You are here: / PLAINTIFF SUED THE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, NOT THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, NOT THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH WAS THE PROPER PARTY, PLAINTIFF NEVER SERVED A NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE DISTRICT, THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action against the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company was properly dismissed and the proper party, the Coeymans Hollow Fire District #3, could not be sued because it was never served with a notice of claim. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when members of the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company evacuated her from her house during a fire call:

A volunteer fire company, such as defendant, “shall be under the control of the . . . fire district . . . having, by law, control over the prevention or extinguishment of fires therein” (N-PCL 1402 [e] [1]). Indeed, the Fire District was responsible for preventing and extinguishing fires within its jurisdiction and trained and supervised defendant’s members. Furthermore, when defendant’s members responded to the fire at [plaintiff’s] house, they acted under the direction of the Chief of the Fire District. Because defendant and the Fire District are separate entities and defendant does not exert control over its members, defendant cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of its members … . …

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant and the Fire District are so inextricably intertwined that timely service of the notice of claim upon defendant equates to timely service upon the Fire District. Furthermore, although defendant conducted an examination of [plaintiff] under General Municipal Law § 50-h, equitable estoppel does not preclude any claim that Roberts failed to serve the notice of claim upon the proper party … . We also note that, even though defendant was not obligated to inform Roberts that she failed to name the proper party … , defendant did so as an affirmative defense in its answer.

Plaintiff additionally contends that General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) permits deeming the notice of claim served upon defendant as being timely served upon the Fire District. We disagree. This savings provision is “limited in scope to defects in the manner of serving the notice of claim on the correct public entity” … . That said, plaintiff fails to identify, nor does the record disclose, any infirmities in the service of the notice of claim. More critically, before any defects in service can be overlooked, service on the proper party must be accomplished in the first instance … . Roberts v Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that 26 of the 37 sexual offense counts on which defendant was convicted must be reversed because they were rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony:

An indictment count is duplicitous when it charges more than one crime that is completed by a discrete act in the same count … . “Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented to the grand jury or at trial ‘makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . Thus, when “the trial testimony provides evidence of repeated acts that cannot be individually related to specific counts in the indictment, the prohibition against duplicitousness has been violated”  … . …

For example, counts 1 and 2 of the indictment used identical language to charge defendant with predatory sexual assault against a child on the ground that he committed the crime of criminal sexual assault in the first degree against victim 1 during the summer of 2006 … . Victim 1 testified that, during the summer of 2006 when he was 12 years old, defendant put his mouth on victim 1’s penis “[a]t least two times.” Likewise, counts 5 and 6 charged defendant with criminal sexual act in the second degree consisting of oral sexual conduct with victim 1 during the summer of 2007, counts 7 and 8 charged defendant with the commission of the same crime during the summer of 2008, counts 9 through 12 charged defendant with the commission of two counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree in each of the summers of 2009 and 2010, and count 13 charged defendant with the commission of sexual abuse in the second degree during the summer of 2006. Victim 1 testified that the charged conduct occurred at least twice during each of the specified time periods. He provided no further specifics about the frequency or timing of any particular act, and the prosecutor did not seek to distinguish among them by, for example, drawing victim 1’s attention to the first incident in one of the specified time periods and then asking him to describe that particular event … .  Likewise, the jury was given no instructions that distinguished between the counts pertaining to any of the time periods in a way that would have permitted it to relate each of the counts to a specific act … . People v Madsen, 2019 NY Slip Op 00003, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

/ ,

THE STATE ACTION ON A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEBT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON CLAIM PRECLUSION OR RES JUDICATA GROUNDS BASED UPON THE DISMISSAL OF A FEDERAL ACTION AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE STATE ACTION, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE STATE ACTION MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INTERVENE OR ASSIGN THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court determined that the dismissal of action in federal court to recover on a multi-million dollar notes did not preclude the state action on claim preclusion (res judicata) grounds. The opinion is fact-specific and too complicated to be fairly summarized here:

Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice on claim preclusion grounds, and denied the motion to amend as moot. The court found that plaintiffs herein should have intervened in the federal action, or assigned their claims to [the defendant in the federal action,] Varshavsky. The failure to do so was a “blatant misuse of the federal forum,” which resulted in a “stunning” amount of discovery, and several motions, which Supreme Court found were wasted because plaintiffs herein failed to use the federal forum to resolve all “claims aris[ing] from a common nucleus of operative facts.” * * *

The doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar plaintiffs’ claims herein. Varshavsky, the sole defendant in the federal action, was not himself the creditor of the subject loans and had no standing to assert a counterclaim for recovery of plaintiffs’ loans in that action. Plaintiffs’ putative rights to intervene as party defendants in the federal action, or to assign their claims to Varshavsky, are far from clear. Either option, intervention or assignment, might have been rejected by the federal court as an attempt to evade the strictures of diversity jurisdiction. Apart from the efficacy of these options, even if intervention or assignment were possible, there is no legal doctrine that would compel plaintiffs herein to litigate in the federal action. In short, plaintiffs herein, as nonparties to the federal litigation, are not precluded from asserting claims that no party in the federal litigation had standing to pursue. To hold otherwise would mean that a debtor may, by suing a creditor’s principal or associate, require the creditor to participate in the action or have its claims precluded. Avilon Auto. Group v Leontiev, 2019 NY Slip Op 00058, First Dept 1-3-19

 

/ ,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the plaintiff’s jury verdict (over $500,000) in this stairway slip and fall case and ordered a new trial, finding that plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about defects in the handrail because the trial evidence did not allege the handrail was a proximate cause of the fall. The First Department further held, without explanation, that the riser heights should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability:

… [D]efendants’ argument that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to charge the jury on theories that either riser heights or the handrail were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall, has merit… . Although plaintiff testified that it was her usual habit to hold a handrail while descending stairs, her testimony was equivocal on whether she held the handrail that day. Further, she testified that she did not attempt to reach for a handrail at the time of her fall, because the accident happened too fast. Nor did she provide any testimony connecting the handrail to her optical illusion theory. Thus, plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify that the handrail was a contributing cause of plaintiff’s fall, and the jury should not have been charged on the question whether the handrail was too short. Moreover, while the final step’s size may have helped contribute to plaintiff’s claim of optical illusion, the riser heights in the staircase should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability.

The trial court’s response to a jury note asking whether the building was “up to code” was incorrect in light of the prior summary judgment order. Rather than responding that there was no evidence that the code was either violated or complied with, the jury should have been informed that the building code was not applicable to the staircase. Landau v Balbona Rest. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00051, First Dept 1-3-19

EXPERT OPINION

/ ,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCAFFOLD TILTED OR COLLAPSED CAUSING EVERYTHING IN IT TO CRASH ONTO HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted:

Plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff Steven Kind was injured when one end of a scaffold that he and a coworker were using to wash exterior windows on a building dropped out from under him and the scaffold came to rest at an angle, causing everything in it to crash down on him. The tilting or collapse of the scaffold was prima facie evidence of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate a specific defect … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The conclusion of the Department of Labor investigator that the scaffold tilted because plaintiff and his coworker caused a safety line to become caught in a spool for the scaffold’s suspension cables was speculation unsupported by the evidence … . Furthermore, defendant Titanium Scaffold Services, Inc., which contracted to maintain the scaffold, was an agent for purposes of the Labor Law. Kind v 1177 Ave. of the Ams. Acquisitions, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00029, First Dept 1-3-19

 

/ , ,

THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine (CPLR 203(f)) allowed plaintiff, Polanco, to serve a supplemental summons and complaint against the employer of Elias-Tejada, the driver of the car in which plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger. The Elias-Tejada car stalled on a bridge and was struck from behind. Plaintiff (Polanco) did not learn until after the action was started that Elias-Tejada was paid by his employer, Fairway, to transport the other occupants of his car, all Fairway employees, to work. Plaintiff (Polanco) sought to add Fairway as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory and the First Department held he could do so:

The claims that Polanco seeks to assert against Fairway arise out of the same occurrence as alleged in the complaint against Elias-Tejada [and the other two defendant drivers]. … [W]e find that Polanco also satisfied the second condition, because under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his or her employment … . Based on Elias-Tejada’s employer/employee relationship with Fairway, they are united in interest because a judgment against one of them will similarly affect the other … . … [T]he Fairway defendants can, therefore, be charged as having notice of Polanco’s potential claims against them, based upon the claims asserted against Elias-Tejada in the original summons and complaint … . …

… Only later, after depositions were held, including those of a key Fairway employee and Elias-Tejada, did [plaintiff] learn that Fairway compensated Elias-Tejada for hosting the car pool and that this travel arrangement was condoned, if not actually implemented and encouraged, by Fairway’s human resources department because Fairway reimbursed him for tolls and mileage. Ramirez v Elias-Tejada, 2019 NY Slip Op 00021, First Dept  1-3-19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

/

LAWSUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined summary judgment dismissing the action brought by the Center for Judicial Accountability was properly granted:

… [P]laintiff Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (hereinafter CJA) and plaintiff Elena Ruth Sassower, CJA’s director, commenced this action seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the bill establishing the budgets for the Legislature and the Judiciary for the 2016-2017 fiscal year … was unconstitutional and also seeking an injunction permanently enjoining respondents from making certain disbursements under the bill, including judicial salary increases. * * *

… Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action … which alleged that the enabling statute that created the Commission [Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation] is facially unconstitutional with respect to judicial compensation. Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v Cuomo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08996, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

/

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE AND UPHELD THE DENIAL OF PAROLE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that petitioner’s request to be released on parole was properly denied. The majority held that community opposition to release is a factor to be considered. The dissenters argued that community opposition is not included in the statutory factors to be considered:

By statutorily protecting the confidentiality of those members of the community — in addition to the crime victim or victim’s representative — who choose to express their opinion, either for or against, an inmate’s bid to obtain parole release, the Legislature demonstrated a clear intent that such opinions are a factor that may be considered by respondent in rendering its ultimate parole release decision. Significantly, such statements and opinions are germane to respondent’s determination as to whether an inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, whether such release is compatible with the welfare of society and whether an inmate’s release will deprecate the seriousness of the underlying crime as to undermine respect for the law — statutory factors that respondent must consider in rendering its parole release determinations (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A] …).

From the Dissent: Respondent based its denial of petitioner’s parole, in part, on “consistent community opposition” — an element that is not among the factors that the Legislature directed respondent to consider in making parole release determinations (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Although the majority’s approach may have some practical appeal, we are bound by the governing law. It is well established that respondent may not rely upon factors outside the scope of Executive Law § 259-i in making decisions concerning parole release … . Matter of Applewhite v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2018 NY Slip Op 08989, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND AN UNRELATED ROBBERY WHICH WERE CHARGED IN A SINGLE INDICTMENT, AFTER A MAN CONFESSED TO THE MURDER, CLAIMANT’S MURDER CONVICTION WAS VACATED BUT THE ROBBERY CONVICTION REMAINED, REVERSING THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE THIRD DEPT DETERMINED CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE UNJUST MURDER CONVICTION AND RELATED IMPRISONMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined that claimant was entitled to compensation based upon his unjust conviction and imprisonment. Claimant’s murder conviction was vacated after another man confessed to the murder. Claimant had been charged with an unrelated robbery and the murder and robbery charges were joined in a single indictment. At the time the murder conviction was vacated, defendant pled guilty to the robbery. The state contended that the guilty plea to robbery precluded the claimant from compensation for the unjust murder conviction based upon the wording of the statute. The Third Department disagreed and interpreted the statute to allow compensation:

Court of Claims Act § 8-b allows individuals who are unjustly convicted and imprisoned to recover damages from defendant. To avoid dismissal of his claim, claimant was required to establish, as relevant here, that “he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument” … . Claimant admitted that he committed acts charged in the indictment when he pleaded guilty to first degree robbery; however, he argues that the term “accusatory instrument” must be construed as applying only to the murder charges because they arose from an event that had no connection to the robbery. * * *

The term “accusatory instrument” could be literally construed to refer to the single indictment that charged claimant with crimes that arose from both events — the robbery and the subsequent murder. However, that conclusion must be measured against the intent of the legislation plainly expressed in the statute, which states that “[t]he [L]egislature finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue of redress over and above the existing tort remedies to seek compensation for damages. The [L]egislature intends by enactment of the provisions of this section that those innocent persons who can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they were unjustly convicted and imprisoned be able to recover damages against [defendant]” … . Hence, “the linchpin of the statute is innocence” … . …

Under the unique facts of this case, a literal interpretation of “accusatory instrument” would lead to an unreasonable result starkly at odds with the clearly-expressed intent of the statute by denying recovery to claimant — who is indisputably innocent of the murder for which he was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned — solely because the charges arising from events now known to be unrelated were joined in a single indictment. Jones v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08985, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

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