You are here: / DOCCS MUST MAKE SOME EFFORT TO FIND COMMUNITY-BASED EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATIONAL...

Search Results

/ ,

DOCCS MUST MAKE SOME EFFORT TO FIND COMMUNITY-BASED EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SEX OFFENDERS HELD IN THE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY AT FISHKILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over two partial dissents by three judges, reversing (modifying) the appellate division, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) must make some effort to find community-based employment, educational or training opportunities for sex offenders held in the residential treatment facility (RTF) at Fishkill Correctional Facility:

Plaintiffs are convicted sex offenders who were confined in the Fishkill RTF while on postrelease supervision (PRS). Since 2014, DOCCS has used the Fishkill RTF to confine convicted sex offenders past the maximum expiration dates of their carceral sentences in circumstances where the offenders are unable to find housing in compliance with the requirements of the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which bars them from living within 1,000 feet of a school … . * * *

We agree with plaintiffs that DOCCS cannot categorically refuse to attempt to secure community-based opportunities for RTF residents. Crucially, while DOCCS surely has discretion in operating its RTF programs, the record here demonstrates that DOCCS is exercising no discretion with respect to community-based opportunities. DOCCS instead offers only speculation that the opportunities would be difficult to secure for the types of offenders housed in that RTF. To be sure, the statute [Correction Law § 73 [1]] establishes no percentage or threshold number of RTF residents who must be allowed outside the facility to engage in community-based activities. But defendants incorrectly construe the permissive phrase, “may be allowed to go outside,” to empower DOCCS to bar all RTF residents categorically from accessing community-based opportunities without considering whether such opportunities are available or appropriate. A comprehensive reading of the statutory provisions cannot support such a construction. By reading the permissive phrase in isolation, defendants read the definitional provision out of the statute, eviscerate the character and purpose of the RTF, and undermine the legislative intent. Alcantara v Annucci, 2024 NY Slip Op 02224, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision cannot interpret the Correction Law such that the purpose of the statute (here finding community-based employment, educational or training opportunities for sex offenders) is thwarted.

 

/

CLAIMANT PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEAN UP AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK ON 9-11 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLE 8-A (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that some of the World Trade Center clean-up activities of the claimant qualified for benefits pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A:

“Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A was enacted to remove statutory obstacles to timely claims filing and notice for latent conditions resulting from hazardous exposure for those who worked in rescue, recovery or cleanup operations following the [WTC] September 11th, 2001 attack” … . * * *

… [W]e find, in light of the liberal construction afforded to Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A, that claimant’s activities of assisting with clearing the area — which notably was located within the statutorily-defined WTC site — in order for the emergency vehicles to access Ground Zero had a tangible connection to the rescue efforts. As such, the Board’s determination that claimant did not participate in the rescue [*3]effort operations to qualify under Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Liotta v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 2024 NY Slip Op 02237, Third Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: Article 8-A of the Worders’ Compensation Law was enacted to cover rescue and other worker’s who responded to the World Trade Center attack on 9-11. Here claimant participated in clean-up activities to keep the area clear for emergency vehicles and was therefore entitled to benefits pursuant to article 8-A.

 

/ , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, in a factually-complex case which cannot be fairly summarized here. determined the complaint adequately alleged both a breach and an anticipatory repudiation of a contract which encompassed the replacement by plaintiff developer of defendant’s single room occupancy building with a mixed-use residential and commercial building for a 40-year lease term:

” ‘An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of [its] contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for . . . performance has arrived’ ” … . Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach, “if one party to a contract repudiates [its] duties thereunder prior to the time designated for performance and before [it] has received all of the consideration due . . . thereunder, such repudiation entitles the nonrepudiating party to claim damages for total breach” … . To constitute repudiation, “there must be some express and absolute refusal to perform” … that is “positive and unequivocal” … .

The first cause of action alleges [defendant] engaged in multiple acts that breached the ground lease agreement: a set of acts in refusing to sign the cure agreement tendered in 2015, and a 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement. Contrary to the conclusions of the courts below, a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation can both be stated on these facts at the pleading stage. * * *

Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, which we must do at this stage of the proceeding, [plaintiff] sufficiently demonstrated that [defendant’s] 2021 statement was both a new development and a distinct “material breach that escalated, for the first time, to an unequivocal repudiation” … . Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02223, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: Here the complaint adequately alleged both a breach of contract and an anticipatory repudiation of the contract.

 

/ ,

ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS UNDER MOLINEUX, AND ALLOWING DEFENDANT HARVEY WEINSTEIN TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THOSE UNCHARGED ALLEGATIONS UNDER SANDOVAL, DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL; CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over two three-judge dissenting opinions, reversing defendant’s criminal-sexual-act and rape convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and bad acts under Molineux and the Sandoval ruling allowing the defendant to be cross-examined about the uncharged allegations, deprived defendant of a fair trial:

Before trial, the court granted the prosecution’s application to admit certain testimony of uncharged crimes and miscellaneous bad acts as an exception to the Molineux rule, prohibiting such evidence, to establish defendant’s intent and his understanding of the complainants’ lack of consent. Thus, Complainant B could testify about defendant’s uncharged sexual assaults against her before and after the charged rape and her awareness of defendant’s abusive and threatening behavior, and three other women (the “Molineux Witnesses”) could testify regarding defendant’s sexual misconduct towards them years before and after the charged offenses involving Complainants A and B.

The court also granted … the prosecution’s Sandoval application to cross-examine defendant on a broad range of uncharged bad acts should he testify. … [T]he prosecution was permitted to ask about, for example, whether defendant: directed a witness to lie to defendant’s wife; filed an application for a passport using a friend’s social security number; told a woman he “could harm her professionally” but could also offer her a book publishing opportunity; used his entertainment company’s budget for personal costs; withdrew from a business deal and asked others to cease its funding; hid a woman’s clothes; insisted that members of his staff falsify a photo for a movie poster by photoshopping a female actor’s head on another woman’s nude body; told a private intelligence firm to manipulate or lie to people; scheduled a business meeting in 2012 with a woman under false pretenses; induced executives to lie on his behalf; made threats and committed acts of violence against people who worked for him; abandoned a colleague by the side of the road in a foreign country; physically attacked his brother; threatened to cut off a colleague’s genitals with gardening shears; screamed and cursed at hotel restaurant staff after they told him the kitchen was closed; and threw a table of food. The court also permitted the prosecution to cross-examine defendant about the details of the sexual assault allegations described by the Molineux Witnesses during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. People v Weinstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 02222, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: Molineux and Sandoval are still alive and kicking.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant carpet and flooring subcontractor’s (S&’s) request to inspect the area of the building where plaintiff stepped into a vent hole from which a cover had been dislodged should not have been denied. Although the vent cover had been replaced, it could not be said for certain that an inspection would be fruitless:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has directed that the phrase “material and necessary” in this statute should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . Under this standard, S&F is entitled to inspect the site of the incident giving rise to plaintiff’s allegedly serious injuries.

While the replacement of the … cover might reduce the likelihood that a site inspection will produce evidence useful to S&S’s defense, it does not make it certain that an inspection will be useless. … It is for S&F, not its adversary, to determine whether the inspection of the site of the accident is sufficiently likely to produce relevant information to be worth S&F’s time and effort. … . …

… [A] court’s power to limit otherwise proper use of a disclosure device should be exercised only for the purpose of avoiding “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.”

We fail to see how an inspection of the site of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit would impose on plaintiff, or on anyone else, any of the burdens enumerated by CPLR 3103(a) to an “unreasonable” extent. Balsamello v Structure Tone, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02251, First Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: An inspection by defendant of the area where plaintiff was injured should be allowed absent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.

 

/ ,

A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE CITY TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE DETERIORATED CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (A PROTRUDING METAL BAR) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the city had notice of the condition of the sidewalk which allegedly caused her slip and fall; Plaintiff demonstrated a notice of violation had been issued to the abutting property owner concerning the deterioration of the sidewalk. Plaintiff had alleged she tripped over a metal bar protruding from the sidewalk. The notice of violation raised a question of fact whether that specific defect was encompassed by the notice:

The plaintiff submitted … a Notice of Violation from the Department of Public Works, Office of the Commissioner, to the purported owner of the property abutting the sidewalk on which the plaintiff fell. The Notice of Violation was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works, the very individual who was statutorily designated to receive written notice of sidewalk defects. The Notice of Violation stated that an inspection, which … found … that “deteriorated and hazardous conditions” existed on the abutting sidewalk. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City did, in fact, have prior written notice of the alleged defect … . Whether the Notice of Violation “encompassed the particular condition which allegedly caused the subject accident is an issue of fact which should await resolution at trial” … . Douglas v City of Mount Vernon, N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 02173, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Here a notice of violation issued by the city to the abutting property owner concerning the deteriorated condition of the sidewalk raised a question of fact whether the city had prior written notice of the specific defect, a protruding metal bar, which caused plaintiff’s fall.

 

/

IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A MAILING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 308(2) WAS DONE, THE OMISSION CANNOT BE CURED BY AMENDMENT; THE AMENDED AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the amended affidavit of the process server to add the mailing requirement should not have been accepted by the court. Failing to aver the complaint was mailed in the original affidavit cannot be cured by amendment:

CPLR 308(2) provides that personal service upon a natural person may be acquired “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business” within 20 days. CPLR 308(2) requires strict compliance and the plaintiff has “the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that service was properly effected” … .* * *

… [C]ertain defects in an affidavit of service, which are related to “a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, . . . may not be corrected by an amendment” … . These defects include an erroneous address … and an erroneous mailing date … . The omission from an affidavit of service of a statement that a mailing in compliance with CPLR 308(2) was effectuated also is not amenable to correction pursuant to CPLR 305(c) … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s amended affidavit of service should not have been considered. John Doe v Mesivtha, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02172 Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: A process server’s affidavit which does not include a statement that a mailing in compliance with CPLR 308(2) was done, the omission cannot be cured by amendment of the affidavit of service.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant was required to provided eye protection for the work plaintiff was engaged in at the time his eye was injured:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while operating a nail gun to attach wood plates to a building roof when debris from a metal wire to which nails were secured, such that they could be loaded into the nail gun, flew off and hit his right eye. * * *

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers without regard to direction and control … . “In order to establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must ‘establish the violation of an Industrial Code provision which sets forth specific safety standards,’ and which ‘is applicable [to the facts] of the case'” … . Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) requires the furnishing of eye protection equipment to employees who, inter alia, are “engaged in any . . . operation which may endanger the eyes.”

Here, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether, at the time of his accident, the plaintiff was engaged in work that “may endanger the eyes” so as to require the use of eye protection pursuant to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) … . Chuqui v Cong. Ahavas Tzookah V’Chesed, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02166, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was struck in the eye by a piece of wire when using a nail gun, he did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the work he was doing triggered the eye-protection requirement in the Industrial Code. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer in this traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant driver was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee acting within the scope of employment:

… [Plaintiff] allegedly was injured when a vehicle he was operating collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Luis F. Leal. * * * The plaintiffs alleged … that Leal was [defendant] Publishers’ employee, and that Leal was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. …

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his [or her] own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule” … . “The fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … . Brielmeier v Leal, 2024 NY Slip Op 02163, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: An employer may be responsible for the negligence of an employee, but is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. The fact that the employment contract uses the term “independent contractor” is not dispositive. The relevant criteria are explained.

 

/ , , ,

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDUCATION LAW AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; PLAINTIFF-STUDENT, WHO HAD BEEN BULLIED AND WAS PUSHED TO THE FLOOR BY ANOTHER STUDENT, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, determined (1) charter schools are not subject to the notice of claim requirements of the Education Law and the General Municipal Law, and (2) plaintiff student, who allegedly had been bullied and was pushed to the floor by another student when the hallway was unsupervised, raised questions of fact supporting the negligent supervision cause of action:

Since charter schools are independent from school districts with respect to civil liability, financial obligations, and liability insurance coverage, it stands to reason that the extraordinary safeguards of prelitigation notification of claims applicable to school districts, municipalities and other wholly public entities would not apply to charter schools. * * *

The evidence presented triable issues of fact as to whether there were monitors present in the hallway at the time of the incident as required by the School’s policies and procedures and whether the presence of such monitors could have prevented the alleged pushing incident … . A. P. v John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 02205, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Charter schools are not subject to the notice-of-claim requirement in the Education Law and General Municipal Law; i.e., a plaintiff suing a charter school for negligence need not file or serve a notice of claim as a condition precedent.

 

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