You are here: / DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO...

Search Results

/ , , , ,

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

 

/

WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined wood from a split rail fence which had fallen to the ground was open and obvious and therefore not actionable in this slip and fall case:

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition . There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open…  and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the wood on the ground was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Swinney v Nassau County, 2020 NY Slip Op 00169, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER, PURSUANT TO THE ESPINAL CRITERIA, IT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant cleaning service contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Espinal for launching or creating an instrument of harm by mopping the floor without placing warning signs in the are where she fell:

Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). However, there are three exceptions to the general rule … . …

Here, the plaintiff alleged only one of the Espinal exceptions: that the defendant created or launched an instrument of harm. Thus, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant was required to establish, prima facie, that it did not create or launch an instrument of harm … . … [T]he defendant’s submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact regarding the location of “wet floor” signs and whether the wet floor or the signs were readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff’s senses as she entered the area through a closed door … . Thus, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that caused the plaintiff to fall or that it provided adequate notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Ramsey v Temco Serv. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00166, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

/

DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant’s discarding a bag of marijuana as he was being pursued by a police officer for violating the city’s open-container law constituted attempted tampering with physical evidence, not tampering with physical evidence:

Here, the charge of tampering with physical evidence was based on the defendant’s act of discarding the plastic bag containing marijuana as he was being pursued by Officer Scuadroni for violating the City’s open-container law. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s act of discarding the bag did not constitute an act of concealment within the meaning of Penal Law § 215.40(2). Nevertheless, since the defendant “engage[d] in conduct that tends to effect, and comes dangerously near to accomplishing, an act of concealment intended to suppress the physical evidence” … , there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted tampering with physical evidence (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.40[2 …). Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence to attempted tampering with physical evidence … . People v Zachary, 2020 NY Slip Op 00165, 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