You are here: / THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE...

Search Results

/ ,

THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the NYC Water Board was a necessary party in the Article 78 contesting the Board’s ruling on sewer charges. The Article 78 named only the NYC Department of Environmental Protection:

… [T]he appellants correctly contend that the Water Board should be joined as a necessary party to this proceeding. “Persons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants” (CPLR 1001[a]). In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the governmental agency which performed the challenged action must be a named party … . Since the instant petition challenged the Water Board’s … final determination, and the Water Board is the entity which promulgates the rate schedule of sewer rents and wastewater allowances … in the discharge of its duties to fix and collect water and sewer charges in order for the City to maintain the water system … , the Water Board was a necessary party to this proceeding. Indeed, the Water Board would be prejudiced by the judgment purporting to bind its rights when it had no opportunity to be heard … . … [B]ecause the Water Board should have been joined in this action and has not been made a party, and because it is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment must be vacated, and the Supreme Court should order the Water Board summoned in this proceeding so that it may be heard (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2021 NY Slip Op 06995, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

/ ,

THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF INSISTED ON THE PROCEDURE DESPITE THE RISKS OR DECLINED ANY PROFFERED EXPLANATION OF THE RISKS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court) determined the “lack of informed consent” to back surgery (implantation of an X-STOP device) should not have been dismissed:

As a defense to a medical malpractice action premised upon lack of informed consent, a practitioner may proffer evidence that “the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] would undergo the treatment, procedure or diagnosis regardless of the risk involved, or the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] did not want to be informed of the matters to which he [or she] would be entitled to be informed” (Public Health Law § 2805-d[4][b]). Here, although [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony made clear that he deferred to [defendant surgeon’s] judgment as to whether he should undergo a procedure and, if so, which procedure, it does not establish that [plaintiff] either insisted on the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices, rather than other treatment options, regardless of risk, or that he refused any proffered advice. On the contrary, the record establishes that, far from insisting on a contraindicated procedure, [plaintiff] relied upon [defendant surgeon’s] professional expertise in determining the correct course of treatment. Likewise, although [defendant surgeon’s] testimony establishes that he explained the benefits of performing the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices rather than a laminectomy, he did not testify that he offered, or that [plaintiff] declined, any proffered explanation of the risks and limitations of the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices. Mirshah v Obedian, 2021 NY Slip Op 06994, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

/

DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact whether the defendants were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 241 (6) liability, and whether they sufficiently controlled or supervised plaintiff’s work to be liable under Labor Law 200 or a common-law negligence theory. Plaintiff was injured in an explosion when, at the direction of a defendant, he was spraying lacquer to remove paint. The defendant did not want the plaintiff to sand the paint off, apparently plaintiff’s usual practice, because of the resulting dust:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they directed or controlled the injury-producing method of work and failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 241(6) … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous electrical wiring in the kitchen … , and that they did not direct or control the method and manner in which the plaintiff performed the injury-producing work … . Venter v Cherkasky, 2021 NY Slip Op 07022, Second Dept 12-15-21​

 

/ ,

IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE; HERE OTHER NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE ALONG WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined, in a foreclosure action, the requirement that the RPAPL 1304 notice be sent to the borrower “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” must be strictly complied. Because other notices were included in the same envelope, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

… [T]he plaintiff acknowledged that the envelope that it sent to the defendants, which contained the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304, also included other information in two notices pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in military service. Since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment … . … [O]n his cross motion, [defendant] established his … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … by showing that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 when it sent additional material in the same envelope as the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304. Bank of Am., N.A. v Kessler, 2021 NY Slip Op 06979, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING PORT AUTHORITY FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE IN A SAFE CONDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging defendant Port Authority breached its duty to maintain the George Washington Bridge (GWB) in a reasonably safe condition must be reinstated. Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide by jumping from the bridge:

Plaintiff’s decedent died by suicide when he jumped from the George Washington Bridge (GWB), which is owned and operated by the Port Authority. Contrary to the Port Authority’s contention that the complaint is addressed to actions taken in its governmental capacity, both this Court and the Second Department have recently held, in cases involving similar facts, that the Port Authority’s responsibility for maintaining the guardrail on the pedestrian walkway over the Bridge is a proprietary function rather than a governmental function … . .. [P]laintiff states a cause of action by alleging that the Port Authority, as a property owner, “failed to maintain the GWB in a reasonably safe condition by negligently failing to install suicide barriers along the walkways to prevent suicides,” thus presenting a foreseeable risk of harm in light of the allegations concerning the history of the George Washington Bridge’s walkway as a place where frequent suicides occur. Lomtevas v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06953, First Dept 12-14-21

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court and ordering a new hearing in this family offense proceeding, determined the judge should not have placed time and testimony restrictions on the hearing:

Order of fact-finding and disposition … , which, after a hearing, determined that respondent husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and entered a one-year order of protection directing him … to refrain from assaulting or harassing petitioner wife and the parties’ two children … , unanimously reversed … .

Family Court erred in not conducting a full fact-finding hearing. The court improperly restricted the hearing, without notice to the parties to just 15-20 minutes and limited the testimony, including that of petitioner wife. Given this, Family Court is directed to conduct a full hearing on the petition and make the requisite factual findings … . Matter of Kristina M. v Paul M., 2021 NY Slip Op 06957, First Dept 12-14-21

 

/ ,

A CLAIM WHICH ARISES AFTER THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION BELONGS TO THE DEBTOR, NOT TO THE BANKRUPCTY ESTATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, noting its prior rulings to the contrary, determined a claim which arises after the filing of a bankruptcy petition belongs to the debtor, not the bankruptcy estate:

This Court has previously held that a claim which arose after the filing of a bankruptcy petition was the property of the estate (see Barranco v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 281, 282 [1st Dept 2008]; Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197, 198 [1st Dept 2004]). When those cases were decided, there was a split among the federal courts which had addressed the issue. However, there is now uniformity among the Federal Courts of Appeals, which have held that pursuant to section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a claim which arose after the filing of a bankruptcy petition belongs to the debtor and not the estate … . As this Court is bound by federal law when making a determination on this issue … we follow the … federal holdings and find that because the claims at issue arose after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the claims belong to Realty [plaintiff]. Thus, Realty has the capacity to sue [defendants]. Moncho v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 06960, First Dept 12-14-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the alleged error in the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement was not preserved for appeal:

Because defendant failed to challenge the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement filed by the People in the court of first instance, her claim that her sentence was illegal due to the failure to include the tolling periods in that document did not present a question of law for purposes of appellate review … .  Defendant’s claim was not reviewable under the narrow illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement because it was not “readily discernible from the trial record” that the sentence the court imposed was not within the permissible range … . People v Lashley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 12-14-21

 

/ ,

UNDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AN OBJECTION WAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE ABOUT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO HIS ABSENCE FROM THE PRE-WAIVER SIDEBAR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined the defendant’s absence from a sidebar conference regarding a prospective juror did not require reversal. Subsequent to the the sidebar, defendant waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences and was given the opportunity to object to the pre-waiver sidebar. Under these circumstance, the Court of Appeals held, although normally not required, an objection was necessary to preserve the error for appeal:

When a defendant is not present at a sidebar conference wherein the court actively solicits answers from a prospective juror which relate to issues of bias or hostility, People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247 [1992]) requires a new trial in the absence of defendant’s waiver of the right to be present. Defendant’s protest in the trial court is generally not required. The purpose of the Antommarchi rule, as derived from CPL 260.20, is to provide defendant the opportunity to personally assess the juror’s facial expressions and demeanor in order to provide meaningful input on the prospective juror’s retention or exclusion from the jury. The question presented on this appeal is whether defendant, having explicitly waived his Antommarchi right to be present at sidebars in the middle of the voir dire proceeding involving a prospective juror who was ultimately struck when codefendant exercised a peremptory strike, is entitled to a new trial based on his absence from a pre-waiver sidebar conference with that same prospective juror. We conclude that the claimed error, under these unique circumstances, required defendant’s protest in the trial court given his acquiescence in the post-waiver voir dire of the prospective juror after being invited to express any objection that he may have had regarding the pre-waiver sidebar conference. People v Wilkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 06936, CtApp 12-14-21​

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS LAID OFF AFTER 15 YEARS BUT CONTINUED TO DO SIMILAR WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER; AFTER HE WAS LAID OFF HE WAS NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined a photograph researcher who continued to work for a a publisher, Rosen Publishing, after he was laid off after 15 years, was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [W]e conclude that … the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship is not supported by substantial evidence. After [claimant was laid off], when a photograph research project became available, Rosen Publishing would email claimant the project’s title, the number of specs needed and the deadline for the project, which project he could accept or reject. If claimant accepted the project, an additional email with further information regarding the book’s manuscript and further detail about the project was provided. Other than the deadline for the project, claimant was not required to work any specific hours, was not required to report to Rosen Publishing at any time during the course of the project, received no fringe benefits and could have others perform the research. Claimant was not prohibited from working for competitors, there was no written contract and he was not reimbursed for any expenses, nor was he provided with any equipment to perform his research. Matter of Levick (Rosen Publ. Group Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 06890, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

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