You are here: / At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Off...

Search Results

/ , ,

At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.

Plaintiff brought a cause of action for “fraudulent inducement” alleging she accepted employment with defendant hospital based on a false claim the hospital had “passed” a survey related to accreditation when, in fact, it had received only a “conditional accreditation status.”  The Second Department determined that the fraudulent inducement cause of action must be dismissed because plaintiff was an at-will employee.  “The at-will employment doctrine … bars a cause of action sounding in fraudulent inducement, even where the circumstances pertain to a plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of a position rather than his or her termination …”.  The Second Department agreed with the trial court that the breach of contract cause of action should not be dismissed, but the Court dismissed the punitive damages aspect of the breach of contract cause of action because punitive damages do not attach to purely private wrongs.  Guido v Orange Regional Medical Center, 2011-08527, Index No. 13123/10 Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

/ ,

Throwing Objects Off Balcony Evinces Depraved Indifference.

The defendant, who claimed to have been intoxicated at the time, threw bottles and plates off a 26th floor hotel balcony overlooking 7th Avenue during morning rush hour.  He was convicted of first degree reckless endangerment, which requires a “depraved indifference to human life.” In affirming the conviction, the First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, included a substantive discussion of the relationship among the legal concepts “depraved indifference,” ” recklessness,” and “specific intent to cause harm.”  In addition, the Court found sufficient “exigent circumstances” to justify the warrantless entry by the police into defendant’s hotel room. People v Green, 7860, Ind. 4295/05 First Dept. 1-22-13.

 

/ , ,

“Weight of the Evidence” Review.

The Third Department upheld the defendant’s rape conviction in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain.  The case is interesting because it is a true “weight of the evidence” analysis where the appellate court conducted “a full review of the testimony adduced at trial,” acting in the role of a jury. There was a strong dissent which argued the conviction should be reversed because the trial judge did not turn over to the defense certain records concerning the complainant’s mental health after an in camera review.  People v McCray, 103682 Third Dept 1-17-13

 

/ , ,

Duty to Defend Broader than Duty to Indemnify.

The Second Department applied the rule that an insurer’s duty to defend under a policy is broader than its duty to indemnify.  Because the language of the policy was broad enough to cover the cause of action for unfair competition, the insurer was obligated to defend, in spite of the fact that the related breach of contract cause of action was excluded from coverage under the terms of the policy.  Natural Organics, Inc v OneBeacon America Insurance Co., 2011-03268, 2011-05298, Index No. 12763/10 Second Dept. 1-16-13

 

/ ,

Damages Related to Improvements Made on Condemned Property Allowed.

In a condemnation case where a portion of a sand and gravel quarry was taken, the Second Department affirmed the lower court’s valuation of the condemned property.  The quarry owner argued that an income-based analysis, rather than a sales-comparison (land-value) approach, should be employed.  The Second Department determined that the income-based analysis (projected profits minus projected expenses) was not appropriate. The Second Department also affirmed the lower court’s determination that the quarry should be compensated for damages related to the improvements made on the condemned property, as opposed to damages related to the taking itself. Matter of Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Washed Aggregate Resources, Inc., 2011-03-14, Index No. 2674/98 Second Dept. 1-16-13

 

/

Right to Call and Question Witnesses.

In an inmate’s disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer’s refusal to allow an inmate to call witnesses, without providing the inmate with a written statement explaining the reasons for the refusal, together with the hearing officer’s refusal to allow the inmate to question witnesses, required a new hearing before a new hearing officer.  In the Matter of Benito v Calero, 2011-06219, Index No. 10-00715 Second Dept. 1-16-13

 

 

/ , ,

Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.

Defendant’s claim that a DNA analyst’s expert testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because it was based on reports made by non-testifying witnesses was rejected, principally because the claim was deemed unpreserved.  There is a substantive discussion of preservation requirements. The Court, however, noted that the Court of Appeals held a similar DNA report was nontestimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.  People v Rios, 7651, Ind. 1037/08 First Dept. 1-15-13.

 

/ ,

Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.

The fact that the plaintiff signed a general release and hold-harmless agreement was not enough to settle the case.  There was no proof the plaintiff’s attorney communicated plaintiff’s acceptance of the settlement offer to the defendant or defendant’s insurance carrier.  Therefore, plaintiff, with a new attorney, was allowed to go forward with the lawsuit and plaintiff’s original attorney could not collect his contingency fee, which was based on the settlement-amount. Gyabaah v Rivlab Transportation Corp., et al, 7654, Index 309081/10 First Dept. 1-10-13

 

/

Father Estopped from Denying Paternity

Before a party can be estopped from denying paternity the court must be convinced applying equitable estoppel is in the best interest of the child.  Here the child was eight years old, knew the respondent as her father, with his encouragement, and relied on respondent to be her father.  Family Court’s finding the respondent was equitably estopped from asserting nonpaternity was correct.  Commissioner of Social Services vs. Julio, J., No. 57, SSM 44, CtApp, 1-10-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy