You are here: / PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant insurance brokers may be liable in negligence with respect to an audit which led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped. Whether the brokers can be held liable depends on whether there was a “special relationship” between the brokers and the plaintiffs upon which plaintiffs could reasonably rely. The plaintiffs raised a question of fact on the existence of a special relationship:

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claim because there are issues of fact concerning whether the parties had a special relationship, exceeding that of a traditional broker-client relationship. Plaintiffs testified that, among other things, defendants advised plaintiffs regarding insurance issues, addressed plaintiffs’ audits, and handled insurance policy changes … . Although defendants’ principal testified that the insurance carrier did not contact defendants during the audit that eventually led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped, one of the individual plaintiffs testified that he had worked with defendants for more than a decade, used defendants for all six of his businesses, and that he would send everything in his possession relating to insurance to defendants, who would in turn take care of it, including when plaintiffs received audit requests from the insurance carrier. In such a situation where “there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on,” a special relationship may arise thereby “creating an additional duty of advisement” even in the absence of a specific request from the insured to the broker … .

There are also issues of fact concerning which party was responsible for managing the renewal process as defendants’ involvement with previous audits may evince a course of conduct demonstrating that the renewals were in fact defendants’ responsibility … . The record evidence does not disprove as a matter of law that defendants’ inaction in renewing the policy did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ injuries … . S & M Bronx Inc. v Diversified Planning Brokerage LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03247, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to demonstrate a “special relationship” with insurance brokers such that the brokers can be held liable in negligence for failing to renew a client’s policy.

 

/ ,

THE ABSENCE OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED; THE CORRECTION OFFICER’S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS CONTRADICTED BY PETITIONER AND THREE WITNESSES; THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORRECTION OFFICER, WHICH WAS CREDITED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, LACKED SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF RELIABILITY TO SATISFY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversed the finding that petitioner-inmate violated prison disciplinary rules  There was no body-worn camera footage of the incident, and no explanation for its absence. A single corrections officer wrote a report about the incident which was credited by the Hearing Officer. In her report the officer claimed petitioner “threw” a chair onto the floor and was yelling at other prisoners. The petitioner and three prisoners testified that petitioner did not act in anger, was not yelling at other prisoners, and the chair had been knocked or tipped over. The Third Department concluded the evidence was insufficient to support any disciplinary-rule violations:

… [W]here, as here, the record presents competing versions of a discrete event and the determination turns on the acceptance of one account over another, the reliability of the credited testimony must be assessed in context. That context includes the absence of any objective documentation of the incident where there is every reason to believe that such proof should have existed.

At the time of the subject incident, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had implemented a body-worn camera policy pursuant to internal directive, reflecting an institutional recognition that recording such encounters is imperative for both safety and transparency … . We need not decide the force of that directive to hold that it informs the nature of proof that may reasonably be expected in incidents of this kind. In the same vein, it must also be observed that, since the subject incident, the Legislature has codified the requirement of body-worn cameras in correctional settings … , thus underscoring the State’s recognition that objective evidence of interactions involving incarcerated individuals is not only critical but readily obtainable … .

Here, no such objective evidence was produced. Importantly, the record is entirely silent as to whether recording devices were being properly utilized and, if not, why not … . In the face of that evidentiary gap, we find that the credited testimony lacks sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the substantial evidence standard. We therefore reverse. Matter of McPherson v Hill, 2026 NY Slip Op 03216, Third Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: In prison disciplinary hearings, the unexplained absence of body-worn camera footage of an incident at which the testifying correction officer was present may call into question the reliability of the correction officer’s testimony.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S “EXCEPTIONAL RESPONSE” TO THE “SEX OFFENDER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT PROGRAM” WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM A LEVEL TWO SEX OFFENDER TO A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure from a level two sex offender to a level one sex offender based on his successful participation in sex offender treatment:

… [D]efendant submitted the monthly evaluations prepared by his instructor in his Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program. In the six monthly evaluations, defendant was awarded 95 out of a maximum of 96 points available, placing him in the “highly motivated” classification for each month, the highest category. Further, the instructor consistently praised defendant’s participation, including comments that defendant “continues to engage positively in program [and] exceed all program standards,” “continues to excel in program” and “continues to meet [and] exceed all program standards.” Given his nearly perfect score and the positive comments from his instructor, we conclude that defendant has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, an exceptional response to treatment so as to be a basis for a downward departure … . People v Mikalonis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03210, Third Dept 5-21-26

 

/ ,

A MISREPRESENTATION OF PRESENT FACT, UNLIKE A MISREPRESENTATION OF FUTURE INTENT TO PERFORM UNDER A CONTRACT, WILL SUPPORT A FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The fraudulent inducement claim was based on an assertion of present fact. i.e., that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property:

We reject defendants’ argument that the fraudulent inducement cause of action is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. “[A] misrepresentation of present fact, unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform under the contract, is collateral to the contract, even though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign it, and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … . The alleged representations … that the judgment debtor had sufficient capital to close on the property were representations of present fact, not future intent to perform.

Similarly, we reject defendants’ argument that plaintiff seeks identical damages under the fraudulent inducement cause of action and the breach of contract cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, at this early procedural stage plaintiff is entitled to maintain the fraudulent inducement claim in the alternative to the breach of contract claim … . This conclusion is especially true because the remedy available to plaintiff for fraudulent inducement under the “out-of-pocket rule” is not lost profits but rather “the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . CSN Realty Corp. v Moussaieff, 2026 NY Slip Op 03228, First Deptt 5-21-26

Practice Point: Here the misrepresentation that the judgment debtor had sufficient funds to close was a misrepresentation of present fact which supported a fraudulent inducement cause of action distinct from the breach of contract cause of action.​

 

/ , ,

THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO ALLOW THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO BE CIRCUMVENTED BY “PIGGYBACKING” A NEW PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT ON A PRIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT AWARDED AFTER COMPETITIVE BIDDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that the General Municipal Law could not be interpreted to circumvent the competitive bidding process for public works contracts. Here the school district, after a competitive bidding process, had hired Smith Site Development for the replacement of a sewer line and a parking lot at the district’s high school. The district sought to hire Smith again for the heating, ventilation and air conditioning renovations and classroom construction at an elementary school. The district unsuccessfully argued that the General Municipal Law allowed the elementary-school work to be “piggybacked” on the prior sewer-and-parking-lot-contract and thereby avoid the competitive bidding process:

In determining whether General Municipal Law § 103 (16) provides a limited exception to General Municipal Law § 103 (1), or, as the district argues, a broader alternative to that general rule, we begin by observing that while subsection (1) specifically references public works contracts, subsection (16) does not. Although the Legislature could have explicitly identified public works contracts as being subject to the piggybacking provision of subsection (16), it chose not to do so. Instead, by its plain language, subsection (16) permits piggybacking only in a specific set of circumstances that is, when it comes to purchasing certain specified items (“apparatus, materials, equipment or supplies”) or arranging for services related to those specific items (General Municipal Law § 103 [16]). This statutory structure signifies that piggybacking applies only in certain limited circumstances, and we agree with Supreme Court that the omission of language referencing public works contracts from the piggybacking provision suggests that the Legislature did not intend to allow them to be exempt from competitive bidding … . Matter of Daniel J. Lynch, Inc. v Board of Educ. of the Me.-Endwell Cent. Sch. Dist., 2026 NY Slip Op 03209, Third Dept 5-21-26

 

/ , ,

RESOLVING A SPLIT OF AUTHORITY, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPEAL A CUSTODY DETERMINATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Fourth Department and addressing a split of authority, determined the attorney for the child (AFC) has the authority to appeal a custody determination if the child is aggrieved:

The Appellate Division Departments have split over whether an AFC can appeal a custody determination on behalf of their client when neither parent-party has appealed. The Second Department has endorsed the AFC’s authority to appeal on behalf of their client, emphasizing that the Family Court Act expressly “recognizes that an [AFC] has the right to pursue an appeal on behalf of the child” because it permits the AFC to file a notice of appeal … . The First and Third Departments have adopted the Second Department’s reasoning … . The Fourth Department has taken a different approach, dismissing appeals taken solely by an AFC when neither parent-party appeals or otherwise indicates their support for the child’s appeal, reasoning that a “child in a custody matter does not have ‘full-party status’ ” and therefore cannot force their parent to ” ‘litigate a petition that [they] ha[ve] since abandoned’ … . * * *

The Family Court Act plainly authorizes an AFC to appeal on behalf of the subject child even though the child is not a full party to the custody proceedings. However, the subject child—like any appealing party—must still meet the CPLR’s aggrievement requirement and other applicable jurisdictional requirements (see CPLR 5511 [only an “aggrieved party” may appeal]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a] [Family Court proceedings follow the provisions of the CPLR unless a different procedure is set forth in the Family Court Act]). Here, the children were aggrieved as the AFC argued against modifying the original custody order designating mother as the primary custodial parent and advocated that the children wished to remain primarily with her, but Family Court modified the custody order by awarding mother and father joint custody and shared residency. Matter of Abdoch v Abdoch, 2026 NY Slip Op 03219, CtApp 5-21-26

Practice Point: The attorney for the child (AFC) can appeal a custody determination where the child is aggrieved.

 

/ , ,

THE NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE “HOST FAMILY HOME” PROGRAM AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE STATUTORY FOSTER CARE PROGRAM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) did not have the authority to create the “Host Family Home” program as an alternative to the state’s statutory foster care regime:

The voluntary foster care statutes … mandate judicial involvement and oversight at several key junctures. At the outset, OCFS must petition Family Court to approve any placement expected to last longer than 30 days. The court may only do so after assessing that the placement was “knowingly and voluntarily” sought by the parent; that the placement would be “in the best interest of the child”; that “reasonable efforts were made . . . to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from [their] home;” and that OCFS complied with the other miscellaneous requirements of Social Services Law § 384-a … . If placement lasts for at least eight months, the Family Court Act requires that Family Court hold a “permanency hearing” where it assesses the child’s well-being in the foster home and determines what, if any, further action would serve the best interests of the child … . These hearings must be held every six months thereafter until termination of the placement, or until the child ages out of foster care. Both parents and children are entitled to assigned counsel during these proceedings … . * * *

The Host Family Home program … purports to relieve its participants from some of the most important protections in the foster care system. Under the program, courts need not approve placements lasting longer than 30 days, nor are they required to assess the well-being of the child if they have been left in foster care for over eight months. Because the courts are not involved, the State need not provide assigned counsel to parents or children to advocate for them during these otherwise mandatory hearings. OCFS is likewise not required to identify known friends or relatives who might care for the child, nor offer any government-paid preventive services, before allowing parents to access host family care.

The Host Family Home program’s elimination of these protections risks diverting children away from the voluntary foster care system. Matter of Lawyers for Children v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.. 2026 NY Slip Op 03218, CtApp 5-21-26

 

 

 

/ , ,

THE JUSTICE FOR INJURED WORKERS ACT (JIWA) PROHIBITS GIVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT TO WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION BOARD RULINGS IN SUBSEQUENT PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE SAME INCIDENT, EVEN WHEN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULING PREDATES THE ENACTMENT OF THE JIWA (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of Supreme Court on a different ground, determined the Justice for Injured Workers Act (JIWA), which prohibits giving a Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent personal injury action, applies to Workers’ Compensation Board rulings which predate the enactment of the JIWA. The Appellate Division described the application of collateral estoppel in this context as the retroactive application of the JIWA. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that a “statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment:”

At the time Supreme Court rendered its decision, JIWA had been in effect for several months. By its plain terms, JIWA, as of its effective date, prohibits courts from giving collateral estoppel effect to workers’ compensation decisions arising out of the same occurrence, except with respect to the existence of an employer-employee relationship (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 118-a). Pursuant to a straightforward prospective application of JIWA, Supreme Court therefore erred in giving collateral estoppel effect to the 2021 [pre-enactment] decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board. * * *

As of JIWA’s effective date of December 30, 2022, courts are prohibited from giving collateral estoppel effect to workers’ compensation decisions in pending or future lawsuits, except as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Because the statute applied at the time Supreme Court rendered its decision, the court erred in granting defendant’s motion.  Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03217, CtApp 5-21-26

Practice Point: Here, although the JIWA was applied to a Workers’ Compensation Board ruling which predated the enactment of the JIWA, it was not necessary to apply the JIWA “retroactively.” Only a straightforward prospective application of the JIWA was required.

 

/ , ,

PURCHASING AND FORECLOSING ON MORTGAGES IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW; THE LLC CANNOT SUE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff limited liability company (NS194) could not sue in New York because purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in New York under the Limited Liability Company Law:

Supreme Court erred in directing plaintiff to prove NS194’s compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 802 … . Defendants failed to rebut the presumption that NS194 was not conducting business within the state and lacked capacity to sue pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 802. Plaintiff’s conduct of purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in this state (see Limited Liability Company Law § 803[a][1] [“maintaining or defending any action or proceeding” is not “doing business in this state”] …). … ([S]ee Star201, LLC v Martinez, AD3d , 2026 NY Slip Op 02144, *2 [2d Dept Apr. 8, 2026] [“the mere maintenance of an action [for foreclosure] by a foreign corporation does not constitute doing business within the State”] …). Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Okoronkwo, 2026 NY Slip Op 03253, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: An LLC which purchases and forecloses on mortgages in New York is not “doing business in New York” and therefore cannot sue in New York.​

 

/ , ,

IF A JUDGE DIRECTS THAT A PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS OR THE MATTER WILL BE DEEMED ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; HERE, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE DID NOT DIRECT THAT THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, SO 22 NYCRR 202.48 AND THE 60-DAY DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not abandon the action by failing to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days of the inquest awarding damages to plaintiffs after defendants’ default. The 60-day deadline is only triggered when a judge directs the order to be settled or submitted on notice, not the case here:

On January 26, 2022, after an inquest, the court awarded the plaintiffs $188,560 in damages as against both defendants. The plaintiffs did not submit a proposed judgment until November 2022.

Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned. In an order dated April 29, 2024, the Supreme Court … granted that branch of the motion. …

“Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]; see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367 …). “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). “However, 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not direct that a judgment based on its decision after the inquest be settled or submitted on notice, the plaintiffs were not required to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.48 … . Rosenberg v Tool Time Constr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03192, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: If the judge does not direct that a proposed judgment be submitted on notice, 22 NYCRR 202.48, which requires that the judgment be submitted for signature within 60 days, does not apply.

 

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