You are here: / SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY...

Search Results

/ ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant club (Sin City) and security company (Emissary) were not entitled to summary judgment in this third-party assault case. The facts are not described, but apparently plaintiffs were assaulted on the street in front of the club. There was a question of fact whether Sin City was a special employer and therefore vicariously liable for the actions of Emissary’s bouncers. The court noted, with respect to the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101) cause of action, the defendants did not demonstrate the assailants were not served alcohol while visibly intoxicated and did not demonstrate the sale of alcohol to the assailants had no connection to the assault:

Issues of fact remain as to defendants’ control of the street in front of the club, where plaintiffs’ assault occurred … ; whether defendants could or should have foreseen plaintiffs’ assault, given not only the events that transpired in the club prior to the assault … , but also the acts of violent or criminal conduct at the club predating plaintiffs’ assault … and, whether Sin City was the special employer, and is therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions, of Emissary’s bouncers, who provided security for Sin City on the night in question and allegedly assaulted the plaintiffs … . Ballard v Sin City Entertainment Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06842, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/ , , , ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, NEITHER THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (RPL) NOR THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW (BCL) APPLIES TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEFENDING THE ACTION; THE BY-LAWS AND THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, in a matter of first impression, determined the defendant, the former president of the condominium board, is not entitled to indemnification (attorney’s fees) for her costs in defending a lawsuit brought by the board of managers of the unincorporated condominium association. The lawsuit alleged defendant misappropriated the insurance proceeds paid after a fire in the condominium building. The First Department held the by-laws and the common law rule that the parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees control. The court rejected the application of provisions of the Real Property Law (RPL) and the Business Corporation Law (BCL) with respect to indemnification in the context of an unincorporated condominium association:

Neither the common law, nor BCL § 624(e) by analogy, provide the right to recoup attorney’s fees to a board member successfully defending against a derivative action. BCL § 626(e) is not an indemnification provision. Rather, it permits legal fees to be paid to an owner who successfully asserts the interest of an entity “when the management of the entity fails to act to protect that interest” … . Consequently, “an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf” … . The corporation is responsible for paying the legal fees, but only where the corporation benefits from the litigation … . Neither the BCL nor the common law provide a board member with a reciprocal right to recover legal fees for defending against an unsuccessful derivative action, at least not in the absence of such authorization in the bylaws or some other statutory authority. In this respect, …

In the absence of any authority permitting [defendant] to recoup her legal fees, the general common law rule applies, that “attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule” … . [Defendant], alone, is responsible for her legal fees. Board of Mgrs. of the 28 Cliff St. Condominium v Maguire, 2020 NY Slip Op 06844, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against the security company, Beacon, and the EMT provider, Transcare, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff passed out in his seat at a concert and defendants responded. The medical technician found that plaintiff was fully conscious and alert. Because the music was so loud the medical technician asked plaintiff to go to the back of the theater to check his blood pressure and pulse. Plaintiff was offered assistance in walking but he refused. He passed out again and fell with his face hitting the floor:

Any duty Beacon or Transcare owed to plaintiff to assist him in exiting the theater terminated when he refused such assistance. It is well settled that a competent adult has the right to determine the course of his or her own medical treatment, including declining treatment … . Plaintiff does not dispute that he refused assistance in standing or ambulating. Further, the testimony was that the EMT technician assessed plaintiff as alert and oriented as he left his seat to exit the theater. Given this, the complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety as to defendants Beacon and Transcare … . Fornabaio v Beacon Broadway Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06853, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/

A HEAVY STONE SLAB SLIPPED OUT OF A SLING AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED AND FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW THE EQUIPMENT WAS DEFECTIVE AND DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW HE AND A CO-WORKER WERE NOT NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim in this falling object case should have been granted. A heavy stone slab which was being hoisted slipped out of a sling and fell on plaintiff. Plaintiff did not have to show the equipment was defective and did not have to show freedom from comparative fault:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes on owners, general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices to protect against elevation-related hazards inherent in construction, and they will be absolutely liable for any violation that proximately causes injury regardless whether they supervised or controlled the work … . The statute is violated when an object that is improperly hoisted or inadequately secured falls … .

Because the sling proved inadequate to secure the slab against falling, the statute was violated … . Defendants’ contention that because the hoist and slings had sufficient load capacity to hoist the slab and were not broken or defective, plaintiff was required to demonstrate how the slab became unsecured, is unavailing. Either the sling itself or the manner in which it was used to secure the slab was inadequate and failed to provide proper protection, and plaintiff was not required to demonstrate how or why it failed to support the slab … .

Any failure by plaintiff to properly secure the slab with the straps would at most be comparative negligence which is not a defense to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Furthermore, any failure by his coworker to properly secure the slab with the straps was not so extraordinary or removed from defendants’ duty to provide an adequate safety device so as to constitute a superseding, intervening event breaking the chain of causation … . Gallegos v Bridge Land Vestry, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06854, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the insurance broker, T & H, stated a cause of action in negligence based on T & H’s failure to notify the excess carrier of its potential exposure to a claim:

Under ordinary circumstances, it is understood that “insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so” … . Nevertheless, if an insured asks the broker to take on additional responsibilities above and beyond procuring specifically requested coverage, and the broker agrees to do so, a duty is created that the broker must execute with reasonable care … . Thus, we have held that a duty was imposed on a broker to notify the appropriate primary and excess carriers of a potential claim where there was “evidence that as a matter of routine [the insured] referred all questions regarding its insurance claims to [the broker] and [the broker] handled all [the insured]’s insurance needs, including referring its claims to insurers” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that it and T&H had established a course of conduct whereby plaintiff would notify the latter of claims against it and T&H would inform the carriers, and that T&H acknowledged that plaintiff relied on it to carry out this function. Indeed, plaintiff alleges, in this case T&H affirmatively represented that it had placed both the primary and the excess carrier on notice. Accordingly, plaintiff has stated a cause of action for negligence predicated on T&H’s alleged failure to advise the excess carrier of its potential exposure. Martin Assoc., Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06860, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/ , , ,

A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (ASPD); REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION TO THAT EFFECT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT ADJUDICATING HIM A SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CIVIL MANAGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury in this Mental Hygiene Law sex-offender civil-commitment trial should have been instructed that the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) diagnosis cannot, standing alone, support a finding defendant has a mental abnormality as defined in the Mental Hygiene Law. The fact that the Pattern Jury Instructions do not include an instruction on this issue is not a justification for failing to give the instruction:

Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 defines “Mental abnormality” as a “congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.” In Matter of State of New York v Donald DD (24 NY3d 174 [2014]), the Court of Appeals expressly held: “evidence that a respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder cannot be used to support a finding that he has a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), when it is not accompanied by any other diagnosis of mental abnormality” … . …

Where [as here] the jury is asked to parse through multiple psychological diagnoses, which include ASPD, the jury should be instructed that ASPD cannot be the sole basis for its finding that someone suffers from a mental abnormality. This is to ensure that the jury’s finding conforms to the applicable law. Absent such an instruction, the jury may mistakenly find mental abnormality based solely on ASPD without the requisite finding of an additional diagnosis of a condition or disorder that, combined with ASPD, may predispose one to commit a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v David S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/ , ,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED ON A COMPUTER-GENERATED “SIMILARITY HIT;” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE BASIS OF THE “SIMILARITY HIT” WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THIS PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing because they did not make a minimum showing of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Whether the People meet that burden has been deemed a question of law which the Court of Appeals can address. Whether a stop was justified by reasonable suspicion is usually a mixed law and fact question which the Court of Appeals can not review. Here the traffic stop was based on a so-called “similarity hit” generated by the Department of Motor Vehicles database. A “similarity hit” apparently indicates some possible connection between the registered owner of a vehicle and an outstanding warrant. But, at the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the basis for the “similarity hit;”

According to the officer, a “similarity hit” is generated “based on the name of the registered owner, the date of birth[,] and other aliases.” He testified that the system considers “certain parameters” when identifying “similarity hits,” but he did not know how the Department of Motor Vehicles set those parameters. Nor did he testify as to any specifics of this match.

… [T]he officer did not think that the driver was the subject of the “similarity hit” because the driver was female and the registered owner was male. As the officer stepped around the vehicle to look at the registration and inspection stickers, he spotted a handgun on the floor under the front passenger seat, in which defendant was sitting. After defendant was arrested, the officer checked the MDT [mobile data terminal] information and discovered that the person with the warrant did not, in fact, match the vehicle’s registered owner or anyone else in the vehicle. The officer did not testify as to the name, date of birth, or address of the registered owner, or provide the specific identifying facts of the person set forth in the arrest warrant. …

While information generated by running a license-plate number through a government database may provide police with reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle …, the information’s sufficiency to establish reasonable suspicion is not presumed … . Thus, when police stop a vehicle based solely on such information, and the defendant, as here, challenges its sufficiency, the People must present evidence of the content of the information … . People v Balkman, 2020 NY Slip Op 06838, CtApp 11-19-20

 

/ , ,

EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE OFFICER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE; THEREFORE THE STOP WAS VALID AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, over a concurring memorandum, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions, determined the police officer who stopped defendant reasonably believed the non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Therefore the stop was valid and the DWI evidence should not have been suppressed. The Vehicle and Traffic Law requires at least two functioning brake lights. Here there were two functioning lights but the center brake light was not working:

We conclude that the officer’s interpretation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was objectively reasonable. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (40) (b) mandates that motor vehicles manufactured after a certain date be “equipped with at least two stop lamps, one on each side, each of which shall display a red to amber light visible at least five hundred feet from the rear of the vehicle when the brake of such vehicle is applied.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 (1) (a) prohibits, in relevant part, (1) operating a vehicle “during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, unless such vehicle is equipped with lamps of a type approved by the commissioner which are lighted and in good working condition”; and (2) operating a vehicle at any time “unless such vehicle is equipped with signaling devices and reflectors of a type approved by the commissioner which are in good working condition.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (19), in turn, prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle on highways or streets if the vehicle “is defectively equipped and lighted.” Taken together, these provisions could reasonably be read to require that all lamps and signaling devices be in good working condition, and that all equipment and lighting be non-defective, regardless of whether a vehicle is actually required to be equipped with those lamps, signaling devices, equipment, or lights. Even assuming the officer was in fact mistaken on the law, it was nevertheless objectively reasonable to conclude that defendant’s non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Because any error of law by the officer was reasonable, there was probable cause justifying the stop … . People v Pena, 2020 NY Slip Op 06836, CtApp 11-19-20

 

/ ,

PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was insufficient:

Notice must be sent both “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” (RPAPL 1304[2]). “‘[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “Proof of the requisite mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

… [The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from a witness who attested to having personal knowledge of either the actual mailing or “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the records submitted with the plaintiff’s motion did not establish as a matter of law that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. A copy of a letter and envelope addressed to the defendant, each bearing a 20-digit number, was insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the certified mailing actually occurred … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence substantiating the assertions that a second copy of the notice was mailed to the defendant by regular first-class mail, as required by the statute … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Feeney, 2020 NY Slip Op 06753, Second Dept 11-18-20

Similar issues and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Gold, 2020 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant contractor, CSI, was responsible for providing a safe alternative passageway while construction work blocked the sidewalk. Plaintiffs were struck by a car when they attempted to walk in the street. The CSI was hired by the general construction manager hired by Taco Bell, the owner of the premises:

“A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, CSI failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as its submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident. Byrd v Hughes, 2020 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

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