You are here: / A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION...

Search Results

/ , , ,

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY FATHER, THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS PRESENT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the admissible evidence did not support the finding that father neglected the child based on an act of domestic violence. Mother’s 911 call constituted admissible evidence of the domestic violence. But, although evidence the child was present apparently existed, it was never admitted in evidence:

A recording of a 911 call made by the mother, which was admitted into evidence without objection, was the only admissible evidence offered in support of the petition. During this call, the mother told the 911 operator that the father was harassing her and threatening her, that there were weapons in the house, including knives and guns, and that she was in fear for her life. However, no evidence was admitted in support of ACS’s [Administration of Children’s Services’] position that the children observed, were aware of, or were in close proximity to the domestic violence, and that their physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired … . While ACS contends that the redacted ACS progress notes were admitted into evidence, and contain the children’s out-of court-statements demonstrating the children were aware of and heard the domestic violence, the progress notes, although marked for identification at the virtual hybrid hearing, were never entered into evidence, and therefore, cannot be considered. Thus, ACS failed to establish that the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired by the father’s acts of violence toward the mother … . Matter of Easton J. (Courtney J.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01810, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: To find neglect based on an act of domestic violence by father against mother there must be admissible evidence the child was present.

 

/ , ,

THE TURNOVER PETITION SEEKING REAL PROPERTY AND FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO DEFRAUD JUDGMENT CREDITORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the turnover petition seeking real property and funds transferred by judgment debtors to defraud judgment creditors should have been granted:

CPLR 5225(b) “‘provides for an expedited special proceeding by a judgment creditor to recover money or other personal property belonging to a judgment debtor against a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest in order to satisfy a judgment'” … . A proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) “may also be maintained ‘against a person who is a transferee of money or other personal property from the judgment debtor'” …

Pursuant to CPLR 5227, “a special proceeding may be commenced by a judgment creditor ‘against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor'” … . In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5227, the “judgment creditor stands in the judgment debtor’s shoes, and may enforce the obligations owed to the judgment debtor by the indemnifying party” … .

… [T]he judgment creditors offered sufficient evidence to establish that [respondent] Nancy Barrick transferred the Barrick estate to the Barrick Trust with actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud present or future creditors pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276 … …. Nancy Barrick transferred title to the Barrick estate without adequate consideration to a trust for which she and her brother served as the trustees while retaining control over and possession of the property.

… [T]he judgment creditors also offered sufficient evidence to establish that the conveyances from the RMP judgment debtors to the RMP transferees were made with actual intent to defraud present and future creditors pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276. … [T]he transfers were made without adequate consideration and evinced a distinct course of conduct after incurring large debts to the judgment creditors to render the RMP judgment debtors insolvent … . Matter of Argyle Funds SPC, Inc. v Barrick, 2024 NY Slip Op 01806, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: The CPLR provides a mechanism called a turnover petition which allows a judgment creditor to obtain property fraudulently transferred by the judgment debtor.

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HIS OWN LIABILTY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DEEMED PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined that although defendant raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent, defendant did not raise a question of fact about the defendant-driver’s liability. In addition, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been deemed premature:

… [T]he defendants submitted an affidavit from the defendant driver, in which he stated that he was “not fully responsible” for the accident. The defendant driver also averred that the traffic light had turned green and that the plaintiff had moved forward and then suddenly stopped, causing the defendant driver to strike the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle despite his efforts to stop his vehicle. This evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident, thereby supporting the denial of that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence … . However, since the defendants’ evidence related only to the plaintiff’s comparative fault, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging negligent operation of a motor vehicle … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiff’s motion was premature. “[W]hile a party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in advance of a summary judgment determination, [a] party contending that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” … . Here, the defendants had personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and their mere hope or speculation that evidence might be uncovered during discovery was an insufficient basis for denying the plaintiff’s motion …. Martin v Copado-Esquivel, 2024 NY Slip Op 01804, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, the fact that defendant raises a question of fact about plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not preclude granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability.

Practice Point: Here, where the facts of the rear-end collision were within defendant’s personal knowledge, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been dismissed as premature.

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the original loan document was not provided and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

A plaintiff moving for leave to enter a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original home equity line of credit agreement … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants failed to state when the search for the credit agreement occurred, did not identify who conducted the search for the credit agreement, or explain when or how the credit agreement was lost … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Morton, 2024 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, in moving for a default judgment the bank did not provide the original loan document and did not provide a sufficient lost note affidavit. The motion should have been denied, criteria explained.

 

/ , ,

IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED BY A PARTY IT IS WAIVED AND CANNOT BE ASSERTED, SUA SPONTE, BY A JUDGE; IN ADDITION, A JUDGE CANNOT DECIDE A MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a judge, sua sponte, cannot raise the statute of limitations defense. If it is not raised by the parties, it is waived:

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that is waived by a party unless it is raised either in a responsive pleading or by motion prior to the submission of a responsive pleading … . “‘A court may not take judicial notice, sua sponte, of the applicability of a statute of limitations if that defense has not been raised'” … .

Here, none of the defendants answered the complaint, and the record does not show that any defendant made a pre-answer motion that raised the statute of limitations … . Therefore, a statute of limitations defense was waived. Moreover, even if the defense was not waived, no defendant opposed the instant motion, and the issue of the statute of limitations was not raised on the motion. Thus, the Supreme Court improperly determined the motion on a ground not raised by the parties … . Associates First Capital Corp. v Roth, 2024 NY Slip Op 01789, Second Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: The stature of limitations defense cannot be raised, sua sponte, by a judge. If it is not raised by a party it is waived.

Practice Point: A judge cannot not based a motion-decision on a ground not raised by the parties.

 

/

A 2021 BUYBACK AGEEMENT BETWEEN A NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND A NATURAL GAS SELLER WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF A WINTER STORM WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PRODUCER’S ABILITY TO DELIVER THE USUAL AMOUNT OF GAS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED BASED UPON THE “FORCE MAJEURE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL 2019 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined a buyback agreement between Vaquero, a natural gas producer, and Hartree, a natural gas seller, which was entered in anticipation of an imminent winter storm during which Vaquero would be unable to meet its gas-delivery requirements under the 2019 contract, was valid and enforceable. The buyback contract could not be cancelled by asserting the “force majeure” clause in the original delivery and sales contract entered in 2019:

To the extent that Vaquero argues that its force majeure declaration eliminated its obligations under the buyback, the argument fails. The parties agree that the buyback did not require any physical delivery of gas, and created only a financial obligation. Indeed, Vaquero’s witnesses conceded at their depositions that the February 12, 2021, buyback was a purely financial agreement, with no physical delivery expected from either party. The mere fact that Vaquero had no gas to sell did not relieve it of its financial obligation to Hartree under the February 12, 2021 buyback agreement which did not contain a force majeure provision … . Moreover, the parties are sophisticated entities familiar with the natural gas industry and had a prior history of buyback arrangements. The February 12, 2021, buyback agreement, similar to the parties’ other buyback agreements, created an independent carve out that, because no physical delivery of gas was required, is not affected by the force majeure provisions of the base agreement … . Hartree Partners, LP v Vaquero Permian Processing LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01779, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: Here a 2021 contract entered into in anticipation of the natural gas producer’s inability to deliver the required amount of gas during an imminent winter storm could not be cancelled under the “force majeure” clause in the original 2019 contract between the parties. The 2021 buyback agreement was an independent, enforceable contract which did not include a “force majeure” clause.

 

/ , ,

THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” AND DID NOT ACT IN “RECKLESS DISREGARD” OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city demonstrated the police officer who struck plaintiff’s car was engaged in an “emergency operation” at the time of the accident and did not act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of others:

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 by submitting evidence that the officer was responding to a radio call about a man with a gun when his police vehicle struck plaintiff’s car … . Accordingly, defendants demonstrated that the officer’s conduct is to be assessed under the statute’s “reckless disregard” standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] …).

Defendants further demonstrated that the officer did not operate the police vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] …). The officer testified that he approached a red light with a vehicle stopped at the intersection, so he had to cross the double yellow lines to avoid it. He also testified that he reduced his speed and looked both ways when approaching the red light at the intersection. The officer attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and swerving upon realizing that plaintiff’s car had entered the intersection. Seo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01785, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: When a police officer engaged in an emergency operation takes steps to avoid colliding with other vehicles the “reckless disregard for the safety of others” standard has not been met.

Similar issues and result in a suit against a private ambulance company in Alonso v Crest Transp. Serv., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01788, Second Dept 4-3-24

 

/ ,

HERE DEFENDANT ASHKENAZY’S COUNSEL TOOK POSITIONS WHICH WERE BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE DISAGREED WITH THE INTERPRETATION DID NOT WARRANT A FINDING COUNSEL ENGAGED IN FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT OR ACTED IN BAD FAITH; THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WAS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney’s (defendant Ashkenazy’s counsel’s) actions did not amount to “frivolous conduct” and did not warrant the imposition of sanctions:

Conduct is frivolous if it is “completely without merit in law,” “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation,” or “asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Here, the record does not support an award of sanctions under any of the prongs. The conduct that Supreme Court found sanctionable does not rise to the level of being frivolous. Supreme Court took issue with counsel’s statement that a document squarely addressing the question of timing did not exist. According to Supreme Court, based on its in camera review of documents, there were communications in which the timing of the payment would have been mentioned if it were in fact due on a date other than the five-year paydown date. Supreme Court disagreed with Ashkenazy’s counsel’s interpretation of the documents, and did so by relying on the absence of a statement in the documents rather than an overt statement contained in the documents. Counsel put forth its interpretation of the documents exchanged during discovery — namely, among other things, Ashkenazy’s personal interpretation of the contract, Ashkenazy’s deposition testimony, and the deposition testimony of Ashkenazy’s drafting counsel — and then made arguments based on its interpretation. Those arguments were not completely devoid of merit. Nor is there any indication in the record that counsel’s interpretation and arguments were made in bad faith ,,, , The fact that the court took a different view of the evidence is not grounds for sanctions…. . Talos Capital Designated Activity Co. v 257 Church Holdings LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01786, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: As long as an attorney’s argument is based upon an interpretation of the evidence which is not meritless, the attorney’s argument is not frivolous or made in bad faith such that sanctions are warranted.

 

/

PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY FROM EXPOSURE TO COVID IN THE WORKPLACE MUST BE ASSESSED USING THE SAME CRITERIA AS ARE APPLIED TO PHYSICAL INJURY; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing the denial of benefits and remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that psychological injury from exposure to COVID at the workplace must be treated the same as physical injury, taking into consideration the claimant’s particular vulnerabilities:

Pursuant to the employer’s policy for the 2020-2021 school year, claimant, a second-grade school teacher with a past medical history of asthma and bronchitis, returned to work in person at her assigned school building on September 7, 2020; the students continued to attend classes remotely at that time. On or about September 21, 2020, claimant was informed that another teacher at the school had tested positive for COVID-19, prompting the temporary closure of the school building. Claimant began feeling ill on or about September 23, 2020 but tested negative for COVID-19 on that date. On October 1, 2020, claimant returned to work in person, but she became increasingly anxious in anticipation of the students’ return to the building, which was scheduled to occur on Monday, October 5, 2020. She did not return to work after October 2, 2020. * * *

On appeal, claimant argues that, in cases involving exposure to the COVID-19 virus, the Board applies disparate burdens to claimants seeking compensation for a physical injury as compared to those seeking compensation for a psychological injury, in violation of the principle that “psychological or nervous injury precipitated by psychic trauma is compensable to the same extent as physical injury” … . * * *

… Given that the Board did not consider claimant’s particular vulnerabilities and that it applied a disparate burden in determining whether the alleged psychological injury was caused by a workplace accident, we must remit this matter for reconsideration not inconsistent with the guidance provided herein. On remittal, the Board is tasked with determining whether claimant’s proof establishes that she suffered a workplace accident, as relevant here, by proving either a specific exposure to COVID-19 or the prevalence of COVID-19 in her work environment so as to present an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event. If claimant establishes the existence of such an accident, then the Board must determine, “in light of the commonsense viewpoint of the average [person]” … , and considering claimant’s particular vulnerabilities, whether claimant established, by competent medical evidence, a causal connection between the alleged injury and the workplace accident … . Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 01755, Third Dept 3-28-24

Practice Point: Re: eligibility for Workers’ Compensation benefits, psychological injury from exposure to COVID at the workplace is to be assessed using the same criteria as are applied to physical injury—analytical guidance is laid out in detail.

 

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