You are here: / THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S...

Search Results

/ ,

THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, in a matter of first impression, determined plaintiff-attorney’s failure to timely notify defendant-client of the right to arbitrate a fee dispute required dismissal of the attorney’s action seeking attorney’s fees. The Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation (Committee) can not hear fee disputes more that two years after legal services were rendered. Plaintiff-attorney did not notify defendant within two years and the Committee refused to hold the arbitration on that ground:

22 NYCRR 137 gives clients the right to demand arbitration of any fee dispute in an amount between $1,000 and $50,000 (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][2]). The failure of an attorney to participate in fee arbitration is a violation of the ethical rules (Rules of Professional Conduct 22 NYCRR 1200.00) rule 1.4; (see 22 NYCRR 137.11). 137.1 sets out the limitations on the disputes that will be heard by the Committee. This includes matters outside the dollar range, claims inextricably intertwined with malpractice claims, and as relevant here, claims where no legal services have been performed in the prior two years (22 NYCRR 137.1[b][6]). …

Fee arbitration is mandatory if requested by a client or a former client. It is a right of the client. Where, as in this case, an attorney, through their own delay deprives the client of that right, the attorney cannot in good faith claim compliance with the procedures of Part 137. Not only would this effectively give counsel the option of whether to arbitrate, because counsel could control whether the dispute began in two years or less, it would also be directly contrary to the rules, which provide that it is the client’s choice. Filemyr v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04238, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, after a comprehensive analysis of res judicata and collateral estoppel, refusing to follow the Second Department, determined a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought against plaintiff by defendant driver/owner’s insurer (Nationwide) did not preclude plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he was walking his motorcycle across a street when he was struct by defendants’ vehicle. Nationwide brought the declaratory judgment action to obtain a ruling it was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff did not appear in that action:

Claim preclusion prevents relitigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that either were raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding … . As the Court of Appeals has stressed, this “identity” requirement is a “linchpin of res judicata,” which applies “only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'” … . Stated differently, the “doctrine of res judicata only bars additional actions between the same parties on the same claims based upon the same harm” … . …

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action … . Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action … . There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party … .

… .”An issue is not actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes “if, for example, there has been a default” … . …

Claim preclusion cannot apply here, because plaintiff and defendants are litigating a claim against each other for the first time. * * * Defendants’ rights to be defended and indemnified by Nationwide remained intact regardless of the outcome of the no-fault benefits dispute. Rojas v Romanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op 04237, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought by inmates at Rikers Island, arguing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the jail required release, were properly denied. State and Federal constitutional arguments were raised. The analysis, which is too complex to fairly summarize here, came down to weighing the danger to the inmates against the danger to the public entailed by release:

Far from acting recklessly, respondents [city and state] have demonstrated great care to ensure the safety of everyone who enters the facility. By any objective measure, they have been anything but indifferent to the risk that COVID-19 poses to the jail population.

Even petitioners admit that respondents have taken substantial measures to reduce the spread of the virus on Rikers Island, and have had success in doing so. Moreover, petitioners have not cited to any controlling authority to establish that anything short of release constitutes deliberate indifference. …

That the State has agreed to release a significant number of detainees to help control the spread of the virus actually demonstrates that it has given a great deal of consideration to who should and should not be released, and its decision not to release petitioners based on their criminal history backgrounds is thus persuasive. Coupled with what the State and City have done to protect detainees, discussed above, we conclude that the weighing of interests falls in respondents’ favor. Matter of People ex rel. Stoughton v Brann, 2020 NY Slip Op 04236, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/ , ,

CITY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ITS EFFECTS ON RENTER DISPLACEMENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, ruled that the City Council, in approving the redevelopment plan, had taken the requisite hard look pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) at the environmental impacts of the plan as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):

Petitioners argued that the City violated SEQRA and CEQR by failing to take a “hard look” at eight issues: (1) impact of rezoning on existing preferential rents and effect on renter displacement; (2) impact on area racial makeup; (3) impact on minority and women-owned businesses (MWBEs); (4) accuracy of prior City FEIS projections on rezoning impacts; (5) impact of loss of the existing Inwood library; (6) impact on emergency response times; (7) cumulative impact of other potential area rezonings, including the adjacent 40-acre MTA railyard; and (8) speculative purchase of residential buildings in the wake of the rezoning. …

We find that the City’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidence, or contrary to law. The City took the requisite “hard look” at all the issues requiring study under SEQRA/CEQR … , but did not have to parse every sub-issue as framed by petitioners … . Moreover, the City was “entitled to rely on the accepted methodology set forth in the [CEQR] Technical Manual” … , including in determining what issues were beyond the scope of SEQRA/CEQR review. Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04235, First Dept 7-23-20

 

/

BECAUSE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS OF THE INITIAL CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE WERE INVALIDATED, THE PETITION TO VALIDATE CERTIFICATES OF SUBSTITUTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to validate certificates of substitution for a candidate (Sammut) for State Senate after the designating petitions of the initial candidate (LaLota) were invalidated should not have been granted. Because there was no valid designating petition, substitution was barred:

“[P]ursuant to Election Law § 6-148(1), a valid designating petition is a prerequisite to the creation of a vacancy” … . Where a designating petition is ” invalid,'” another candidate may not be substituted by a committee to fill vacancies … . On the prior appeal, we specifically granted the appellants’ petition to invalidate LaLota’s designating petitions. * * *

Moreover, Election Law § 3-200(6) provides: “An election commissioner shall not be a candidate for any elective office which he [or she] would not be entitled to hold under the provisions of [Election Law article 3], unless he [or she] has ceased by resignation or otherwise, to be commissioner prior to his [or her] nomination or designation therefor. Otherwise such nomination or designation shall be null and void” … . Where an original nomination or designation is void, no vacancy is created which can be filled by substitution … .  Matter of Ferrandino v Sammut, 2020 NY Slip Op 04229, Second Dept 7-23-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE GRANTED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON COVENIENS GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the failure to serve defendant (Bryan) should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendants (Bryan and Carroll) should have been granted. However the action was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds:

… [T]he plaintiff promptly sought an extension after Bryan challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the respective insurance carriers for Bryan and Carroll had actual notice of this action within 120 days of its commencement, there was evidence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to Bryan and Carroll … . Accordingly, that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Bryan must be denied, and the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve both Bryan and Carroll must be granted.

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of forum non conveniens. In granting that branch of the respondents’ motion, the court properly considered all the relevant factors … , including that the plaintiff and the respondents are residents of New Jersey, Carroll was also a resident of New Jersey at the time of the accident, Bryan’s insurance policy was issued in New Jersey, and both vehicles involved in the accident were registered in New Jersey … . The fact that the accident occurred in New York is insufficient by itself to provide the substantial nexus required to warrant the retention of jurisdiction in the State of New York … . Considering all of the relevant factors, including the fact that the plaintiff primarily received medical treatment for her alleged injuries in New Jersey, we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against the respondents on forum non conveniens grounds … . DelGrosso v Carroll, 2020 NY Slip Op 04148, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant abutting property owner demonstrated it was not responsible for the repair of any alleged defects in the public sidewalk in this slip and fall case. The city code imposed liability only if the landowner was notified of the need for repair:

Section 167-50(A) of the Code of the City of Rye provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of the Department of Public Works to require the owner of property abutting upon a street to repair or replace any sidewalk in front thereof that is required to be repaired or replaced,” and “[w]here the owner of such property shall fail to neglect to repair or replace such sidewalk for five days after notice to do so has been served upon the owner . . . the Department of Public Works shall repair or replace such sidewalk, and a statement of 100% of the cost incurred thereby shall be served upon the owner.” Section 167-50(B) imposes tort liability upon landowners for injuries resulting “from the failure of any owner or other responsible person to comply with the provisions of this section.” … [Defendants] established [they did not receive] notice from the Department of Public Works requiring them to perform sidewalk repairs. Accordingly, the … defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they had no statutory duty to repair the sidewalk …  The … defendants’ submissions also demonstrated, prima facie, that … the … defendants [did not create] the defective condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall … . DeBorba v City of Rye, 2020 NY Slip Op 04147, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant home owner’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should have been granted. Defendant was not home when plaintiff fell through an open hole in the deck while removing a window. The defendant demonstrated he did not have any control over the manner of plaintiff’s work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Supreme Court should not have considered the affidavit of a nonparty who was not previously disclosed as a witness who had actual notice of the condition.

… [T]he defendant established, prima facie, that he did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Further, to the extent that the accident could be viewed as arising from a dangerous or defective premises condition at the work site, the defendant established, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to consider the affidavit of a nonparty witness submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion. In his discovery demands, the defendant sought disclosure of, inter alia, the name of any witness who had actual notice of the alleged condition, or the nature and duration of such condition. The nonparty witness was not disclosed in the plaintiffs’ discovery responses, the plaintiffs failed to offer an excuse for their failure to do so, and nothing that transpired during discovery would have alerted the defendant of the potential significance of the nonparty’s testimony … . Casilari v Condon, 2020 NY Slip Op 04146, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/ ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF DECEDENT’S BODY AND THE LOCATION OF DECEDENT’S REMAINS ENTITLES THE NEXT OF KIN TO DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF SEPULCHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact in this right of sepulcher action stemming from city’s delay in notifying decedent’s next of kin if the identification and location of decedent’s remains.

On June 27, 2003, the plaintiff reported to the police that his 16-year-old son (hereinafter the decedent) was missing, and the New York City Police Department (hereinafter NYPD) commenced a missing person investigation. The decedent’s body was found 10 days later on July 7, 2003. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) conducted an autopsy, but the medical examiner incorrectly determined that the body belonged to a 25 to 30 year old Asian male. Therefore, the body was not identified as that of the decedent. Because the decedent’s body remained unidentified, it was buried in the City public cemetery known as “Potter’s Field” on Hart Island in the Bronx. …

In September or October 2009, the plaintiff and his daughter, the decedent’s sister, provided their DNA samples to the NYPD as part of the missing person investigation. On January 10, 2011, the OCME confirmed that the unidentified body buried in Potter’s Field was that of the decedent. … Approximately one month after the OCME confirmed the identification of the decedent’s body, on February 16, 2011, the NYPD notified the plaintiff of the identification, and further informed him that the decedent had drowned and that the body had been found on July 7, 2003. The next day, the plaintiff was informed by the OCME that the decedent had been buried in Potter’s Field, but he was not informed of the exact location of the burial until 2015. …

“The common-law right of sepulcher affords the deceased’s next of kin an absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial . . ., and damages may be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” … .  … [W]hen a municipal defendant has all of the necessary identifying information, the obligation of informing the next of kin of the decedent’s death is a ministerial function that creates a special duty running to the decedent’s next of kin rather than to the public at large … .

… [T]here are triable issues of fact as to whether the delays in informing the plaintiff that the decedent had been identified and in informing the plaintiff of the location of the decedent’s burial interfered with the plaintiff’s right of sepulcher … . However, we note that triable issues of fact exist only with respect to the City’s delay in notifying the plaintiff about the identification and the delay in informing him of the location of the burial. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages with respect to the delay from the time the decedent was first reported missing in 2003 until the identity of the decedent’s body was confirmed on January 10, 2011. Cansev v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04145, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/ ,

THE ACTION ALLEGING DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM ACCRUED WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED, I.E., WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED; THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action alleging defective construction of a condominium was time-barred. The action accrued the work was completed, i.e., when the certificate of occupancy was issued:

A claim for damages arising from defective construction accrues on the date of completion of the work … . “This rule applies no matter how a claim is characterized in the complaint’ because all liability’ for defective construction has its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties'” … . Here, the corporate defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first through third and fifth through seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against them. The corporate defendants established that the causes of action accrued on October 5, 2007, the date the certificate of occupancy was issued … , and that this action was not commenced until June 2016, more than eight years later, at which time the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. Board of Mgrs. of the 23-23 Condominium v 210th Place Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04143, Second Deptp 7-22-20

 

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