You are here: / CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS...

Search Results

/ , , ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS TOO SMALL; PLAINTIFF-TENANTS ALLEGED THE LANDLORD DEREGULATED APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, tenants of a 49-unit apartment building, should have been certified as a class. The complaint alleged the landlord deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Supreme Court erred in denying class certification on the ground that plaintiffs failed to show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members . . . is impracticable” (CPLR 901[a][1]). Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P. (24 NY3d 382, 383 [2014]) and subsequent cases, such as Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC (34 NY3d 116 [2019]), make it clear that qualified plaintiffs may “utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory rent overcharges against landlords who decontrolled apartments in contravention of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a) while accepting tax benefits under New York City’s J-51 tax abatement program.” The legislature contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members … . Here, as in Borden, plaintiffs allege defendant deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits. Construing the class certification statute liberally … given that the asserted class consists of former and current tenants who lived in the 16 units improperly treated as deregulated after November 15, 2013, while defendant was receiving J-51 tax benefits, it is reasonable to infer that some units in this 49-unit apartment building would have had more than one tenant and several tenants would have moved away, making joinder of all members impracticable … . The identity of class members, i.e., which units were treated as deregulated and who leased them during the relevant time period, is within defendant’s knowledge. Hoffman v Fort 709 Assoc., L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02510, First Dept 4-19-22

​Practice Point: Here class certification should not have been denied on the ground the class was too small. The plaintiffs are tenants alleging the landlord improperly deregulated apartments while receiving tax benefits. Classes as small as 18 members were contemplated by the legislature.

 

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). Plaintiff was working in a shaft when pebble-sized debris fell on him, allegedly seriously injuring his eye. There were questions of fact whether the distance the debris fell was de minimus and whether the force with which the debris fell was de minimus. There was also a question of fact whether planking should have been installed above the shaft to protect against falling debris:

There are issues of fact as to whether the debris that fell on plaintiff — taking into account the elevation differential, the debris’ weight, and the amount of force it could generate …  — was “a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell” … , and whether his injury was a direct consequence of defendants’ “failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . The trier of fact could find that the elevation differential between plaintiff and the level from which the debris fell was de minimis, that the debris’ weight was inconsequential, or that the debris could not have generated any meaningful amount of force, and determine that plaintiff’s “injuries were the result of [a] usual and ordinary danger[] at a construction site” … .. However, the trier of fact could determine that the elevation differential of at least one story was not de minimis, that the weight of the debris and the force it was capable of generating were significant, and that the debris should have been secured for the purpose of the undertaking. Peters v Structure Tone, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02518, First Dept 4-19-22

Practice Point: There were questions of fact whether injury from falling pebble-sized debris is covered under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). The force generated by the falling debris could be found to be de minimus.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED FOUR DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PURSUANT TO A DEFENSE SUBPOENA INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE DEFENSE HAD A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE INFORMATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES; THE DISSENTER DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that the People’s failure to turn over Brady material in this sexual-offense prosecution, which the defense received four days before trial pursuant to a subpoena, did not require reversal:

“‘[W]hile the People unquestionably have a duty to disclose exculpatory material in their control,’ a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial is not violated when, as here, he [or she] is given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People’s witnesses or as evidence during his [or her] case” … .. Defendant, by way of a subpoena, received the records from the victim’s evaluation four days before trial. Defendant asserts that these records contain two pieces of allegedly exculpatory information. The first is that a physical examination of the victim, performed three months after the incident, was “normal” and did not reveal any corporeal injury. The second is that the victim, during an interview related to the physical examination, disclosed allegations of prior sexual abuse by two different individuals, which defendant asserts were fabricated.

From the dissent:

… [I]n my view, the withheld evidence was clearly material and defendant was prejudiced. As a result of the Brady violation, defendant was denied an opportunity to pursue other strategies with defense counsel. He was denied, among other things, the opportunity to investigate and interview other potential defense witnesses well in advance of trial, or to develop a more detailed argument on the issue of whether he could cross-examine the victim and call certain witnesses without running afoul of the Rape Shield Law (see CPL 60.42). With more time, he also could have called the examining physician or retained his own medical expert to review the records. Learning of the existence of potential witnesses such as the victim’s brother and the mother’s landlord a mere four days before trial provided defendant no opportunity to locate and interview these witnesses and possibly incorporate their testimony into his defense. Moreover, as County Court noted, defendant, under these circumstances, was under no obligation to seek an adjournment of the trial. People v Sherwood, 2022 NY Slip Op 02455, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: Although the Brady material was not provided until four days before trial pursuant to a defense subpoena, reversal was not required because the defense had a meaningful opportunity to use the material in the cross-examination of the People’s witnesses. The dissenter disagreed.

 

/

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF NEL, A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ASSIGNED CLAIMANT TO DELIVER AUTO PARTS FOR ITS CLIENT, ANY-PART AUTO STORES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant was not an employee of NEL, a business logistics company, and NEL was, therefore, not liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. Claimant was a delivery driver who was assigned by NEL to deliver auto parts for Any-Part Auto Stores:

The record reflects that, after NEL initially referred claimant to Any-Part, NEL did not retain any supervisory authority over him. NEL did not provide any training, set delivery goals for claimant, conduct performance reviews or evaluations, require any proof of delivery or require any contact from claimant on a day-to-day basis. Any-Part assigned the deliveries to claimant and handled any complaints. Claimant used his own vehicle, NEL did not reimburse him for any expenses and claimant was not restricted from working for others. Under the parties’ written agreement, claimant could refuse an assignment, but, once he accepted an assignment, he was required to complete it. Per the agreement, claimant was permitted to hire other individuals to perform the work if claimant could not, and claimant was responsible for ensuring that those individuals comply with state and federal regulations, including licensing and insurance requirements. … . Matter of Pasini (Northeast Logistics, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02464, Third Dept 4-14-22

 

/

THERE WAS NO INDICATION ON THE FORM AND NO REGULATION REQUIRING CLAIMANT TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE RB-89 FORM FOR EACH CLAIM; THE BOARD THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board and remitting the matter, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny claimant’s application on the ground that a separate copy of the RB-89 form was not submitted for each claim:

We note … that the requirement that a party submit a copy of the RB-89 form when referencing multiple claims, or that failing to provide a copy for each claim could result in review being denied on one of the claims, is not included on the form, in the instructions to the form or in the Board’s regulations. Although the Board may certainly adopt the formatting requirement that applicants provide a copy of their RB-89 form for each claim referenced therein, we find, under the circumstances presented here, that the Board’s denial of claimant’s application for review of the WCLJ’s decision on the 2017 claim for failing to provide the Board with an additional copy of their RB-89 form was an abuse of the Board’s discretion … . Matter of Olszewski v PAL Envtl. Safety Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02469, Third Dept 4-14-22

 

/

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION PETITIONER-INMATE WAS GUILTY OF “CREATING A DISTURBANCE” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held the evidence did not demonstrate petitioner-inmate was guilty of “creating a disturbance:”

Pursuant to the relevant regulations, an incarcerated individual “shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the facility” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]). Such disruptive conduct includes, as relevant here, “loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor” (7 NYCRR 270.0 [B] [5] [iv]). The misbehavior report, which was the sole evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer, provided, in relevant part, that petitioner was observed “arguing” with another incarcerated individual “in the dorm hallway . . ., which drew the attention of the [incarcerated individuals] nearby.” The misbehavior report does not reflect that petitioner was screaming … or otherwise speaking in a loud or boisterous manner … , nor does it establish that petitioner’s behavior triggered an affirmative response on the part of the incarcerated individuals observing the alleged argument … . Similarly, petitioner was found not guilty of fighting, and there were no other established disciplinary infractions that would give rise to a reasonable inference that his conduct was disruptive … . In short, as the misbehavior report fails to identify the manner in which petitioner’s conduct disturbed the order of the facility, we cannot say that respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Hogan v Thompson, 2022 NY Slip Op 02470, Third Dept 4-14-22

 

/

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE TO WORK (USUALLY NOT COMPENSABLE), HIS INJURY WAS FOUND COMPENSABLE BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE (WCLJ) UNDER THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION; BECAUSE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board did not address the basis of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLJ’s) ruling that claimant was entitled to benefits. Claimant was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle to work. Although travel to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, the WCLJ found that “claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations.” That issue was not addressed by the Board:

In finding that the claim was compensable, the WCLJ found that claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations. The Board, however, did not address the exception relied upon by the WCLJ but, instead, found that the outside employee exception did not apply in concluding that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of claimant’s employment. Whether an exception to the general rule applies turns on the Board’s fact-intensive analysis of the particular circumstances of a given case … , and “[t]he courts are bound by the . . . Board’s findings of fact which, including the ultimate fact of arising out of and in the course [of employment], must stand unless erroneous in law and regardless of whether conflicting evidence is available” … . The fact that claimant was not an outside employee, as found by the Board, is not dispositive as to whether the special errand exception applies, which was the basis of the WCLJ’s finding that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. As the Board has made no findings of fact with regard to whether the special errand exception applies, the matter must be remitted to the Board for further proceedings in regard to this particular issue…. . Matter of Waters v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02474, Third Dept 4-14-22

​Practice Point: Although injury while traveling to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, there are exceptions, including the “special errand” exception which was deemed to apply here by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

 

/

BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NONSCHEDULE AWARD DUE TO RETIREMENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was entitled to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award because he was not eligible for a nonschedule award due to retirement:

A nonschedule award “is based [up]on a factual determination of the effect that the [permanent partial] disability has on the claimant’s future wage-earning capacity” and is mathematically derived from a claimant’s average weekly wages and wage-earning capacity … . On the other hand, an SLU award is designed to compensate for a claimant’s “loss of earning power” as a result of anatomical or functional losses or impairments … and, as such, “‘is not allocable to any particular period of disability'” … and is “independent of the time an employee actually loses from work” … . That said, “[a] claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule injuries in the same accident may receive only one initial award,” because SLU and nonschedule awards “are both intended to compensate a claimant for loss of wage-earning capacity sustained in a work-related accident[,] and concurrent payment of an award for a schedule loss and an award for a nonschedule permanent partial disability for injuries arising out of the same work-related accident would amount to duplicative compensation” … . “However, in the unique circumstance where no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, a claimant is entitled to an SLU award” for the permanent impairments sustained in the same work-related accident … . …

… [T]here is no dispute that claimant is not entitled to a nonschedule award based upon his nonschedule classification because he voluntarily retired in April 2020 and was therefore not attached to the labor market at the time of classification … . Thus, as “no initial award [wa]s made based [up]on [claimant’s] nonschedule permanent partial disability classification” … , he “is entitled to an SLU award for the permanent partial impairments to [his] statutorily-enumerated body members” … . Finally, and contrary to the position taken by the Board, the fact that claimant voluntarily retired, and was therefore not attached to the labor market, does not preclude him from receiving an SLU award, because “it is axiomatic that a claimant’s lack of attachment to the labor market, voluntary or otherwise, is irrelevant to a determination as to entitlement to an SLU award” … . Matter of Gambardella v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02475, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: This Workers’ Compensation case includes a clear explanation of a “nonschedule award” versus a “schedule loss of use (SLU)” award.

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE A FLYER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH INDICATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO WHETHER CLAIMANT WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant should have been allowed to present evidence that her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not willful. Based on a flyer put out by the Department of Labor, claimant allegedly believed that she needed to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment insurance:

At the hearing, claimant requested to admit over 50 pages of documentation into the record. Included in these documents is a flyer, which claimant contends was on the Department of Labor’s website and led her to believe that, despite not being eligible for state unemployment benefits, she may have been entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance under federal legislation that was put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic. Claimant argues that she understood this flyer to mean that she was required to apply for state unemployment benefits to obtain relief under the federal legislation. A fair interpretation of the flyer supports that contention. Also included in these documents is evidence of claimant’s many attempts to contact the Department of Labor to determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to the benefits that she was receiving. As these documents bear directly on the issue of determining whether claimant’s misrepresentation was willful, as well as on claimant’s credibility, not allowing them into evidence denied her “a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim” and did, in fact, deprive her of a fair hearing … . Matter of Nottage (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02476, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: Here a flyer put out by the Department of Labor indicated it was necessary to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment benefits. Claimant sought to introduce the flyer in evidence to show her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not “willful.” The evidence should have been considered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ENABLE THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) SUCH THAT THE CHILD WOULD NOT BE RETURNED TO GUATEMALA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made findings to enable the child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) such that the child would not be returned to Guatemala:

… [A] special immigrant juvenile is a resident alien who … is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. … [F]or a child to qualify for SIJS, a court must find that reunification of the child with one or both parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law … , and that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . …

The Family Court should have granted that branch of the child’s motion which was for a specific finding that reunification with his father is not viable due to parental neglect. Based upon our independent factual review, the record demonstrates that the child’s father physically and emotionally mistreated the child, and prevented him from attending school for more than one year and on other occasions without a reasonable justification, and that the child’s mother failed to protect him from such mistreatment. Thus, the record supports the requisite finding that reunification with the child’s father is not viable due to parental neglect … . Matter of Jose F. M. P. (Francisco D. M. G.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02414, Second Dept 4-13-22

 

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