Island:

CPLR 1024 allows for the commencement of an action against an unknown party…. While the use of a John Doe designation does not exempt a plaintiff from the requirement of serving process on the intended defendant by an authorized method under CPLR article 3…, a defendant may appear informally by actively litigating the action before the court…. When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court…. Thus, absent a formal “appearance” by a defendant, a defendant may nevertheless appear in an action where his or her counsel communicates a clear intent to participate… . Taveras v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05199, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

/ , ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

/ ,

Therapeutic Dog Allowed In Court to Support Alleged Child Victim of Sexual Offenses During Trial Testimony

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, determined that the “courts of this State should permit the presence of a therapeutic ‘comfort dog’ in a trial setting when the court determines that the animal may provide emotional support for a testifying crime victim.”  The defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child.  The alleged victim was his daughter who 15 years old at the time of trial.  It was alleged that the victim twice became pregnant by the defendant and the defendant arranged for abortions in both instances.  The Second Department found support for its determination in Executive Law section 642-a (procedures making the judicial process less threatening to child victims).  The Second Department rejected defendant’s arguments that the presence of the dog violated his right to due process of law and right of confrontation.  People v Tohom, 2013 NY Slip Op 05234, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

/ , ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

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