You are here: / WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE...

Search Results

/ , ,

WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that where the basis of a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is fraud, the statute of limitations is six years:

[Defendant] Katten contends that even if the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is taken at face value, the statute of limitations is three years because plaintiff seeks damages, not equitable relief … . However, “a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Albert Hallac for breach of fiduciary duty is based on allegations of actual fraud; hence, the statute of limitations for the claim against Katten for aiding and abetting Hallac’s breach of fiduciary duty is six years. Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 2021 NY Slip Op 01881, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/ ,

THE BRADY MATERIAL, A WITNESS STATEMENT REVEALED AFTER TRIAL, WOULD NOT HAVE ALTERED THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Brady material, a witness statement, revealed after trial would not have altered the result of the trial and therefore reversal of the conviction was not warranted:

“To make out a successful Brady claim, ‘a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material'” … . Where, as here, the defendant made a specific request for the evidence in question, “[w]e must examine the trial record, evaluat[e] the withheld evidence in the context of the entire record, and determine in light of that examination whether there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed” … . …

The undisclosed witness’s description of the shooter and his flight path did not differ in any material respect from that of the eyewitness who identified defendant in court as the perpetrator. Moreover, the jury’s verdict was supported by considerable other evidence, including the testimony of a cooperating witness who planned the crime with defendant, provided a weapon and cellphone for defendant’s use, observed defendant approach and leave the site of the shooting at the time it occurred, and described the manner in which the weapon was destroyed after the shooting; testimony by the spouse of the cooperating witness confirming defendant’s involvement; the testimony of additional witnesses who described the perpetrator’s clothing and his movements following the shooting; telephone records; and surveillance videos showing defendant’s proximity, clothing, and behavior immediately after the crime. People v McGhee, 2021 NY Slip Op 01836, CtApp 3-25-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD, PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE WATER DEPARTMENT’S RULES, CAN NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE TENANT’S UNPAID WATER BILLS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff landlord was not personally responsible for the tenant’s unpaid water bills. The village water department’s rules provided only a lien on the property and cutting off water as remedies:

The Water Department Rules and Regulations of the Village of Herkimer, on which the Village relies, do not authorize a claim against plaintiff for personal liability upon nonpayment of water rents. To the extent the Rules and Regulations determine the Village’s remedies for unpaid water bills, they refer to “a lien on the premises where the water is used” (Rule No. 8; see also Village Law § 11-1118 [providing that unpaid water rents constitute a lien on real property]) and to shutting off water supply, upon notice (see Rule No. 9; see also Village Law § 11-1116 [providing that a village may enforce observance of its water use rules and regulations by cutting off water supply]). Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2021 NY Slip Op 01835, CtApp 3-25-21

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED FATHER’S COUNSEL’S OFFER TO REMAIN AS STANDBY COUNSEL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT WARNING FATHER OF THE DANGERS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Family Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to assign counsel to father in this child support proceeding, but Family Court should have conducted a right-to-counsel inquiry before allowing father to represent himself, especially in light of father’s counsel’s offer to remain on standby:

English is not the father’s first language. Although he had appeared in Family Court many times, he had been chastised for failing to appreciate the role of counsel, and the court had noted that his prior pro se submissions were inappropriate or inadequate … . Moreover, there was a critical error in holding that the discharged counsel could not be allowed to remain as standby counsel … . For these reasons, although the father’s request to represent himself was unequivocal, we cannot find that the waiver of his right to counsel at the confirmation hearing was voluntary, knowing and intelligent, based upon the court’s failure to make an appropriate warning of the dangers of so proceeding, coupled with the refusal to allow counsel to remain on standby … . Matter of Saber v Saccone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01811, Third Dept 3-25-21

 

/ , , , ,

THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure file an affidavit of service after serving the warrant and notice of eviction did not affect the validity of the service of the warrant of eviction which triggers the 14-day waiting period before execution of the warrant. The court noted that the matter was moot because the petitioner was subsequently evicted based on a different warrant, but the matter should be heard on appeal because the circumstance is likely to recur. The two dissenters argued the mootness of the matter precluded appeal:

… [T]he issuance of a warrant is the court’s last act in a summary proceeding, as denoted by the phrase, “Upon rendering a final judgment for [the owner], the court shall issue a warrant” (RPAPL 749 [1]). The execution of the warrant terminates the lease … . Likewise, the execution of the warrant terminates the summary proceeding and the jurisdiction of the court …  Because the court no longer has jurisdiction, the filing of the affidavit of service is superfluous. This stands in stark contrast to the purpose of the affidavit of service at the commencement of the summary proceeding, where it suffices as proof that the party was properly served pursuant to law, as proper service is required to bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court … .

… [W]e find that filing the affidavit of service at the conclusion of service of a warrant of eviction is not required, and the 14-day notice begins the day following the date of service, posting or mailing, whichever is later … . Matter of Dixon v County of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 3-25-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE WAS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN DEPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case was premature because plaintiff had not been deposed:

Plaintiff alleges that after crossing Pearl Street at the intersection with Whitehall Street he was struck from behind by defendants’ box truck, while he was on the curb/lip of the sidewalk. According to the affidavit of the driver, defendant Rosado, plaintiff was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and walked into the side of the truck while it was already making a right turn.

While plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence on his part, his motion was premature in that defendants did not have the opportunity to depose him … . Bey v Rosado, 2021 NY Slip Op 01840, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FOR TAX PREPARATION SERVICES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant accountant departed from the professional standard for tax preparation:

“A party alleging a claim of accountant malpractice must show that there was a departure from the accepted standards of practice” … . Plaintiff does not identify any applicable professional standard which would have required defendants to inquire whether the transactions at issue were approved in accordance with the procedures contained in the operating agreement. To the contrary, the standards proffered by plaintiff’s expert permit an accountant engaged for tax preparation services to rely on information furnished by the taxpayer unless it appears to be incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent. There is no allegation here that the information provided to defendants was incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent. Deane v Brodman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01842, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/ , , , , ,

THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) although guarantees generally are not instruments for the payment of money within the meaning of CPLR 3213, the language of the guarantee was unconditional and therefore met the criteria of such an instrument; (2) the COVID-19-related provision of the NYC Administrative Code and executive orders, prohibiting enforcement of commercial lease guarantees, do not apply where the business were not required to cease operations; (3) the warranty of habitability was not available as a defense because of the language of the guarantee; and (4) a commercial tenant cannot assert the warranty of habitability:

While a guarantee of both payment and performance does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213 … , paragraph 1 of the guaranty signed by defendants includes an unconditional obligation to pay all rent and additional rent owed under the sublease, and therefore does so qualify … ; “it required no additional performance by plaintiff[] as a condition precedent to payment or otherwise made defendant[s’] promise to pay something other than unconditional” … .

While the prohibition on the enforcement of commercial lease guaranties against natural persons under Administrative Code of City of NY § 22-1005 applies to businesses that were required to “cease operation” or “close to members of the public” under executive orders 202.3, 202.6, or 202.7, issued in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants never asserted that the nonparty subtenant ceased operations or closed to the public as a result of those orders.

Defendants’ claim that they properly raised warranty of habitability defenses under the sublease is without merit. Such defenses are not available to defendants because all defenses under the guaranty, with the exception of prior payment, were waived. Moreover, a commercial tenant cannot avail itself of the statutory warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b …). iPayment, Inc. v Silverman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01846, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the Appellate Term and disagreeing with other courts, determined the failure to show up for an independent medical exam (IME) is a “policy issue” warranting the denial of no-fault benefits and the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff:

… [A]n insurer who denies a claim for first-party No-Fault benefits on the basis of the injured person’s failure to attend an IME properly does so by checking box 4 on the denial of claim form, and therefore an injured person’s failure to attend an IME is a “policy issue” both according to the denial of claim form and for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(c). Kamara Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01848, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHIDH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR IDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed because it was based on business records which were not produced:

… Supreme Court should have denied Wilmington’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “[T]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records” … . “Moreover, the referee’s report also failed to identify the documents or other sources upon which the referee based his finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel, and failed to answer the court’s specific question of whether the mortgaged premises could be sold in parcels” … . Thus, in confirming the report, the court should not have relied on the referee’s inadequately supported findings … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Mehraban, 2021 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept, 3-24-21

 

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