You are here: / STATEMENTS POSTED ON AN ELECTION-RELATED FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT THE OPPOSING...

Search Results

/ , , , , ,

STATEMENTS POSTED ON AN ELECTION-RELATED FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE ARE NOT SHIELDED BY IMMUNITY AND ARE ACTIONABLE IN THIS DEFAMATION CASE; TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF A COMPLAINT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined statements posted on an election-related Facebook page by defendant, a Sheriff running for County Executive, concerning plaintiff, a Deputy County Executive also running for County Executive, were actionable in this defamation case. The court noted that the defendant’s appeal of the denial of his motion to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint (CPLR 3024) was not before the court because a motion for leave to appeal had not been made (CPLR 5701 [b] [3]):

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that he is shielded from liability due to absolute immunity. This immunity protects government officials, such as defendant, “with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . As such, plaintiff cannot maintain a defamation claim against defendant based upon statements “emanating from official reports and communications” … . Although defendant was commenting about an investigation being conducted by his office, as well as responding to attacks on the credibility of his office, the documentary evidence in the record establishes that the challenged statements were not posted on the official site of the Chemung County Sheriff. Rather, they were posted on defendant’s campaign Facebook page and another Internet website. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot rely on absolute immunity … .

… The statement that plaintiff was “pilfering free gas from taxpayers” is “susceptible to a defamatory meaning, inasmuch as [it] convey[s], at a minimum, serious impropriety and, at worst, criminal behavior” … . Such statement also “has a precise meaning that is capable of being proven true or false” … . …

The complaint alleged that defendant published the false statements and that they “were made in bad faith, with reckless disregard for the truth” and “tend[ed] to subject plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace.” In view of these allegations, as well as the specific statements at issue, we are satisfied that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded malice … . Krusen v Moss, 2019 NY Slip Op 05733, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

/ ,

PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION, DESPITE THE FACT THE APPROVAL HAD BEEN RESCINDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the village planning board had the authority to reaffirm a subdivision and site plan approval based upon new evidence, despite the fact the plan had previously been rescinded:

Petitioners argue that the Village Planning Board lacked the authority to reaffirm the 2010 subdivision and site plan approval. We disagree. “Despite the lack of statutory authority, a planning board may reconsider a determination if there has been a material change of circumstances since its initial approval of the plat or new evidence is presented” (Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 AD2d 887, 887 [1995] [citations omitted]). Given that the record discloses that the Village Planning Board was presented with new information in the amended subdivision and site plan, we find that it was authorized to reaffirm the approval notwithstanding the fact that it had been previously rescinded. Matter of Town of Mamakating v Village of Bloomingburg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05732, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

/ ,

UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER (GEICO) WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE HIT AND RUN WAS INSURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was conflicting evidence whether a particular vehicle (owned by McRae) was involved in a hit and run accident involving a parked car in which Williams and Shields were sitting. The alleged registration number matched that of the McRae vehicle which was insured by Liberty Mutual. However, there was evidence the McRae vehicle was being repaired on the day of the accident. A framed issue hearing was therefore required:

GEICO commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits or, in the alternative, to temporarily stay arbitration pending a framed-issued hearing … . …

GEICO, as the party seeking a stay of arbitration, met its burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay … . GEICO met this burden by submitting evidence that on the date of the accident, the McRae vehicle was insured by Liberty Mutual.

The burden then shifted to Williams and Shields, as the parties opposing the stay, to rebut that prima facie showing … . Williams and Shields submitted evidence that the McRae vehicle was being repaired at the time of the accident, raising an issue of fact as to whether the McRae vehicle could have been involved in the accident. Since an issue of fact was raised, arbitration should be temporarily stayed, the putative hit-and-run parties joined as respondents, and a framed-issue hearing conducted, before a determination is made on that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 05660, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ ,

THE PURPORTED REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT TO REDUCE COVERAGE AFTER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS UNENFORCEABLE, THE INSURER IS LIABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the reformation of the insurance contract to reduce the bodily injury coverage limits from $250,000 to $80,000 was unenforceable because the change was made after the traffic accident occurred:

In December 2011, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when a vehicle in which he was a passenger was involved in a collision. At the time of the collision, the vehicle was driven by nonparty Douglas Giambrone and owned by nonparty Carol Giambrone (hereinafter together the Giambrones), and was insured by the defendant under a liability policy providing for bodily injury coverage up to $250,000 per person/$500,000 per occurrence. In May 2012, the plaintiff commenced an action against the Giambrones to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained in the accident. In August 2012, the defendant entered into an agreement with the Giambrones to reform the policy to reduce the bodily injury coverage to a single $80,000 limit. Thereafter, the Giambrones notified the plaintiff that the coverage limit applicable to the accident was $80,000. The plaintiff subsequently obtained a judgment against the Giambrones in the amount of $300,000 in the underlying personal injury action. …

An insurer may not retroactively reform a policy to reduce the stated bodily injury coverage limits after a loss caused by its insured occurs, even if the reduced limits still meet or exceed the statutory minimum (see Olivio v Government Empls. Ins. Co. of Washington, D.C., 46 AD2d 437, 443-445; Reliance Ins. Cos. v Daly, 38 AD2d 715, 716). … The plaintiff … demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the defendant is obligated to satisfy the first $250,000 of the judgment he obtained against the Giambrones.  McGuckin v Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 2019 NY Slip Op 05654, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ ,

ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was jogging when she tripped over a raised edge of a depression in the roadway. The defect was surrounded by orange markings:

The evidence demonstrated that [defendant] was in the process of restoring the excavated area in the location of the plaintiff’s accident and that the alleged defective condition measured approximately four-feet wide, eight-feet long, and at least one-inch deep. …

… A “condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted'”  … . Furthermore, “proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability . . . but is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence” … . “Thus, to obtain summary judgment, a defendant must establish that a condition was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . Finally … , the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action … . Karpel v National Grid Generation, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05651, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EXCUSE OFFERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

With regard to default judgments, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion.” The “one exception to the otherwise mandatory language of CPLR 3215(c) is that the failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint . . . may be excused if sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'”  … . “This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not offer any excuse for its failure to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment … for more than one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part  … . “Where, as here, a party moving for a default judgment beyond one year from the date of default fails to address any reasonable excuse for its untimeliness, courts may not excuse the lateness and shall’ dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Uddin, 2019 NY Slip Op 05649, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ , ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse and appellants’ motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he appellants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015(a) to vacate their default … . …

“A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court” … . “In making that discretionary determination, the court should consider relevant factors, such as the extent of the delay, prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the appellants set forth a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the centralized motion part of the Supreme Court on the return date of the plaintiff’s motion based on evidence of law office failure. In an affirmation, the appellants’ attorney explained that upon receiving the plaintiff’s motion, he directed his office’s legal assistant to note the return date of the motion on the office calendar, but that the return date had not been noted on the calendar. In addition, the appellants demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense based upon the statute of limitations. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Faragalla, 2019 NY Slip Op 05641, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ , , ,

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation concerning the alleged malpractice was deemed conclusory and therefore did not raise a question of fact. The informed consent cause of action was dismissed because the medical procedure was not the proximate cause of the claimed injuries:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff ” must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . ” The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury'” … . Here, the defendants established through their expert affirmation that the surgery performed … did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s claimed injuries … . Gilmore v Mihail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05647, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ , ,

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud cause of action should not have been granted. Supreme Court held the fraud action was duplicative of the breach of contract action:

“The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury” … . “Mere unfulfilled promissory statements as to what will be done in the future are not actionable as fraud and the injured party’s remedy is to sue for breach of contract” … . Where, however, it is alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations of present facts that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract, a cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement is not duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… [T]he cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The first cause of action alleges that the defendants knowingly made false representations in … financial statements, which were collateral to the APA [asset purchase agreement], that these false statements were made in order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the APA, that the plaintiff would not have entered into the APA but for these false statements, and that the plaintiff was injured by this fraudulent conduct …. As the first cause of action alleges misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the APA and further alleges that these misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the APA, the court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action. Did-it.com, LLC v Halo Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05644, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

/ , , ,

THE NOTICES OF CLAIM NOTIFIED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS ONLY OF THE DAMAGES RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD HER DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint against the municipal defendants could not be amended to assert a derivative cause of action by plaintiff’s decedent’s mother:

In September 2015, the decedent commenced this action against the City, the Port Authority, and another defendant, alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The decedent died on August 7, 2016. Subsequently, the decedent’s mother, Marilyn Conn (hereinafter Marilyn), as administrator of the decedent’s estate and individually, moved for leave to substitute herself as the plaintiff in place of the decedent. She also moved for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death on behalf of the decedent’s estate and, in effect, a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity. …

… [T]he notices of claim filed against the City and the Port Authority were limited to allegations that, as a result of the accident, the decedent was caused to sustain damages related to his “personal injuries, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and medical expenses.” Marilyn was not identified as a claimant in the caption of the notices of claim, she was not mentioned in the text of the notices of claim, and there were no allegations that she, individually, sustained any damages for which compensation was sought from the City or the Port Authority … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Marilyn’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to amend the complaint to assert a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity, against the City and the Port Authority. Since the City and the Port Authority were not given timely notice of Marilyn’s derivative claim, the court should not have allowed it to be asserted against them.  Conn v Tutor Perini Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05643, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

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