You are here: / PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES...

Search Results

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the releases were signed by plaintiff because of fraud, duress and/or mutual mistake. The facts are not described. Apparently plaintiff was injured at work and he alleged that he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t sign the releases:

“A release, even though properly executed, may nonetheless be void. Where fraud or duress in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied” … . Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Selina Maddock, a lawyer, was sent by their employer Navillus to secure plaintiff’s signature on the release, before he retained counsel, and made both the promise that he would have a job if he signed the releases, and the implicit threat that he would not have a job in the future if he failed to sign. He further alleged that Maddock advised plaintiff that he did not need to consult counsel and misrepresented to plaintiff that he was only releasing claims against his employer, Navillus. Consistent with this, plaintiff testified that he did not understand that he was releasing anyone besides his employer. Furthermore, “a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release”; here, while defendants argue that plaintiff is merely mistaken as to the sequelae of a known injury, plaintiff raises a factual issue as to whether the additional injuries he claims to suffer from were a sequelae of his right knee injury. Forcing a Hobbesian choice on injured workers to accept a small settlement or else lose their job before they can ascertain the nature and scope of their injury is contrary to the strong public policy of New York state to protect injured workers, as reflected in the Labor Law…. . Dolcimascolo v 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02944, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was apparently injured at work. A lawyer for his employer approached him about signing releases. Plaintiff signed, allegedly because he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t. Therefore there was a question of fact about whether fraud, duress or mutual mistake invalidated the releases.

 

/

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SCAFFOLDING SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY SWING, A SUBCONTRATOR, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST SWING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SWING WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, OR A CONTRACTOR’S OR OWNER’S STATUTORY AGENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against Swing, the company which constructed  the scaffolding, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff fell when, instead of using the scaffold walkway system, he attempted to descend from some scaffolding pipes to the wooden walkway and a wooden plank broke:

The lower court should have dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims as against Swing, the scaffold system subcontractor to general contractor 4 Star, because it is undisputed that Swing was not a contactor or owner within the meaning of the statutes. Nor was it a contractor or owner’s statutory agent. Although it contractually retained the right to reenter the premises and inspect the scaffold system, Swing did not have any employees on site during 4 Star’s work, and it did not inspect the scaffold system while it was in place … . For all intents and purposes, once Swing constructed the scaffold system, it returned to the premises only to deliver supplies and to disassemble the scaffold system at the end of the project. Guevara-Ayala v Trump Palace/Parc LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03049, First Dept 5-5-22

Practice Point: Here the subcontractor which constructed the scaffolding from which plaintiff fell was not a contractor or owner, or a contractor’s or owner’s statutory agent within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Therefore the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against the subcontractor should have been dismissed.

 

/

PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he needed to stand on the rim of a bathtub to install a shower-curtain rod. He hit his head and fell when attempting to step up on the rim of the tub. The defendants argued the installation could have been done from floor level. There was no room in the bathroom for an A-frame ladder:

The motion court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his section 240(1) claim. Plaintiff established prima facie that he was entitled to judgment by evidence that he suffered harm that “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” when he fell from the edge of the bathtub, which served as the functional equivalent of a scaffold or ladder … . The evidence showed that there was insufficient room inside the bathroom for plaintiff to use an A-frame ladder and that plaintiff instead was forced to reach the elevated work area by standing on the edge of the bathtub in order to install the shower-curtain rods. Plaintiff testified that standing on the edge of the tub was necessary because he otherwise would lack the necessary leverage to tighten the screws with an Allen wrench.

In opposition, [defendants] failed to raise an issue of fact. They rely on an affidavit by their biomechanical expert, Mr. Bove, who opined that plaintiff’s overhead reach was sufficient to perform the task while standing on the ground or inside the bathtub. Bove’s initial affidavit, however, ignored plaintiff’s testimony that he needed the height in order to have leverage so that he would have enough strength to tighten the screws with the Allen wrench. Vitucci v Durst Pyramid LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02968, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell attempting to stand on the edge of a bathtub to install a shower-curtain rod. The majority concluded the edge of the bathtub was the equivalent of a scaffold and plaintiff’s fall was covered under Labor Law 240(1). Two dissenters argued the job could have been performed from ground level.

 

/ ,

THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraud cause of action was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and therefore should not have been dismissed:

The fraud claim is not duplicative of the contract claim … , this is not a case where “the only fraud alleged” was the defendant’s “unkept promise to perform certain of its preexisting obligations under the parties’ contract” … . Rather, plaintiff alleges, “Whenever ADP’s services for Plaintiff[] proved to be deficient, ADP would purport to deal with the problem and then misrepresent to Plaintiff[] that the problem had been fixed, when . . . it had not.” “Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” … .

Moreover, plaintiff seeks at least some damages on its fraud claim that it does not seek on its contract claim … . IS Chrystie Mgt. LLC v ADP, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02950, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Fraud causes of action are often dismissed as duplicative of breach-of-contract causes of action. Here the fraud cause of action should not have been dismissed because the misrepresentations concerned present facts, not a future intent to perform. In addition, the complaint sought damages for fraud that were not sought for breach of contract.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION; THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction:

… [T]his case “falls within the narrow exception to [the] preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence’s illegality is readily discernible from the . . . record” … . Here, the record establishes that the predicate felony was based on defendant’s previous conviction in federal court of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine (21 USC § 846; see § 841 [a] [1]; [b]). However, “under New York’s ‘strict equivalency’ standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . People v Lopez, 2022 NY Slip Op 02925, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: A defendant cannot be sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction. The issue fell within an exception to the preservation requirement.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH BAIL-SETTING IS NOT APPEALABLE, WHETHER THE BAIL-SETTING COURT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY STANDARDS INHIBITING EXCESSIVE BAIL IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; HERE THE BAIL-SETTNG COURT DID NOT COMPLY WITH CPL 510.30; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined that, although bail-setting is not appealable, the habeas corpus petition was the proper vehicle for a review of whether the constitutional or statutory standards inhibiting excessive bail were met. Here it was alleged the bail-setting court did not comply with CPL 510.30 by explaining its finding that remand was the least restrictive option:

… [A]fter considering all of the relevant factors under CPL 510.30 (1), the bail-setting court determined that remand was the least restrictive condition. We conclude that the bail-setting court failed to comply with the statutory mandate of CPL 510.10 (1) because it failed to “explain its choice of release, release with conditions, bail or remand on the record or in writing.” We therefore reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, and grant the petition in part, and we remit the matter to the bail-setting court for further proceedings to satisfy the requirements of CPL 510.10 (1) … . People ex rel. Steinagle v Howard, 2022 NY Slip Op 02901, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Although bail-setting is not appealable, a habeas corpus petition can be used to argue the bail-setting court did not comply with the constitutional or statutory standards inhibiting excessive bail. Here the court’s failure to explain its choice to remand the defendant violated CPL 510.30.

 

/ , , ,

A PROSECUTION WITNESS’S WRITTEN STATEMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE JUDGE’S USE OF THE PHRASE “POTENTIALLY AIDS” INSTEAD OF “INTENTIONALLY AIDS” IN THE ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY JURY INSTRUCTION PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH THE JURY INSTRUCTION ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) a written statement by a prosecution witness should not have been admitted as “past recollection recorded;” and (2) the jury instruction on accomplice liability prejudiced defendant. The jury-instruction error was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

“The foundational requirements for the admissibility of a past recollection recorded are: (1) the witness must have observed the matter recorded; (2) the recollection must have been fairly fresh at the time when it was recorded; (3) the witness must currently be able to testify that the record is a correct representation of his or her knowledge and recollection at the time it was made; and (4) the witness must lack sufficient present recollection of the information recorded”  … . ,,,

… [T]he prosecution witness in question did not testify that his written statement accurately represented his knowledge and recollection when made. To the contrary, the witness testified that the statement was not accurate when given because he was under the influence of narcotics at that time … . Moreover, because the statement was made more than six months after the alleged events recorded therein, the recollection was not “fairly fresh” when recorded … . …

Penal Law § 20.00 provides that a “person is criminally liable for [the conduct of another] when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct” ,,, . … [W]e conclude that the court’s use of the phrase “potentially aids” rather than “intentionally aids” significantly prejudiced defendant, who was alleged to have aided and abetted the principal by driving him to and from the crime scene…. . People v Gardner, 2022 NY Slip Op 02911, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Here the written statement did not meet the criteria for admissibility as past recollection recorded. The witness testified the statement was not accurate when given because he was high and the statement was not “fresh” because it was made six months after the events described in it.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT THIRD BASED UPON HIS LOSING CONTROL OF THE CAR AND CRASHING, INJURING A PASSENGER; THE “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A “WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the criminal-negligence element of assault third was not proven. Defendant was driving with a passenger when he crossed into the oncoming lane, pulled back into his lane, lost control and crashed, injuring the passenger:

In cases involving criminal negligence arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, such as here, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform ‘speeding’ into ‘dangerous speeding’ ” … . With respect to the issue of defendant’s rate of speed, the trial testimony from the prosecution’s expert witness that defendant was driving at the excessive speed of approximately 92 miles per hour at the time of the incident was speculative … . The expert’s calculation of the vehicle’s speed was based on the assumption of “100 percent braking,” but there was no evidence that defendant braked at all before his vehicle collided with the mailbox, tree and utility pole and came to a stop. Moreover, the People’s version of the events, that defendant deliberately attempted to “flatten out the curve” by crossing the double line of the curve, does not rise to the level of moral blameworthiness to constitute criminal negligence … . People v Palombi, 2022 NY Slip Op 02896, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: In the context of an assault third charge alleging a car accident was the result of defendant’s “criminal negligence,” proof of speeding, as opposed to proof of “dangerous speeding,” will not support a conviction. This case is a good example of “legally sufficient evidence” resulting in a conviction which is determined on appeal to be “against the weight of the evidence.” The expert evidence presented to show the speed at which defendant was driving was speculative and based upon an unproved assumption. That evidence was deemed too weak to support a conviction, thereby rendering the conviction “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

/ ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT, IF IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY THAT THE RAPE VICTIM WAS AWARE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN INCARCERATED, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE THE VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND ITS INTRODUCTION WAS THERFORE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that, if it was error to admit testimony that the rape victim was aware defendant had been incarcerated, the error was harmless. The dissenters argued that the victim’s state of mind, i.e., awareness of defendant’s prior incarceration, was irrelevant because the victim was immediately overpowered and pushed to the floor upon opening the door for the defendant:

From the dissent:

The evidence … had no probative value under the circumstances of this case and should have been excluded as prejudicial … . People v Hartsfield, 2022 NY Slip Op 02908, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: The two dissenters argued that evidence the rape victim was aware defendant had been incarcerated should not have been admitted because it was  irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The evidence was irrelevant because the victim’s state of mind was not in issue.

 

/ ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS INSIDE THE STOPPED VEHICLE RAISED A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED, JUSTIFYING A PAT DOWN SEARCH; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE EQUIVOCAL AND INNOCUOUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the police officer’s observations of defendant inside the stopped vehicle were sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion the defendant was armed, which justified the pat down search. The dissent argued that the proof presented at the suppression hearing did not meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard.

Although the dissent suggests otherwise, the fact that the officer’s view of defendant was obscured to some extent when defendant was partially concealed inside the vehicle and was observed surreptitiously reaching toward his waistband constitutes a “circumstance that supports a reasonable suspicion that [defendant was] armed or pose[d] a threat to [officer] safety” … .

From the dissent:

“Reasonable suspicion ‘may not rest on equivocal or “innocuous behavior” that is susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation’ ” … . Inasmuch as defendant’s nervousness and movements were susceptible of an innocent interpretation, particularly in light of his status as the vehicle’s only black occupant, and inasmuch as defendant was, according to the officer’s testimony, “fully compliant” with the officers’ instruction to exit the vehicle, I agree with defendant that his conduct while in the vehicle was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion necessary for law enforcement to conduct a pat frisk of his person … . People v Ginty, 2022 NY Slip Op 02899, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Although only the dissent felt this analysis applied here, a person’s “equivocal” or “innocuous” behavior, like nervousness or shaking, does not support a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is armed.

 

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