You are here: / BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S...

Search Results

/ , ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the law firm defendants demonstrated plaintiff attorney violated the confidentiality provision of her employment contract, the law firm was not entitled to enforcement of the liquidated damages provision of the contract because the law firm did not demonstrate it suffered any damage as a result of plaintiff’s breach. In addition, plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the law firm defendants violated an oral agreement promising her a five percent bonus related to attorney’s fees paid for cases in which she was involved should not have been dismissed because she presented some evidence she had in fact been paid several such bonuses:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation. If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced” … . Although the party challenging the liquidated damages provision has the burden to prove that the liquidated damages are, in fact, an unenforceable penalty … , the party seeking to enforce the provision must necessarily have been damaged in order for the provision to apply … . Here, defendants did not identify to the motion court any damages that they sustained as a result of plaintiff’s breach of the agreement. …

The law firm defendants met their burden on summary judgment by providing plaintiff’s employment agreement which did not include any reference to a 5% nondiscretionary bonus, and which included a general merger clause requiring any modification to be in writing. However, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to this claim. … [T]he Court of Appeals has held that while generally an oral modification may not be enforced in light of a merger clause, an oral modification may be enforced if there is partial performance that is “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” or if one party “induced another’s significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification.” Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00250, First Dept 1-14-20

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether boards/Masonite on the floor of a passageway were placed there as an integral part of the renovation project or were scattered debris constituting a tripping hazard in violation of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) or (e)(2)). The court held there was a question of fact on that issue and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court noted that its decision to the contrary in Singh v 1221 Holdings, LLC (127 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015]) should no longer be followed:

Plaintiff claims that the boards were a tripping hazard and a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) because defendants failed to provide him with a passageway free of obstructions. Defendants argue, however, that there is no liability because the boards were Masonite, not scattered materials or debris, and because they were purposefully laid out upon the floor each day, this being “integral to” the renovation work being performed.

At the outset, these arguments require us to address whether the “integral-to-the work” defense raised by defendants, but rejected by Supreme Court, equally applies to Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as well as § 23-1.7(e)(2). We hold that it does. * * *

[The facts] raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the boards were a “protective covering [that] had been purposefully installed on the floor as an integral part of the renovation project” … . … [S]ummary judgment in favor of plaintiff was improper because it was based on the mistaken supposition that the “integral-to-work” defense means integral to plaintiff’s specific task. The defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Krzyzanowski v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00232, First Dept 1-14-20

 

/ , , , ,

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the verdict in favor of plaintiff employees, determined the sanctions imposed upon the employer (appellants) for a delayed response to discovery demands were too severe and ordered a new trial. The plaintiffs alleged appellants breached oral employment contracts. The appellants in their counterclaims alleged plaintiffs breached their fiduciary duty by violating Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and destroying and replacing handwritten notes about conversations with one of the appellants. The sanctions effectively prevented the appellants from demonstrating plaintiffs’ violation of SEC violations and destruction of evidence:

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” Although “[i]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the nature and degree of the penalty,” “[t]he sanction should be commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and go no further than that” … . Further, “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading . . . for failure to comply with a discovery order is appropriate only where [it is] conclusively demonstrate[d] that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” … .

Although the court here did not strike a pleading, its ruling could fairly be viewed as having done so, since the precluded evidence was critical to the fiduciary duty claims. Moreover, the court’s drastic sanctions were disproportionate to the alleged discovery malfeasance. It is unclear why a short continuance to give plaintiffs time to review the newly-produced documents would not have been a viable option, or why further curative instructions would not have sufficed. The record as a whole does not support a finding of willfulness or bad faith so as to justify the severe sanctions imposed … . No basis exists to indicate that this was anything other than a disagreement over the scope of discovery. Indeed, the court at trial stated that the alleged discovery omissions “appear[] not to have been in bad faith.” Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00230, First Dept 1-14-20

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendants (the Infiniti defendants) were bound by an open-court stipulated settlement of $8,875,000 in this personal injury case. The attorneys had apparent authority to bind the defendants. And the defendants ratified the stipulation by failing to timely object to it:

I write to highlight the fundamental principle that parties are bound by stipulations signed in open court by their attorneys. The issue arose in the context of a negligence case, where plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while standing on a sidewalk median in Brooklyn. The vehicle was owned by defendant Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc. and driven by defendant Massamba Seck (the Infiniti defendants). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and required extensive hospitalization and multiple surgeries. At issue in this case is whether the Infiniti defendants are bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorneys. We find that the Infiniti defendants are bound, because their attorneys had apparent authority to bind them to the $8,875,000 judgment. Significantly, there is no affidavit or testimony by Infiniti stating that Infiniti, or any of its employees, was unaware of the settlement or that Infiniti did not authorize the settlement. The only ones making this claim are the lawyers from the firm that was hired by the insurance companies to defend the Infiniti defendants. The fact that one of the insurers is now unable to pay its intended $5 million portion does not inure to the Infiniti defendants’ benefit. Rather, the Infiniti defendants are responsible for the portion of the agreed-upon amounts that the insurers do not pay. To accept their position would alter the way litigation is conducted in New York State. Courts would have to conduct colloquies in every case to make sure that the parties, notwithstanding their attorneys’ actions in appearing for them on numerous occasions and signing stipulations, acquiesced in the terms of the stipulations. That is unacceptable, especially here, where the Infiniti defendants never objected to the stipulation until the filing of the instant order to show cause more than a year and six months after the stipulation was signed in open court. Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00229, First Dept 1-9-20

 

/ , ,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the plaintiff municipality breached its contract with defendant sewage-treatment company. The plaintiff municipality argued that, although there was competitive bidding under General Municipal Law 103 and 120-w, the contract was void because the bid specifications were improperly developed with the defendant and were designed to ensure defendant got the contract, but that argument was rejected by both Supreme Court and the Third Department:

… [P]laintiff provided nothing to contradict the proof that [use of defendant’s technology] served the public interest because it was safer, more reliable and less likely to generate troublesome odors than other technologies.

[D]efendant produced an affidavit from plaintiff’s then-mayor, who stated that the options for sludge treatment had been thoroughly investigated and that the type of equipment offered by defendant would further the public interest by stabilizing plaintiff’s sludge disposal costs, providing an environmentally sensitive means for that disposal and decreasing odors emanating from the WWTF [wastewater treatment facility] that might affect ongoing waterfront development. The then-mayor further averred that the bid documents were prepared by municipal employees and that the specifications included nothing of peculiar benefit to defendant. … Defendant’s president, a mechanical engineer, confirmed that point and averred that “[n]early any sludge drying pelletizing system on the market” could have satisfied the bid specifications. Plaintiff accordingly failed to meet its burden of showing that the 2004 agreement was void, and defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on claims relating to that agreement’s validity … . City of Kingston v Aslan Envtl. Servs., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00192, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM DRAWS HEAT FROM SOLAR ENERGY STORED IN THE GROUND, IT IS NOT A QUALIFIED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAX LAW FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A $5000 TAX CREDIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a heat pump system, although it draws heat from solar energy stored in the ground, is not a qualified solar energy system within the meaning of Tax Law 606 (g-1). Therefore, as the Tax Tribunal found, petitioners were not entitled to a $5000 tax credit for the heat pump system:

… [S]olar energy system equipment is defined as “an arrangement or combination of components utilizing solar radiation, which, when installed in a residence, produces energy designed to provide heating, cooling, hot water or electricity for use in such residence” … . Here, the Tribunal limited the applicability of the tax credit to those systems that “directly” utilize solar radiation, an interpretation which petitioners assert is too narrow, …

… [W]e do not agree with petitioners’ assertion that the plain language of the statute unambiguously includes ground source heat pump systems simply because they utilize solar energy … . As the record reveals, heat harvested by a ground source heat pump system is not, strictly speaking, “solar radiation” since it is being radiated from the ground after being absorbed by the crust. Thus, although a broad reading of the phrase “utilize[es] solar radiation” could certainly include the system at issue, an interpretation excluding indirect utilization of solar energy is not unreasonable. Further, we find that the fact that the system removes heat from indoor air during the warm summer months and moves it to the ground, thereby not utilizing solar radiation, presents another reason to exclude the system from the purview of the tax credit … . Matter of Suozzi v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00193, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the security guard’s employer’s (SEB’s) motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the security guard attacked her without provocation. The security guard alleged he acted in self defense after plaintiff and others attacked him. The employer would not be liable in either scenario:

Plaintiff Gregory testified that SEB’s employee, a security guard who was then working at a movie theater, attacked her with a box cutter and slashed her face and body with it after she tapped him on the shoulder and told him she had enjoyed the movie she had just seen. The security guard gave a different version of events and claimed that he was acting in self defense after plaintiffs and others attacked him with box cutters. However, neither version of events would give rise to liability on the part of SEB. Under plaintiff’s version of events, SEB could not be held liable because SEB’s employee’s unprovoked assault on Gregory with a box cutter was not within the scope of any duties he may have had as a security guard and was not done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests … . Under the security guard’s version of events, even assuming for purposes of this appeal that his actions were within the scope of his duties as a security guard and were done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests, SEB would not be held liable because the security guard’s actions were taken in self-defense after being attacked by patrons of the movie theater. Gregory v National Amusements, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00223, First Dept 1-9-20

 

/ , ,

AMENDMENT TO SOCIAL SERVICES LAW EXTENDING SUBSIDIES FOR CHILDREN CARED FOR BY A GUARDIAN UNTIL AGE 21 SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE MATTER IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the amendment to Social Services Law 458-b allowing monthly subsidies for children cared for by guardians to be extended to age 21 (from 18) should be applied retroactively. The matter was deemed appealable as of right:

… [T]he order is appealable as of right, because it is an order of disposition that terminates the children’s guardianship placement once the children reach the age of 18 and terminates the proceeding itself … . In any event, this Court can deem a notice of appeal from the denial of the motion a request for permission to appeal and we would grant that request … . …

A review of the legislative history supports the conclusion that the amended statute is remedial in nature. … [W]e can discern from the legislative history that the intent was to remove the disparity created between foster/adoptive parents and guardians since foster/adoptive parents are able to obtain subsidies notwithstanding the age of the child at the time of fostering or adoption.

The mere fact that the amended statute is remedial in nature is not determinative as to whether it should be applied retroactively … . … [A] remedial amendment will only be applied retroactively if it does not impair vested rights … .

… [T]he amendment does not create a new entitlement; rather it expands “existing benefits to a class of persons arbitrarily denied those benefits by the original legislation” … . There is no dispute that had the children been adopted by the grandmother and remained with her under the auspices of foster care, or had the grandmother proceeded with guardianship after they turned 16, they would have been entitled to subsidies until the children turned 21. Matter of Jaquan L. (Pearl L.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00213, First Dept 1-9-20

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff’s standing, defendants’ default, and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 were not proven. The Second Department explained the proof requirements for each:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff also failed to submit admissible evidence of the defendants’ default in making the mortgage payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage … . * * *

The plaintiff also failed to proffer evidence establishing its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. U.S. Bank N.A. v Moulton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00171, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

/ ,

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inconsistent verdict in this Labor Law 241(6) action required a new trial. The trial court had dismissed the action. The Second Department noted that even though plaintiff was a member of an excavator crew and therefore was authorized to be within range of a moving excavator bucket he still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(k) which provides “[p]ersons shall not be . . . permitted to work in any area where they may be struck . . . by any excavation equipment.” Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator bucket:

The jury returned a verdict finding that the City defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k), but that the violation was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although the instructions on the verdict sheet directed the jury to end its deliberations if it found that the violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k) was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, the jury further found that the injured plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The jury then proceeded to apportion fault 25% to the City defendants and 75% to the injured plaintiff. After the Supreme Court instructed the jurors to reconsider its verdict, the jury returned a second verdict which was identical to the first verdict, except that the jurors did not answer the questions as to the injured plaintiff’s negligence and apportionment of fault. …

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” ( …see CPLR 4111[c] …). “On reconsideration, the jury [is] free to substantively alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention, and [is] not bound by the terms of its original verdict inasmuch as that verdict was not entered by the court” … . “Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors” . “A new trial should be granted where . . . the record demonstrates … substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict” … . Torres v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

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