You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST...

Search Results

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the  public trust doctrine applied to town easements such that the easements could not be conveyed to a developer without legislative approval. The court further held that the Open Meetings Law was not violated by posting relevant documents only seven hours before the town meeting:

… “[A] parcel of property may become a park by express provisions in a deed . . . or by implied acts, such as continued use [by the municipality] [*2]of the parcel as a park” … . “A party seeking to establish . . . an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that (1) [t]he acts and declarations of the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his [or her] land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use” … .

… [P]etitioner alleged in its petition-complaint that the Town Easements were part of the “Auburn Trail linear park” and that they were parkland for purposes of the public trust doctrine. In support of that part of each motion seeking to dismiss the second cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), respondents submitted the conveyances that created the Town Easements. Inasmuch as those instruments provided that the Town Easements were to be used as a “pedestrian pathway” for “public use” and required the Town to restore the easement property to “a park like condition” after construction of the pedestrian pathway, respondents’ own documentary evidence creates issues of fact whether there was an express or implied dedication of the Town Easements subject to the public trust doctrine. Thus, respondents failed to meet their burden of submitting documentary evidence that conclusively refuted petitioner’s allegations … . In addition, deeming the material allegations of the petition-complaint to be true, we conclude that “the allegations in the second cause of action presented a justiciable controversy sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment,” and thus respondents were not entitled to dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Matter of Clover/Allen’s Cr. Neighborhood Assn. LLC v M&F, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05280, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

/ ,

IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s answer to the investigator’s asking where defendant resided, for which no CPL 710.30 notice was provided, was not pedigree information and should not have been admitted in evidence. The drug-possession charge was founded on constructive possession. Therefore asking defendant where he resided was designed to elicit an incriminating response. The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant also contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence an oral statement of defendant regarding his address for which no CPL 710.30 notice had been given. The statement at issue was defendant’s response to a question about where he resided, and it was made to one of the principal investigators, who had executed a search warrant at the home of defendant’s parents. As the People correctly concede, defendant’s statement regarding his address was not pedigree information for which no CPL 710.30 notice was required … because, under the circumstances of this case, the investigator’s question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crime[] charged” … . The court thus erred in admitting the statement in evidence in the absence of a CPL 710.30 notice … . People v Tucker, 2019 NY Slip Op 05274, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

/ , , , ,

CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action alleging negligence and inverse condemnation stemming from toxic contamination of the vicinity of a defunct factory was properly dismissed because the allegations did not specify when the alleged injuries occurred:

The State of New York is sovereign and has consented to be sued only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 8 …). Among those requirements is the claimant’s duty to allege “the time when [the] claim arose” … . The requirements of section 11 (b) are jurisdictional in nature … , and the failure to satisfy them mandates dismissal of the claim without regard to whether the State was prejudiced … or had access to the requisite information from its own records … . As the Court of Appeals has explained, the State is not required “to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege” … . …

Here, although claimants adequately specified when defendant’s negligent acts allegedly occurred, they failed to supply any dates or ranges of dates regarding their alleged injuries, such as when they were exposed to toxins, when they developed symptoms, when they sought treatment, or when they were diagnosed with an illness. Instead, claimants alleged only the dates of their residence in Geneva and the dates when news of the contamination became public. Claimants’ allegations are insufficient to enable defendant to adequately investigate the claims in order to ascertain its liability, if any. Given claimants’ failure to provide any dates regarding their alleged injuries, defendant could not realistically differentiate between those injuries attributable to toxic exposure and those injuries attributable to other causes. We therefore conclude that claimants failed to adequately plead when the claims arose for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Consequently, the court properly dismissed the claims as jurisdictionally defective … . Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 05271, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

/ , , ,

NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO ALLEGATION EMPLOYEES WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, NO ALLEGATION MALICE WAS DEFENDANT’S SOLE MOTIVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s negligent hiring and supervision and prima facie tort causes of action should have been dismissed. The lawsuit alleged defendant insurer failed to pay claims for medical care submitted by plaintiff:

“An employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act” … . Here, plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision or retention is based on the factual allegations that defendant’s employees denied or delayed the payment of claims to plaintiff and sent repetitive verification demands, and that defendant was aware of what its employees were doing and continued to employ them. Plaintiff, however, failed to allege that those acts were committed outside the scope of the employees’ employment. Plaintiff also failed to allege how the employees’ alleged acts of denying claims and sending verification demands constituted acts of negligence. …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence’ to injure [the] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intended harm by repeatedly sending plaintiff duplicitous requests for verification forms to be completed. Those conclusory statements in the amended complaint, however, fail to allege “a malicious [act] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of another” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of the cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … , which “must be alleged with sufficient particularity to identify actual losses and be related causally to the alleged tortious acts” … , but the injuries alleged by plaintiff are “couched in broad and conclusory terms” … , and do not constitute “specific and measurable loss” stated with particularity … . Walden Bailey Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 05267, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

/ , ,

THE COUNTY IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF, AND THE SHERIFF IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ONLY THE SHERIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND TRAINING OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES, THEREFORE THE INJURED INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action against the county stemming from the injuries and death suffered by plaintiff’s decedent in the Erie County Holding Center was properly dismissed. The court held that the county is separate from the sheriff’s department, which in turn is separate from the sheriff. The county is not responsible for the hiring and training of sheriff’s deputies, which is only the sheriff’s responsibility. Therefore the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action against the county was not viable:

The duty to supervise and train Sheriff’s deputies rests with the Sheriff (… County Law § 652). … [T]he County has no similar duty … . Defendants in this case therefore met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the County was not liable under the theory stated in plaintiff’s fourth cause of action. …

We reject plaintiff’s … contention that the County’s representation that the Erie County Sheriff’s Department lacked a separate legal identity from the County estops the County from contending that it is not the employer of the Sheriff’s deputies. The County correctly stated that “the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County . . . and thus an action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself”… . The Sheriff, however, is distinct from both the County and the Sheriff’s Department  … and thus the County’s representation has no bearing on whether the Sheriff, as opposed to the County, bears the responsibility of hiring, training, and supervising the Sheriff’s deputies. Metcalf v County of Erie, 2019 NY Slip Op 05265, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT HEARSAY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ONE OF THE ROBBERY VICTIMS, WHO DID NOT TESTIFY, FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A LINEUP, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant should have been allowed to present evidence that one of the robbery victims, who did not testify, failed to identify the defendant at a lineup, even though there was evidence the victim falsely claimed he/she could not identify anyone:

The court erred in denying defendant’s application, expressly made under Chambers v Mississippi (410 US 284 [1973]), to receive testimony that one of the robbery victims, who was unavailable to testify at trial, failed to identify defendant at a lineup. Of the requirements for admission of exculpatory hearsay evidence, the only one in dispute is the reliability of the nonidentification. Although there were reasons to suspect that this victim may have falsely claimed to be unable to identify anyone in the lineup, the nonidentification plainly bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” under the applicable standard, which “hinges upon reliability rather than credibility”… . Where the proponent of the statement ” is able to establish this possibility of trustworthiness, it is the function of the jury alone to determine whether the declaration is sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt'” … . People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 05210, First Dept 6-27-19

 

/ , ,

CONVICTION AFFIRMED, THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPELLATE DIVISION EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY AFFIRMING ON A SEARCH-RELATED GROUND THAT WAS NOT RULED ON BY SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, affirmed the suppression determination, without explaining the facts. The dissent mentions the facts briefly but argues that the Appellate Division exceeded its jurisdiction by affirming the conviction on a search-related ground that was not ruled on by Supreme Court:

The present case clearly falls into the category where the trial court’s decision has discrete sections enabling an appellate court to discern which issues it has considered and decided, and yet the Appellate Division reviewed an issue that the trial court had not decided adversely to defendant, offering “an entirely distinct alternative ground for affirmance” … . If a suppression court writes a “fully articulated” decision adverse to a defendant … , but omits discussion of a particular issue raised by the defendant, our law mandates that an appellate court cannot resolve the issue and must remit. Whether our interpretation of CPL 470.15 (1), in LaFontaine [92 NY2d at 474] and its progeny, is “undesirable from a policy point of view” … is a question for another day. LaFontaine is the law and, until such time as that precedent is overruled, “we are constrained by that decision, and . . . cannot be arbitrary in applying it” … . People v Hill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05187, CtApp 6-27-19

 

/

ANY ERROR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF THE TOP COUNT AND THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS AVAILABLE TO THE JURY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined denying a request for the jury to be instructed on lesser included offenses in this murder case was harmless error:

Even assuming the court erred in denying defendant’s request to submit the crimes of manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide to the jury as lesser included offenses of the charged crimes of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, the error was harmless … . The Appellate Division properly concluded that defendant’s conviction of the lesser inclusory count of first-degree manslaughter, which it dismissed as required by CPL 300.40 (3) (b), did not change the harmless error analysis. Under the circumstances presented here, the jury’s guilty verdict on the indictment’s highest count despite the availability of the next lesser included offense for their consideration, “forecloses [defendant’s] challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” … , because it dispels any speculation as to whether the jury might have reached a guilty verdict on “still lower degree[s] of homicide” … . People v McIntosh, 2019 NY Slip Op 05186, CtApp 6-27-19

 

/ ,

DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND THE ADMISSION OF THE 911 CALL AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE WERE NOT REVERSIBLE ERRORS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, as well as another brief dissenting opinion, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault third degree, and the admission of the 911 call as an excited utterance was harmless error. The facts are explained only in the dissent and are not summarized here:

Defendant failed to “show that there [was] a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that he committed the lesser included offense but not the greater” … . Although “[i]n determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to [the] defendant” … , charging the lesser included offense here “would [have] force[d] the jury to resort to sheer speculation” … .

Nor does Supreme Court’s admission of the call between the victim and the 911 operator require reversal. “A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance—made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant’ is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay” … . “The test is whether the utterance was made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective power to be yet in abeyance'” … . Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to admit the 911 call, any such error would have been harmless … . People v Almonte, 2019 NY Slip Op 05185, CtApp 6-27-19

 

/ ,

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO A SUPERMARKET CHAIN ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRICES IS NOT “PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF TAX LAW 1105, THEREFORE THE REPORTS OF THAT INFORMATION ARE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurrence and two dissenting opinions, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that a supermarket chain, Wegmans, which pays an outfit, RetailData, for information about competitors’ prices, must pay sales tax for that information. Wegmans argued the information was “personal and individual” and therefore not taxable under Tax Law 1105:

Tax Law § 1105 (c) (1) imposes a sales tax on certain information services, “but exclud[es] the furnishing of information which is personal or individual in nature and which is not or may not be substantially incorporated in reports furnished to other persons.” * *

The information that RetailData compiled and the reports it furnished to Wegmans derived from a non-confidential and widely-accessible source, the supermarket shelves of Wegmans’s competitors. There is nothing about the information itself that is personal or individual in nature. RetailData simply collected the prices of products at grocery stores and compiled that information into reports which it furnished to Wegmans. The Tribunal rationally concluded that the information RetailData furnished to Wegmans was not personal or individual in nature because it was collected from prices on supermarket shelves, which are publicly available, widely-accessible, and not confidential. Moreover, in these circumstances, it was rational for the Tribunal to determine that RetailData’s customization of the publicly-available information it collected from supermarket shelves into a report format did not render the furnished information personal or individual in nature … . Matter of Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05184, CtApp 6-27-19

 

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