You are here: / THE ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GENERALLY TOLLING THE STATUTE...

Search Results

/

THE ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GENERALLY TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION TO VALIDATE A DESIGNATING PETITION, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY ANOTHER ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the petition to validate the appellant’s designating petition was not timely commenced pursuant to Executive Order No. 202.8 passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

… [T]he statute of limitations for commencing this Election Law article 16 proceeding was not tolled by a provision of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), issued on March 20, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which generally tolled limitations periods. Rather, this matter is governed by chapter 24 of the Laws of 2020, passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor two days before the issuance of Executive Order No. 202.8, also in response to the COVID-19 pandemic … . That legislation set a new date for the filing of designating petitions and specifically provided that the time to commence an Election Law article 16 proceeding “shall be adjusted accordingly” … . Indeed, tolling the statute of limitations when the primary election will take place on June 23, 2020, is unworkable … for commencing Election Law article 16 proceedings, pertaining to the validity of designating petitions. We note that while the courts ceased accepting papers for filing in many legal matters due to the pandemic, they continued to accept filings of emergency Election Law applications, as such matters were deemed “essential” by the Chief Administrative Judge … . Matter of Echevarria v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02992, Second Dept 5-21-20

 

/ ,

DESIGNATING PETITION PERMEATED BY FRAUD INVALIDATED; THREE JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion per curiam, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the designating petition was permeated by fraud and must be invalidated:

… [W]here appropriate, a court may … conclude that, “because of its magnitude[,]” fraud and irregularity established by clear and convincing evidence “so permeated’ the [designating] petition as a whole to call for its invalidation” … .

Based on the undisputed facts of this matter, which establish, among other things, “that 512 out of 944 signatures submitted in the [designating] petition are backdated to dates preceding the candidate’s receipt of the blank petition pages,” and that “14 of the 28 subscribing witnesses” swore that those signatures were placed on the designating petition before the blank petition pages were obtained from the printer (… cf. Election Law § 6-134 [3]), the lower courts should have concluded that this is one of those rare instances in which the designating petition is so “permeated” by fraud “as a whole as to call for its invalidation” … . Matter of Ferreyra v Arroyo, 2020 NY Slip Op 02994, CtApp 5-21-20

 

/

DESPITE THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A COVER SHEET ACCOMPANYING A DESIGNATING PETITION IS A FATAL DEFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion per curiam, reversing the First Department and affirmed the Third Department, over two comprehensive dissenting opinions, determined that, despite the hardship imposed by Covid-19, the failure to timely file a cover sheet accompanying a designating petition is a fatal defect:

In Matter of Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that — in light of the “unique circumstances” created by the COVID-19 pandemic — the candidate’s belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance did not constitute a fatal defect (2020 NY Slip Op 02900, *1 [1st Dept May 14, 2020]). In Matter of Hawatmeh v New York State Board of Elections, the Appellate Division, Third Department, rejected the First Department’s approach and reached the opposite conclusion, holding that — notwithstanding the “unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic” — the candidate’s belated filing of a certificate of acceptance was a fatal defect (2020 NY Slip Op 02907, *1-2 [3d Dept May 15, 2020]). …

We granted leave to resolve this departmental split. We now reverse in Seawright and affirm in Hawatmeh. * * *

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly presented uniquely challenging circumstances for Seawright and Hawatmeh — among countless other candidates for public office. Nonetheless, as in our prior cases, we remain constrained by the express directive of the Election Law: the complete failure to file, by the applicable deadline, either a cover sheet with a designating petition or a certificate of acceptance constitutes a “fatal defect” (Election Law § 1-106 [2]). The First Department’s analysis, employed in Seawright, Mejia (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]), and Mujumder (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]), directly conflicts with that well-established statutory mandate … . Matter of Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02993, CtApp 5-21-20

 

/

FAILURE TO FILE A COVER SHEET ACCOMPANYING A DESIGNATING PETITION IS A FATAL DEFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals reversing these two election matters, determined the failure to timely file a cover sheet accompanying a designating petition is a fatal defect:

For the reasons stated in Matter of Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York (____ NY3d ____ [decided herewith]), the failure to timely file a cover sheet accompanying a designating petition constitutes a fatal defect.

For each case: Order reversed, without costs, and petition to validate the designating petitions denied, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Feinman concur. Judge Wilson dissents for reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Matter of Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York and Matter of Hawatmeh v New York State Board of Elections (decided today). Matter of Mejia v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02995, CtApp 5-21-20

 

/ ,

COUNTY COURT’S POST-JUDGMENT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION, AFTER A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS AN INTERMEDIATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO REFLECT THE RECENT DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WOULD THEN BE APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the post-judgment order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements was an intermediate order which was not appealable. The Second Circuit, pursuant to defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordered defendant’s release unless a state court adjudicated the voluntariness of his confession (made in 1986 when defendant was 16). County Court held a new suppression hearing and issued the order denying suppression. The Third Department sent the matter back to allow the amendment of the judgment of conviction to reflect the recent denial of the suppression motion, which would then be appealable:

Although not raised by the parties, we must first address the threshold issue of the appealability of County Court’s order. Indeed, an order denying a defendant’s suppression motion is an unreviewable intermediate order (see CPL 450.10). Ordinarily, in the course of a criminal proceeding, suppression hearings occur prior to a judgment of conviction and are reviewed incident to the direct appeal from that judgment. Nevertheless, there are cases, including the instant appeal, where a suppression hearing occurred after entry of a judgment of conviction … . In each of these cases, the trial court was specifically instructed that, if the defendant did not prevail in the suppression hearing, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that fact … . Here, however, the Second Circuit did not advise County Court to take this step … , and there is no evidence in the record that an amended judgement of conviction was entered after the People prevailed at the suppression hearing.

Accordingly, because an amended judgment of conviction has not been entered, we must dismiss this appeal. This harsh outcome appears at odds with the federal habeas corpus remand, which, in our view, was intended to permit review of the suppression hearing until finally decided by the court of last resort. However, this dismissal provides County Court the opportunity to amend the judgment of conviction to reflect the denial of the suppression motion, and defendant could then appeal as of right from the amended judgment of conviction (see CPL 450.10 [1]). People v Dearstyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 02951, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

/ ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRING THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sentencing court should have assigned new counsel to defendant based upon defense counsel’s remarks about defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which created a conflict of interest. The dissenters argued that, before defense made the remarks evincing a conflict of interest, the sentencing judge had denied defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her plea without prejudice to retain counsel and make a new motion:

After Supreme Court agreed to adjourn sentencing, without having decided defendant’s pro se motion, defense counsel requested that he be permitted to put “a couple [of] things on the record.” Upon receiving the court’s permission, defense counsel proceeded to make several detrimental statements that were adverse and prejudicial to defendant. At this point, a conflict of interest arose between defendant and defense counsel, and Supreme Court was obligated to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant … . Supreme Court, however, did not acknowledge that a conflict of interest had arisen or inform defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel, should she opt to avail herself of that option.

When defendant subsequently appeared in Supreme Court for sentencing, she was accompanied by her original assigned counsel.Once again, Supreme Court did not raise or address the conflict of interest that had previously arisen between defendant and defense counsel, assign new counsel or advise defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel. Defense counsel requested that defendant be granted an additional adjournment, … stating that defendant had retained a certain named attorney, but that “[t]he funds just [had not] reached him yet.” Without having afforded defendant an opportunity to confer with new counsel regarding her motion to withdraw her plea or having ruled on that motion, Supreme Court denied the adjournment request and proceeded to sentencing. By failing to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant once the conflict of interest arose and to either assign new counsel or permit defendant a sufficient opportunity to retain alternate counsel to represent her, Supreme Court deprived defendant of her right to the effective assistance of counsel in connection with her motion to withdraw her plea … . People v Maldonado, 2020 NY Slip Op 02953, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WITH FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES JUSTIFIED THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined that defendants’ close relationship with signatories to contracts with forum selection clauses justified the exercise of jurisdiction, for purposes of jurisdictional discovery:

A non-signatory may … be bound by a forum selection clause where the non-signatory and a party to the agreement have such a “close relationship” that it is foreseeable that the forum selection clause will be enforced against the non-signatory … . The rationale for binding non-signatories is based on the notion that forum selection clauses “promote stable and dependable trade relations,” and thus, that it would be contrary to public policy to allow non-signatory entities through which a party acts to evade the forum selection clause … . * * *

… [T]he motion court did not undertake a separate minimum-contacts analysis. However, the concept of foreseeability is built into the closely-related doctrine, which explicitly requires that the relationship between the parties be such that it is foreseeable that the non-signatory will be bound by the forum selection clause. …

Thus, courts have recognized that a consent to jurisdiction by virtue of the “close relationship” between the non-signatory and contracting party obviating the need for a separate analysis of constitutional propriety … . Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. v Targeted Delivery Tech. Holdings, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02991, First Dept 5-21-20

 

/ , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF ‘TAX ESTOPPEL’ PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM TAKING A POSITION ON OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS MADE IN CORPORATE TAX RETURNS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and clarifying a prior ruling. determined the doctrine of “tax estoppel” applied to preclude defendant Elayan from taking a position contrary to the factual statements in corporate tax returns re: an ownership interest in the corporation, Edgewater:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to apply the doctrine of “tax estoppel.” Under that doctrine, defendants’ acts in filing corporate tax returns for the years 2010 through 2014, signed by defendant Elayan, which contained factual statements that plaintiff Jaber had a 75% ownership interest in Edgewater during that time period, and precludes defendants from taking a position contrary to that in this litigation … . To the extent our decision in Matter of Bhanji v Baluch (99 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]) has been interpreted as making the doctrine generally inapplicable with respect to factual statements of ownership in tax returns, we clarify that the doctrine applies where, as here, the party seeking to contradict the factual statements as to ownership in the tax returns signed the tax returns, and has failed to assert any basis for not crediting the statements … . PH-105 Realty Corp v Elayaan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02971, First Dept 5-21-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BROKEN CURB WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the broken curb which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [T]he defendants failed to meet this burden. In support of their motion, among other things, they proffered the affidavit of the director of engineering of Mount Vernon Hospital who averred that there were no maintenance or complaint records for approximately three years preceding the accident, that he would inspect the premises approximately once a month, and that “the sidewalk and curbing is repaired and replaced on an as needed basis.” The defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the area at issue was last inspected prior to the plaintiff’s alleged accident … . Moreover, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall was not visible and apparent, and would not have been noticed upon a reasonable inspection of the area where the plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell … . Malloy v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 02921, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

/

UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW A CONTRACT WITH MUTUAL CANCELLATION CLAUSES IS VALID; THEREFORE THE CANCELLATION BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OR THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract, which required the application of California law, and which included mutual cancellation clauses, was valid. Therefore cancellation by the defendant was not a breach of the contract or the covenant of good faith:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the terms of the agreement in this case expressly permitted cancellation by either party during the initial one-year term, and the complaint therefore fails to state a viable cause of action for breach of contract. Pursuant to California law, contracts with mutual cancellation provisions are not illusory … , and contracts that provide for a fixed duration but that also contain an express clause for termination at will are not inconsistent … . …

… [T]he cause of action alleging anticipatory breach seeks damages for losses allegedly arising from the defendant’s failure to renew the term of the agreement. However, since the defendant properly cancelled the agreement during the initial term, there can be no recovery for anticipatory breach of contract based on any subsequent nonrenewal … . …

“It is universally recognized the scope of conduct prohibited by the covenant of good faith is circumscribed by the purposes and express terms of the contract” … , and the Supreme Court of California has noted that it is “aware of no reported case in which a court has held the covenant of good faith may be read to prohibit a party from doing that which is expressly permitted by an agreement” … . A.D.E. Sys., Inc. v Energy Labs, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02911, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

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