You are here: / PETITION SEEKING A SUMMARY INQUIRY PURSUANT TO THE NYC CHARTER INTO THE...

Search Results

/

PETITION SEEKING A SUMMARY INQUIRY PURSUANT TO THE NYC CHARTER INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ERIC GARNER’S ARREST AND DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking seeking a “summary inquiry pursuant to NYC Charter section 1109” into the circumstances surrounding the arrest and death of Eric Garner. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

This appeal from the grant of a petition for summary inquiry pursuant to New York City Charter § 1109 has its genesis in the fatal arrest of Eric Garner and the subsequent investigations and actions that this tragedy prompted. We find that this is the rare case in which allegations of significant violations of duty, coupled with a serious lack of substantial investigation and public explanation, warrant a summary inquiry to bring transparency to a matter of profound public importance: the death of an unarmed civilian during the course of an arrest. * * *

… Petitioners seek an order convening a summary inquiry into “violations and neglect of duties” by respondents in seven areas:

(1) the stop and arrest of Garner and the force used by officers on him;

(2) the failure, after Garner’s death, to train NYPD officers adequately as to appropriate guidelines for the use of force and the prohibition on the use of chokeholds;

(3) filing false official NYPD documents concerning the arrest and making false statements in connection with NYPD’s internal investigation of Garner’s death;

(4) unlawfully leaking Garner’s alleged arrest and medical histories;

(5) incomplete and inaccurate statements to the media by the City concerning Garner’s arrest;

(6) the medical care provided to Garner; and

(7) the City’s investigation and adjudication of, and imposition of discipline for the foregoing, including false statements by NYPD officers concerning the arrest. Matter of Carr v De Blasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 04412, First Dept 7-15-21

 

/

IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND “WILLFUL” BREACHES, THE FACT THAT THE BREACH MAY HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE DID NOT RENDER THE BREACH “WILLFUL,” WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO REFER TO “TRULY HARMFUL, CULPABLE CONDUCT;” SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the term “willful” in the context of the damages provision of the contract should not be interpreted simply to mean “deliberate,” but rather to refer to “truly culpable, harmful conduct.” Therefore the damages cap for nonwillful breaches applied:

In the context of this contract, the term “willful” must be understood to be “truly culpable, harmful conduct” … and not … “merely intentional nonperformance” … . As the Court of Appeals noted … , “[g]enerally in the law of contract damages, as contrasted with damages in tort, whether the breaching party deliberately rather than inadvertently failed to perform contractual obligations should not affect the measure of damages” and “[t]he policy which runs through the fabric of the law of contracts is to bind a party by what he agrees to do whether or not he intends to do what he agrees” … . The last clause in the limitation-of-liability provision refers to special damages in the context of breaches caused willfully or by gross negligence. Thus,”[u]nder the interpretation tool of ejusdem generis applicable to contracts as well as statutes, the phrase ‘willful acts’ [or ’caused willfully’ … ] should be interpreted here as referring to conduct similar in nature to the . . . ‘gross negligence’ with which it was joined . . .” … . MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v Axos Bank, 2021 NY Slip Op 04414, First Dept 7-15-21

 

/ ,

IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS)” and “collateralized debt obligation (CDO)” fraud action should not have been granted. The plaintiff raised questions of fact whether defendants’ fraud, as opposed to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, caused plaintiff’s loss, and whether an omission on defendants’ part constituted an actionable misrepresentation:

“The empirical evidence shows that Magnetar deals in general, and Auriga in particular, performed worse than other mezzanine CDOs issued during the same period.” For example, the [plaintiff’s] expert noted, “Magnetar deals experienced events of default [‘EODs’] on average approximately four months faster than other mezzanine CDO bonds issued in 2006 and 2007” and Auriga “failed 175 days earlier than the average mezzanine non-Magnetar deal.” The expert further explained, “[a]ll 26 mezzanine Constellation deals experienced an [EOD.] This 100 percent EOD rate contrasts with an EOD rate of 82 percent . . . among non-Magnetar subprime CDOs issued in 2006 and 2007. The difference between these two EOD rates . . . is statistically significant.” * * *

With regard to lack of justifiable reliance on misrepresentations, the other ground on which the motion court granted summary judgment, plaintiff’s fraud claim depends both on an affirmative representation (that Auriga’s collateral manager would independently select the collateral) and an omission or concealment (that defendants structured Auriga to facilitate Magnetar’s net-short strategy). * * *

… [T]o the extent plaintiff relies on an omission, its claim is not barred. … [T]he omission in the instant action came from defendants … . Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 28, Ltd. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04413, First Dept 7-15-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 BECAUSE THE VINEYARD WAS “SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s property (a vineyard) was suitable for recreational use and therefore defendant was entitled to immunity pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103. Defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s injuries from an all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) accident which occurred when the driver missed a bridge over a culvert:

… “[D]efendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, ha[d] the burden of establishing as a matter of law that he is immune from liability pursuant to the statute” … . We conclude that defendant met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the site where the accident occurred was suitable for recreational use … . The evidence defendant submitted on the motion showed that the vineyard’s dirt and grass-covered roads, as well as the bridge where the accident occurred, were physically conducive to ATV riding. Additionally, defendant established that the vineyard’s roads and the bridge were appropriate for public use for recreational ATV riding based on the uncontradicted testimony of defendant Aaron P. Gibbons, an adjoining property owner, that, over a significant period of time, he and his wife had frequently driven ATVs on the vineyard’s roads and the bridge and had often observed others doing the same. Wheeler v Gibbons, 2021 NY Slip Op 04323, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the failure to substitute the executrix of Josephine’s estate, Dominica P., after Josephine’s death did not nullify the proceedings. Dominca P appeared and actively litigated a motion to vacate brought by Kathleen. In that circumstance the failure to effect substitution was deemed a mere irregularity:

Josephine died at some point before the entry of the order on appeal, and the executrix of her estate, Dominica P., was never formally substituted as the petitioner in this proceeding. There is no dispute, however, that Dominica was properly served with Kathleen’s motion to vacate, and Dominica never objected to adjudicating Kathleen’s motion in the absence of a formal substitution order. To the contrary, Dominica—acting in her capacity as the executrix of Josephine’s estate—appeared and successfully opposed Kathleen’s motion on the merits. Dominica likewise appeared in this Court to oppose Kathleen’s appeal. Because Dominica appeared and actively litigated Kathleen’s motion on the merits, it is well established that any “defect in failing to first effect substitution was a mere irregularity” … . Moreover, to formally correct this irregularity, we now modify the order by substituting Dominica as the petitioner in this proceeding … . Matter of Robinson v Kathleen B., 2021 NY Slip Op 04320, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/

PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE CSSA APPLIES EVEN WHEN THE CHILD RECEIVES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; DOWNWARD DEVIATION FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE SUPPORT LEVEL IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE PROPORTIONAL OFFSET METHOD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order should not have been denied:

It is well settled that “the CSSA [Child Support Standards Act] must be applied to all child support orders, regardless of a child’s receipt of public assistance” … . Here, the Support Magistrate purported to reduce the father’s obligation pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (10) because the father made additional expenditures to maintain his house to permit the child to stay there during the time that he stayed with the father. Such a reduction for extended visitation is permitted by section 413 (1) (f) (9), however, and that subdivision of the statute applies only where “the child is not on public assistance” … . Furthermore, we have previously stated that a determination to grant a downward deviation from the presumptive support obligation on the ground that the noncustodial parent incurred expenses while the child was in his or her care ” ‘was merely another way of [improperly] applying the proportional offset method’ ” … , and the proportional offset method of calculating child support has been explicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals … . Matter of Livingston County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hyde, 2021 NY Slip Op 04316, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/ , ,

THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the full amount of the note could not be recovered because it did not include an acceleration clause. In addition, claims for unpaid installments due more than six years before the filing of the lawsuit were time-barred:

“As a general rule, in the absence of an acceleration clause providing for the entire amount of a note to be due upon the default of any one installment, [a plaintiff is] only entitled to recover past due installments and [can]not unilaterally declare the note[] accelerated” … . “Rather, each default on each installment gives rise to a separate cause of action” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence of an acceleration clause and, thus, plaintiff was entitled to recover “only the amount of the installments past due at the time of trial” … . … “Where, as here, ‘a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due’ ” … . As defendant correctly asserted as a defense, inasmuch as plaintiff commenced this action on July 13, 2017, any claims for missed installments that accrued prior to July 13, 2011 were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations … . Estate of Kathryn Essig v Essig, 2021 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action alleging exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances were time-barred:

… [T]he … causes of action [alleging] the purported exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances (exposure claims) because they are untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-c [2]). … [T]hat statute of limitations began to run from the date of discovery of plaintiff’s injury. Discovery occurs “when the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based” and not “when the connection between . . . symptoms and the injured’s exposure to a toxic substance is recognized” … . By submitting, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a workers’ compensation claim filed by him in 2011, defendants established that the exposure claims accrued in 2003 when he “made repeated visits to [his] treating providers for symptoms described in [his] bill of particulars as caused by the [chemical] exposure” … , and well over three years prior to the commencement of this action in 2014. To the extent that plaintiff relies on the one-year statute of limitations provided by CPLR 214-c (4), plaintiff cannot avail himself of that limitations period because, inter alia, plaintiff explicitly linked his exposure-related symptoms to exposure at Niagara Lubricant in his workers’ compensation claim, i.e., over one year prior to the commencement of this action … . Cotter v Lasco, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04293, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/

INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed course of criminal conduct first degree and rape first degree counts as inclusory concurrent counts of predatory sexual assault against a child:

… [C]ounts two and four of the indictment, charging defendant with course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [b]) and rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [4]), respectively, must be dismissed inasmuch as they are inclusory concurrent counts of counts one and three, respectively, charging defendant with predatory sexual assault against a child (§ 130.96) … . People v Feliciano, 2021 NY Slip Op 04289, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

/ ,

MOTHER VIOLATED A COURT ORDER BY RELOCATING TO ARIZONA WITH THE CHILD; HOWEVER, HER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE BY FATHER WERE CREDIBLE AND WARRANTED GRANTING HER CROSS PETITION TO RELOCATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined mother’s cross petition to relocate with the child was properly granted, despite mother’s violation of a court order prohibiting her from permanently leaving Monroe County with the child without father’s consent, or without a court order allowing relocation. Mother testified that father was abusive and she feared for her life at times. Father denied all allegation of abuse. Family Court found mother’s testimony credible and did not credit father’s testimony:

Courts place considerable weight on the effect of domestic violence on the child … , particularly when a continuing pattern of domestic violence perpetrated by the child’s father compels the mother to relocate out of legitimate fear for her own safety … , or where the father minimized the past incidents of domestic violence … . Indeed, where domestic violence is alleged in a petition for custody, “the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child” … .

… [T]he court appropriately considered the fact that the mother unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction, determining that the mother “did not relocate to separate the father from the child, but instead acted in good faith to escape the threat of domestic violence” … . Although the court did not countenance the mother’s decision to relocate without permission, “it was the father’s [violent] conduct that prompted [her] move to [Arizona] in the first instance and triggered the resulting disruption of his relationship with his daughter” … . Furthermore, although the court did not expressly engage in the analysis required under Tropea (87 NY2d at 740-741), according deference to the court’s factual findings and credibility assessments … we conclude that “there is a sound and substantial basis in the record supporting the court’s determination that ‘relocation would enhance the child[‘s life] economically, emotionally, and educationally, and that the child[‘s] relationship with the father could be preserved through a liberal parental access schedule including, but not limited to, frequent communication and extended summer and holiday visits’ ” … . Matter of Edwards v Ferris, 2021 NY Slip Op 04306, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

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