You are here: / DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS...

Search Results

/ , ,

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit against former officers of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Plaintiff believed the digital encoder receiver transmitter (ERT) installed at his home by the utility to replace an analog meter emitted cancer-causing radiation. Plaintiff removed the ERT and replaced it with an analog meter. The utility considered the meter dangerous and cut off plaintiff’s electricity. Plaintiff complained to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which supported the utilities’ power cut-off and informed plaintiff of his appeal rights. Plaintiff did not appeal and started the instant civil suit:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court has the discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where an administrative agency also has jurisdiction, and the determination of the issues involved, under a regulatory scheme, depends upon the specialized knowledge and experience of the agency … . Here, the issues concern the particular meter used by Central Hudson, plaintiff’s removal and replacement of same, the safety concerns caused by his actions and the validity of the disconnection of his service. These matters fall under the doctrine and, thus, were appropriate for PSC determination. We also agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the causes of action found in plaintiff’s complaint amount to little more than a rebranding of his PSC claim and were properly dismissed … .

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court’s determination that review of a PSC ruling is limited to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. “Supreme Court, in determining the motion for [summary judgment,] properly considered whether the . . . primary jurisdiction doctrine[] precluded the causes of action propounded by plaintiff[]” … , and that, in order to review the original ruling, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to bring an article 78 proceeding … . [Romine] v Laurito, 2020 NY Slip Op 04432, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

/ ,

POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer acted properly in following the defendant’s car after observing a traffic violation, directing the occupants of the car to return to car after it pulled into a residential driveway, detaining the defendant when the homeowner said he did not know the defendant and the others, and arresting the defendant after a weapon was found after a search behind the house:

The officer observed a traffic infraction when the vehicle ran a stop sign …  and was accordingly justified in approaching the vehicle after he had caught up to it … . Defendant suggests that the traffic infraction was a pretext for making the approach, but that contention is unpreserved for our review … . As a result, although one might reasonably question why the officer, upon seeing a traffic violation of sufficient gravity to cause him to make a U-turn and follow the vehicle, did not put on his siren or emergency lights, and then approached the vehicle with more apparent interest in the passengers than the driver, the record was not developed on the possibility of an ulterior motive for the officer’s actions. It follows that the record affords no basis for defendant’s speculation as to the officer’s motivations. We are, in any event, bound by controlling precedent that those speculative motivations would not render an otherwise proper approach invalid … .

The officer had discretion to “control the scene in a way that maximize[d]” safety as the approach unfolded, could have directed defendant to exit the vehicle had he been in it and, in  … view of the heightened safety concerns stemming from defendant’s refusal to return to the vehicle and brief disappearance behind the house, was free to direct that defendant sit on the hood of the vehicle upon his return … . Shortly thereafter, the officer learned that the homeowner did not know anyone in the vehicle despite their claims and had watched defendant throw something away behind the house. The foregoing created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by defendant that warranted his detention, after which the handgun was recovered and afforded probable cause for his arrest … . People v Price, 2020 NY Slip Op 04430, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

/ ,

REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE, BASED UPON A 1995 DEFAULT CONVICTION OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS APPARENTLY UNAWARE, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the revocation of defendant’s driver’s license based upon a 24-year-old default conviction, which involved an error made by the Department of Motor Vehicles in 1994 (misspelling petitioner’s name), was arbitrary and capricious:

Petitioner was issued four summonses in October of 1994 for driving violations including driving without insurance. When entering the violations into the DMV database, a DMV employee entered petitioner’s surname as “Sanders,” rather than “Sonders,” which DMV acknowledges was a “possible data-entry error.” Petitioner claims to the best of his knowledge and memory never to have been issued the summonses in question. A default judgment was entered against petitioner as a result of his failure to contest the tickets. The conviction for driving without insurance carried a mandatory penalty of a one-year license revocation (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 318[3][a]-[b]). On or about August 6, 2019, petitioner renewed his New York State driver’s license in person at the DMV. At that time, he obtained a copy of his driving record abstract, which indicated that his license status was “valid.”

Thereafter, petitioner received suspension notices, dated August 7, 2019, stating that his license had been suspended on February 3, 1995; and a revocation order dated August 7, 2019 stating that owing to the February 3, 1995 conviction his license would be revoked for one year in accordance with section 318 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Petitioner claims that this is the first notice he received of the summonses.

Petitioner paid the outstanding fines and in September 2019 commenced an article 78 proceeding challenging the license revocation. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. This appeal followed. …

“A license to operate an automobile is of tremendous value to the individual and may not be taken away except by due process.”

No such due process was afforded to petitioner, who never received notice of the conviction and was led to believe for over 20 years that his license was in order.  Matter of Sonders v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. Traffic Violations Bur., 2020 NY Slip Op 04443, First Dept 8-6-20

 

/ ,

THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA) PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNSIGNED PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

he First Department determined the 1999 partnership agreement controlled and the purported 2004 amendment to the agreement, which was not executed, could not be enforced. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that the detailed statutory scheme of the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RLPA) precluded ignoring the Statute of Frauds with respect to the unexecuted amendment:

By design, the RLPA sets forth a clear separation between general and limited partners. This separation is more defined than the division between managers and members in limited liability corporations. With few exceptions, the RLPA provides that a general partner has the liabilities of a partner in a non-limited partnership. In exchange for a more passive position, the limited partners are generally sheltered from personal liability to third parties who transact business with the limited partnership (see generally, Bruce A. Rich, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 38, Revised Limited Partnership Act, at 317, 334-336). The RLPA’s default requirements of partner consent to substantive changes to a limited partnership agreement helps protect the passive limited partners from actions taken by general partners that might adversely affect the limited partners’ interests. That default protection would be undermined if we were to engraft on to the RLPA the equitable exceptions applicable to the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, we decline to do so. A&F Hamilton Hgts. Cluster, Inc. v Urban Green Mgt., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04440, First Dept 8-6-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGES WERE DEEMED EXCESSIVE, PLAINTIFFS’ MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICT IN THE ASBESTOS MESOTHELIOMA ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, although finding some of the damage amounts excessive, determined, over a dissent, the plaintiffs’ multi-million-dollar verdict in this asbestos exposure case was supported by the evidence. The case hinged on expert evidence that the extent of the exposure was sufficient to cause the resulting illness. The dissent argued the expert evidence did not meet the criteria imposed by the Court of Appeals:

In this asbestos case, Marlena Robaey [(]plaintiff), who died after the trial of this action, testified that, working with her husband and co-plaintiff, she had been regularly exposed to visible dust from scraping and grinding engine gaskets over a period of years, from cleaning the family garage after each gasket change, and from taking her and her husband’s dusty clothes into their laundry room to clean. [Defendant] Federal-Mogul’s corporate representatives, as well as the various experts called by defendants at trial, testified that the gaskets contained anywhere from 50% to 85% asbestos, and plaintiffs’ experts testified that dust from these products, if visible, necessarily exceeded current permissible levels and contained sufficient levels of asbestos to cause plaintiff’s peritoneal mesothelioma. * * *

… [T]he experts did not merely testify as to only an increased risk. Dr. Schwartz testified that the visible dust from the gaskets at issue, which were conceded by defendants’ expert to contain between 50% and 85% asbestos, 80% being “standard,” necessarily contained several thousand times the “safe” amount of asbestos, and thus was causative of plaintiff’s disease … .

From the dissent:

It should be borne in mind that the decedent’s relevant alleged exposure to asbestos from Fel-Pro products was restricted to helping her husband remove gaskets from his cars “once or twice . . . in a month” over a period of 12 year. It should also be remembered that only about half of the gaskets involved were [defendant’s] products, that not all of the [defendant’s] gaskets contained asbestos, and that any asbestos that the gaskets did contain was of the less hazardous chrysotile variety.  Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04437, First Dept 8-5-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ABSENT PROOF OF THE ATTORNEY’S EXPERIENCE AND ABILITIES AND THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should not have awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiff bank in this breach of contract/guaranty action because the attorney’s experience and abilities and the nature of the services were not spelled out:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have awarded the bank attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements based solely on the affirmation of legal services provided by the bank’s attorney. “An award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to a contractual provision may only be enforced to the extent that the amount is reasonable and warranted for the services actually rendered” … . “In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factors as the time, effort, and .skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or certainty of compensation” … . “While a hearing is not required in all circumstances, the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered” … . “There must be a sufficient affidavit of services, detailing the hours reasonably expended . . . and the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … .

Here, the affirmation of services rendered submitted by the bank’s counsel “did not set forth counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation, and failed to detail the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … . Sterling Natl. Bank v Alan B. Brill, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 04418, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

/

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s resentence, determined defendant should have been allowed to make a sentence before the sentence was pronounced:

At that proceeding, the defendant requested an opportunity to address the court. The court denied the defendant’s request. The defendant appeals, and we reverse.

A defendant is entitled “to make a statement personally in his or her own behalf, and before pronouncing sentence the court must ask the defendant whether he or she wishes to make such a statement” ( CPL 380.50 [1]). “[T]he provisions of CPL 380.50 apply to occasions of resentencing as well as to those of initial sentencing”  … . Here, the defendant was denied that opportunity. Accordingly, we remit the matter … for resentencing to give the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his behalf … . People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04413, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

/ ,

BY ENTERING A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A TESTIFYING CODEFENDANT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABANDONED THE ROLE OF A NEUTRAL ARBITER AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial before a different judge, determined defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the judge’s entering a plea agreement with a testifying codefendant:

The defendant …  contends that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the County Court’s act of entering into a plea agreement with the testifying codefendant. The court’s agreement with the codefendant was made in conjunction with a cooperation agreement reached between the codefendant and the People. The codefendant had been charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree. The People had promised to recommend a determinate sentence of imprisonment between two and seven years in exchange for the codefendant’s guilty plea to the reduced charge of attempted robbery in the second degree. However, the court promised the codefendant a sentence of only probation in exchange for her testimony against the defendant. Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we nevertheless reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances here, the County Court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . By doing so, “the trial court abandoned the role of a neutral arbiter and assumed the function of an interested party, thereby creating a specter of bias that requires reversal” … . People v Greenspan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04408, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

/

THE JUDGE DID NOT PRONOUNCE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM OF PROBATION, SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge’s failure to pronounce the term of probation required remittal:

CPL 380.20 requires that courts “must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered.” “When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … . Here, although the parties do not dispute that, as part of the negotiated disposition, the defendant was promised a term of probation of three years, the sentence must be vacated and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing because the court failed to pronounce the length of the probation term … . People v Childs, 2020 NY Slip Op 04404, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE TENANT HAD VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE, THE EVICTION PENALTY SHOCKED THE CONSCIENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the housing authority’s (THA’s) eviction of petitioner was too severe a penalty for her alleged sporadic failure to make timely rent payments, her alleged failure to allow an exterminator to enter the apartment, and her single allegedly “rude and loud” phone conversation with a THA employee. The dissenter argued eviction was an appropriate penalty:

Here, although the petitioner made late rental payments during the subject period, she did eventually pay all of the rent due, as well as the fees that had accrued on the account. Moreover, the record establishes that during the subject period, the amount of the petitioner’s rent fluctuated monthly, with little advance notice, such that her December 2015 rent was nearly three times as much as her September 2015 rent. …

… [T]he two isolated incidents concerning the exterminator and the offensive telephone conversation were not proportionate to the penalty of eviction. First, although the petitioner denied the exterminator entry to her apartment on March 14, 2016, the THA’s evidence otherwise established that the petitioner was the one who had requested treatment for bedbugs, she fully complied with the first treatment, and over several years of biweekly extermination for other pests, she had never denied the exterminator entry … . …

… [T]he petitioner’s single threat of violence occurred in a heated telephone conversation, immediately before the petitioner hung up in frustration and anger. The THA employee to whom the comment was directed testified at the hearing that she found the comment “[e]xtraordinary and extremely rude,” but she did not testify that she was frightened or that she understood the comment to be a genuine threat of violence. …

The penalty imposed is so grave in its impact on the petitioner that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, or the risk of harm to the THA or the public. Under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of the petitioner’s tenancy is so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to the judicial conscience as a matter of law … . Matter of Jacobs v Tuckahoe Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 04392, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

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