You are here: / EVEN THOUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST RIVER PARK WILL BENEFIT THE...

Search Results

/ , ,

EVEN THOUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST RIVER PARK WILL BENEFIT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY (FLOOD PROTECTION) AS WELL AS THE PARK, THE RECONSTRUCTION SERVES A PARK PURPOSE AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS THERFORE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the planned reconstruction of the East River Park along the waterfront of the lower east side of Manhattan did not require approval by the state legislature pursuant to the public trust doctrine, even though the project benefitted the park and other community objectives (protection against neighborhood flooding):

Petitioners contend that the principal purpose of the project is construction of a coastal shore floodwall to safeguard the residential developments nearby. They argue that the conclusion of a nonpark purpose is warranted because the work proposed is disproportionate to the work required to preserve the Park. There is no dispute that the project will greatly benefit the nearby communities from the risk of coastal flooding. At its core, however, petitioners’ argument is that any project that serves a park purpose cannot serve a dual purpose. Stated differently, that a park purpose is served only if that is the sole objective of a particular project. This is too narrow a reading of the park purpose requirement.

A project that benefits a park as well as other community objectives can still be considered to serve a park purpose under the public trust doctrine. * * * … [E]ven though a coastal flooding protection project will provide communities adjacent to the Park with flood protection, it will also protect the Park from coastal flooding.

Once it is determined that there is a park purpose, the salutary goal of preventing the alienation of parkland is satisfied. Matter of East Riv. Park Action v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06652, First Dept 11-30-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED SKATER, FELL WHEN HIS SKATE HIT A RUT AS HE WAS COACHING HOCKEY; DESPITE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT “INHERENT COMPULSION;” HE ALLEGED HE WAS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE PRACTICE AFTER COMPLAINING OF THE ROUGH ICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence of “Inherent compulsion” raised a question of fact, despite the applicability of the assumption of risk doctrine. Plaintiff is an experienced skater who fell while coaching hockey when his skate hit a rut in the ice:

Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants made a prima facie showing that his claims were barred by assumption of the risk … . However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to inherent compulsion. Plaintiff testified that he understood that his supervisors were [defendant’s] employees. He further testified that when he informed one of these supervisors of his concerns about the rough ice the supervisor dismissed his concerns and directed him to proceed with the practice. Plaintiff believed that he lacked authority to cancel or reschedule practice on his own initiative … . Stewart v Wollman Rink Operations LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06661, First Dept 11-30-21

 

/ , ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this forklift accident case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the forklift struck a hole or a crack in the sidewalk. Under the NYC Administrative Code, an out-of-possession landlord is responsible for maintaining the adjacent sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition:

… [T]he Administrative Code requires owners of real property abutting any public sidewalk to maintain that sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition (Administrative Code § 7-210 …). This duty, on in- and out-of-possession landlords alike, is nondelegable … . The statute does not impose strict liability, and thus a plaintiff must still prove the elements of negligence in order to hold an owner liable … . Administrative Code § 19-101(d) defines “sidewalk” as “that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines” … . If the area where plaintiff’s accident occurred was either inside the premises or at an entrance that was within defendant’s property, the Administrative Code does not apply … . Vargas v Weishaus, 2021 NY Slip Op 06663, First Dept 11-30-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE WAS SOLD BY A THIRD-PARTY THROUGH AMAZON AND WAS ASSEMBLED BY AN APPROVED AMAZON PROVIDER, THERE IS NO THEORY UNDER WHICH AMAZON CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE BICYCLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined Amazon could not be held liable for an injury caused by an electric bicycle purchased through Amazon which apparently was not assembled properly. Eshion, a China-based company, listed the bicycle on Amazon. The purchaser, plaintiff’s father, elected to have the bicycle assembled. Codefendant Tri-State Assembly offers its assembly services on Amazon and was an Amazon approved service provider. Plaintiff alleged the bicycle was not assembled properly (by Tri-State) and plaintiff fell because the handlebars loosened while he was riding it:

The Uniform Commercial Code clearly provides that implied warranties only extend to sellers (see UCC 2-314 [1]; 2-315 … ). Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim fails because Amazon submitted sufficient documentary evidence and unrefuted affidavits from its representatives to establish prima facie that it did not sell, manufacture, distribute or assemble the bicycle.

The supporting affidavits indicate that, pursuant to contract, third-party sellers such as Eshion are responsible for all aspects of their sales, such as setting a price, describing the product being sold, and offering any warranties. In this case, Eshion sold the bicycle and shipped it directly to plaintiff. At no time was the bicycle ever in Amazon’s possession or control, nor did it ever obtain title to the bicycle (see UCC 2-106 [1]). Further, when placing orders all Amazon.com users agree to its Conditions of Use, wherein Amazon disclaims all warranties for products sold by third-party sellers.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Wallace v Tri-State Assembly, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06664, First Dept 11-30-21

 

/ , ,

THE CREDIT BID IN THIS UCC FORECLOSURE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUANT TO UCC 9-615 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch which addresses several issues not summarized here, determined the bid in foreclosure proceedings pursuant to UCC 9-611 was too low:

Taking the position that the business cessation constituted a breach of the security agreement, [plaintiff] terminated the agreement and gave [defendants] notice of its intent to foreclose on the collateral — i.e., the outstanding medical receivables — by holding a public auction pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (see UCC 9-611). [Plaintiff] was the only bidder at the public auction and purchased the collateral by way of a $50,000 credit bid, which it then credited against the outstanding balance of the loan. * * *

We find that the credit bid was “significantly below” what a commercially reasonable bid should have been under the standard set forth in UCC 9-615 (f) (2) … . It follows that Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff damages for breach of contract. Specifin Mgt. LLC v Elhadidy, 2021 NY Slip Op 06578, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

/ , ,

THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS FOUND IN HIS SISTER’S APARTMENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s drug-possession conviction, determined the jury’s conclusion defendant constructively possessed the drugs was against the weight of the evidence:

… [V]iewing the evidence in a neutral light and weighing the relative probative force of the proof, the jury’s determination that defendant constructively possessed the crack cocaine was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The crack cocaine was not discovered in the same room as defendant or near him. Indeed, the officer testified on cross-examination that he did not find any drugs near defendant. Rather, the crack cocaine was found in the north bedroom, i.e., his sister’s bedroom. There was no proof indicating that any of defendant’s personal belongings were in the north bedroom … . Moreover, the crack cocaine was not seen in open view but instead underneath a pile of female clothes. Even accepting that defendant was a daily visitor to his sister’s apartment, the proof does not establish that he resided there or that he exercised any dominion or control over any part of it … . People v Cota, 2021 NY Slip Op 06574, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

/ , ,

THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE ZONING CODE; THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SITE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the planning board abused its discretion in issuing a special permit and approving a site plan for a plant nursery and arborist business. To issue the special permit, the planning board improperly waived a requirement that the business have frontage and access to two major roads. The approve the site plan, the planning board which violated the village zoning law:

One of the requirements of the special use permit at issue was that the arborist service, landscape services and/or wholesale nursery “shall have frontage on and practical access to two major roads” (Code of the Village of Wesley Hills [hereinafter Village Code] § 230-26[N][2]). Here, the Planning Board abused its discretion by waiving this requirement and deeming “practical access” to a second major road unnecessary. …

… A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board’s action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion … . Village Code § 230-45 states that the Planning Board “shall not approve a site plan unless it shall find that such plan conforms [with] the requirements of [the Village Zoning Law].” Since the Village Zoning Law requires that a lot in the R—35 zoning district have a maximum gross impervious surface ratio of .25 (see Village Code § 230 Attachment I), the Planning Board abused its discretion in approving the site plan, which had a proposed gross impervious surface ratio of .44. Matter of Marcus v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills, 2021 NY Slip Op 06618, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM BASED UPON EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE 50-H HEARING, THE AMENDMENT CANNOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE FACTS AND ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation should not have been granted. Although the court has the power to allow amendment of a notice of claim based upon evidence given at the 50-h hearing, the amendment cannot substantively change the facts and add a new theory of liability:

After a hearing was conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h … , the petitioner served an amended notice of claim … expanding the dates of alleged malpractice from January 2, 2014, through September 6, 2018, based on the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing that the decedent had stomach pains since 2016, had been diagnosed with paralytic ileus, and had been treated for that condition by a physician affiliated with Coney Island Hospital since approximately 2016. …

“‘A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability'” … . “[W]hile a court has the discretion to permit a plaintiff to serve an amended notice of claim, amendment is permitted only where the error in the original notice of claim was made in good faith, the municipality is not prejudiced, and the amendment does not substantively change the nature of the claim” … . “A court may consider evidence adduced at a 50-h hearing to correct a good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the notice of claim. However, the evidence adduced at the 50-h hearing cannot be used to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability” … . Matter of Lesaine v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06617, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant’s statement should have been suppressed:

… [T]he People rely on the investigator having talked to the trooper and, apparently, an inference that the trooper told the investigator that he read defendant his rights. However, the trooper did not testify to having read defendant his rights; he instead testified that he had no conversation with defendant. Although hearsay is admissible in suppression hearings … , this inference based on hearsay is insufficient for the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights before being questioned. The investigator did not actually testify to what he heard the trooper say during their out-of-court conversation — that is, the investigator did not actually offer hearsay evidence that the trooper read defendant his Miranda warnings. Even if the People had proven that fact, the investigator’s conclusory assertion that defendant waived his right to counsel supplied no facts from which County Court could have rationally concluded that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel — or any of his other rights — was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . …

[A]bsent proof that [the defendant] would have [pleaded guilty] even if his [or her] motion had been granted, harmless error analysis is inapplicable” … . People v Teixeira-Ingram, 2021 NY Slip Op 06575, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

/

THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined father’s consent to the adoption of his child is not required where the father has not maintained contact with the child:

“A biological father’s consent to adopt a child over six months old who was born out of wedlock is required only if the father ‘maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as manifested by’ payment of reasonable child support and either monthly visitation or ‘regular communication’ with the subject child[ ] or custodian” … . “Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) imposes a dual requirement upon the biological father, and the father’s unexcused failure to satisfy either of these requirements is sufficient to warrant a finding that his consent to the proposed adoption[ ] is not required” … .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father, by failing to financially support the child, despite having the means to do so, did not maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) … . Matter of Raniah M. K. (Joma K.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06616, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

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