You are here: / RETIRED PERMANENTLY DISABLED YONKERS FIREFIGHTERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE...

Search Results

/ , ,

RETIRED PERMANENTLY DISABLED YONKERS FIREFIGHTERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE HOLIDAY PAY AND CHECK-IN PAY INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE; NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED (CT APP). ​

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined retired Yonkers firefighters (Retirees) , who are permanently disabled, are entitled to have holiday pay and check-in pay included in the amount of compensation they receive until reaching retirement age. The retired, disabled firefighters are not entitled to have “night differential” pay included, however:

General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) provides that, for firefighters who are permanently disabled due to work-related injuries and receiving certain benefits from the state, a municipality must make up the difference between those benefits and the firefighter’s “regular salary or wages” until the firefighter reaches the mandatory retirement age. Since at least 1995, the CBAs have provided for holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, which collectively the parties refer to as “special pays.” … Until 2015, Yonkers included all three of these payments when calculating the Retirees’ section 207-a (2) supplements. * * *

Unlike check-in and holiday pay, the Retirees have not established whether all firefighters are contractually entitled to receive night differential pay … . Night differential contains two express conditions: it is earned only by “firefighters who are regularly scheduled to work rotating tours that include the 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. night tour, and only to firefighters actually working that night tour.” The restriction of this payment to those firefighters who “actually work[] the night tour” strongly suggests that night differential must be specially earned, not paid to all, rendering it distinct from “regular salary or wages,” and the Retirees have not demonstrated that the CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] require all firefighters to work the night tour. Thus, the Retirees have not demonstrated that all firefighters are entitled to earn the night differential such that it should be included in the section 207-a (2) calculation. Matter of Borelli v City of Yonkers, 2022 NY Slip Op 07094, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: Permanently disabled Yonkers firefighters are entitled to have holiday pay and check-in pay, but not night differential pay, included in the compensation they are to receive until retirement age.

 

/ , ,

WHEN A DEFENDANT MUST BE RELEASED BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH A BAIL-ELIGIBLE OFFENSE, A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION MUST BE CONDUCTED AS AN OUT-PATIENT OR IN A HOSPITAL; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE ORDERED TO JAIL PENDING THE EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant, who was not charged with a bail-eligible offense, could not be ordered to jail for a competency examination. Defendant must either be examined as an out-patient, or, upon a recommendation of a medical official, in a hospital. The writ of habeas corpus was properly granted and the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]e conclude that Wei Li [defendant] was not “in custody” during his arraignment … because he was not charged with a qualifying offense under the bail laws and the court was required to order his release at arraignment (see CPL 510.10 [3]; 530.20 [1] [a]). As its plain text makes clear, subdivision (3) mandates the location for the examination as either (1) the place where the defendant is in custody at the time the court orders the examination, or (2) at a hospital facility, as might be necessary for an effective examination. The statute’s use of the phrase “in custody,” like the phrase “hospital confinement,” refers, as a practical matter, to where a defendant may be properly examined by psychiatric personnel. Thus, “in custody,” as used in subdivision (3), does not broadly refer to custodial control over a defendant at a courthouse. …

A court issuing an order for a competency examination [pursuant to CPL 730.20] (1) may direct an examination on an outpatient basis or, (2) upon a medical recommendation of the director, the court may, but need not, order hospital confinement until completion of the examination. People v Warden, Rikers Is., 2022 NY Slip Op 07093, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: A defendant who is not charged with a bail-eligible offense cannot be ordered to jail pending a competency examination. The defendant must be examined as an out-patient or, upon the recommendation of a medical official, in a hospital.

 

/

THE DEFENDANT, THINKING THAT THE PERSON TRYING TO BREAK-IN WAS HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND WHO HAD BROKEN IN AND ATTACKED HER BEFORE, FIRED A SINGLE SHOT THROUGH THE METAL DOOR, KILLING THE VICTIM (WHO WAS NOT HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND); BECAUSE HER USE OF THE WEAPON WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the defendant was not entitled to the temporary and lawful possession of a weapon jury instruction in this murder case. Defendant thought the person trying to get into her house was her estranged husband who had broken in and attacked her before. She fired one shot through the metal door, killing the victim (who was not her estranged husband). Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and acquitted of murder and tampering with evidence. The appellate division reversed, finding defendant was entitled to the temporary and lawful possession of a weapon instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the jury instruction was not warranted:

A defendant is entitled to a jury charge on the defense of temporary and lawful possession when there is evidence presented at trial “‘showing a legal excuse for . . . possession as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner'” … . Here, defendant used the weapon in a dangerous manner … . Although no single fact is dispositive, she fired the gun blindly through a closed, windowless door, endangering anyone who might have been on the other side, striking and killing the victim, and creating a risk that the bullet would ricochet off the metal door and potentially injure her children.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must … , we conclude that “‘no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding of the tendered defense'” of temporary and lawful possession and, thus, County Court was “‘under no obligation to submit the question to the jury'” … . Inasmuch as defendant’s actions were reckless and dangerous, she was not entitled to the temporary and lawful possession charge. People v Ruiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 07092, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: Use of a weapon which is deemed dangerous and reckless, here shooting through a metal door, precludes instructing the jury on the temporary and lawful use of a weapon.

 

/ , , , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice case. determined the motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should not have been granted. but the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted, explaining the difference:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . …

… “[A] motion to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should be granted ‘[o]nly where the evidence so preponderates in favor of the unsuccessful litigant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . … “‘Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a factual question. In reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division has the power to determine whether a particular factual question was correctly resolved by the trier of facts. If the original fact determination was made by a jury, as in this case, and the Appellate Division concludes that the jury has made erroneous factual findings, the court is required to order a new trial, since it does not have the power to make new findings of fact in a jury case'” … . * * *

As to the weight of the evidence, based on the record, we find that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and must be set aside (see CPLR 4404[a] …). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the complaint, grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial…. . Osorio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07072, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: When an appellate court determines the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence in a jury trial it must order a new trial because an appellate court does not have the authority to make new findings of fact in a jury trial.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant homeowners were not entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Apparently the raised part of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property, but much of that same flag abutted defendants’ property. Because the village code placed responsibility on the homeowners to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition, in order to warrant summary judgment, the defendants were required to demonstrate they maintained the portion of the sidewalk in front of their property in a reasonable safe condition or that the failure to do so was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. Defendants offered no evidence on that issue:

While the homeowners demonstrated that the section of the sidewalk containing the defect on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped did not abut their property, their submissions in support of their motion also included evidence that the sidewalk flag on one side of the defect—which was not level with the adjacent flag, resulting in the height differential on which the plaintiff tripped—extended several feet onto their side of the property line. To meet their prima facie burden, the homeowners were “required to do more than simply demonstrate that the alleged defect was on another landowner’s property” … . They were required to make a prima facie showing that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk abutting their own property in a reasonably safe condition, or that any failure to do so was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Kuritsky v Meshenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 07066, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the village code placed responsibility for maintaining sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition on the abutting property owners. The raised portion of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property. But several feet of that same sidewalk flag extended in front of defendants’ property. To warrant summary the defendants were required to show either that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk which abutted their property in a reasonably safe condition, or that the failure to do so was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. The defendants presented no evidence on the issue.

 

/ , ,

RESETTLEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS PROPER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN THE JUDGMENT; RESETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judgment of divorce should have been resettled to the extent that the judgment conform with the stipulation. But the judgment should not have been modified to include a provision which was not in the stipulation. Resettlement cannot be used to amend the judgment, as opposed to correcting a mistake:

Resettlement of a judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) is an appropriate remedy when the judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation of settlement … . Here, although the judgment of divorce provided that the defendant was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children, that provision was inconsistent with the terms of the stipulation. Specifically, the stipulation contained a provision which set forth that the plaintiff was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children through her employer unless she became unemployed, and then the defendant would be responsible for providing health insurance for them through his employer. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to resettle the judgment of divorce to the extent it sought to replace the provision requiring the defendant to provide health insurance for the parties’ children with a provision requiring the plaintiff to be solely responsible to provide health insurance for the parties’ children … . The amendment proposed by the defendant failed to comport with the terms of the stipulation regarding the responsibility of the parties as to the health insurance for their children and was a substantive modification beyond the court’s inherent authority to correct a mistake, defect, or irregularity in the original judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019[a] …). Ferrigan v Ferrigan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07058, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here resettlement of the judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019 was appropriate only to the extent of correcting a mistake by conforming the judgment to the stipulation. Resettlement should not have been used to amend the judgment to include a provision which was not in the stipulation.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

/

AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED ABOUT $275,000; THE JUDGE ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48; PLANTIFF DID NOT DO SO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF YEARS; THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION ON THE INQUEST WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order granting a default judgment and the decision awarding nearly $275,000 must be vacated because plaintiff did not submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), “[p]roposed 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.” “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (id. § 202.48[b]). Here, it is undisputed that, on January 10, 2017, the plaintiff was directed to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), the plaintiff was required to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment within 60 days after January 10, 2017 … . It is also undisputed that the plaintiff failed to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment until July 2, 2019, nearly 2½ years after the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, the plaintiff failed to timely settle a judgment pursuant to the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a).

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show good cause for his lengthy delay in submitting a notice of settlement and proposed judgment in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive … . Thus, under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to vacate the order dated July 23, 2014. … [T]he decision rendered after the inquest must also be vacated. Cruz v Pierce, 2022 NY Slip Op 07054, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was granted a default judgment and, after an inquest of damages, was awarded nearly $275,000. The judge ordered plaintiff to submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48. Plaintiff failed to do so and the order granting the default judgment and the decision awarding damages were vacated.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Vertex’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring defendant was the sole owner of the real property should have been granted. Vertex purchased the property from the record owner. The fact that the record owner had entered into an unrecorded agreement acknowledging beneficial ownership by others who contributed to the purchase price, including plaintiff, who resided on the property, did not affect defendant’s status as a good-faith purchaser, despite plaintiff’s filing a notice of pendency prior to defendant’s recording of the deed:

… [T]o establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry” … .

… Vertex established … that it purchased the subject property for valuable consideration, without actual or constructive notice of the plaintiff’s alleged interest … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his filing of a notice of pendency against the property before Vertex filed its deed did not negate Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . “[H]aving failed to avail itself of the protection of either Real Property Law §§ 291 or 294, the plaintiff may not successfully contend that its filing of a notice of pendency serves as a substitute for the recording of a conveyance or a contract” … . Vertex also established … that the plaintiff’s occupancy at the property “was not inconsistent with the title of the apparent owner of record,” and thus, did not defeat Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . In addition, Vertex established … that the 2008 agreement did not negate its status as a good-faith purchaser, as that agreement was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). Bello v Ouellette, 2022 NY Slip Op 07043, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff had entered an unrecorded written agreement with the record owner of the real property indicating plaintiff, who resided on the property, had a one-fourth beneficial interest in the property. Defendant was unaware of the agreement. Defendant’s goof-faith-purchaser status was not affected by the fact that plaintiff filed a notice of pendency before defendant recorded the deed.

 

/

THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 94 absentee ballots suffered from a curable defect. Therefore the absentee ballots should not have been deemed invalid. Rather, the voters should have been notified of the defect and given an opportunity to correct it. The defect concerned unsealed envelopes which were inside sealed envelopes:

Here, each of the 94 absentee ballots was received by the Board with an unsealed ballot affirmation envelope inside a completely sealed outer mailing envelope. Therefore, the defects were curable under Election Law § 9-209(3)(b)-(e) (see 9 NYCRR 6210.21[g][2]). Matter of Amato v Sullivan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07039, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the absentee ballots were deemed invalid because envelopes were not sealed. However, pursuant to the Election Law, unsealed envelopes inside sealed envelopes constitute a curable defect. The voters should have been given the opportunity to cure the defect.

 

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