You are here: / INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER...

Search Results

/ , , ,

INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (GEICO) had waived the contractual issue whether petitioner was a “qualified person” entitled to uninsured motorist benefits in this hit and run accident by not moving to stay arbitration. Therefore the arbitrator exceeded his powers in finding petitioner was not a “qualified person” because he was not a passenger in the car at the time of the accident. The matter was remitted to be heard by another arbitrator to determine whether petitioner suffered “serious injury:”

…[T]he issue presented to the arbitrator was whether the claimants, the petitioner and his girlfriend, sustained serious injuries as a result of the negligence of the operator of the hit-and-run vehicle, and if so, the reasonable compensatory value thereof. With a hit-and-run cause of action, in order to proceed to arbitration, there must be “physical contact” by a hit-and-run vehicle to a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5217). Accordingly, the determination of whether the petitioner is a “qualified person” pursuant to the policy is a condition precedent to arbitration and therefore is a basis for an application to stay arbitration to be determined by the courts … . Here, since GEICO never moved to stay the arbitration, it waived the ability to litigate this issue and essentially conceded that the petitioner was a covered person under the policy … . Matter of Banegas v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 08644, Second Dept 12-19-18

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

/ ,

FAMILY COURT’S TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MOTHER WAS DEALING WITH HER MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG PROBLEMS AND THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN WERE BEING ADDRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof requirements for the termination of parental rights were not met:

To establish that a parent has permanently neglected a child, an agency must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent “failed for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out of the most recent twenty-two months following the date such child came into the care of an authorized agency substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child” (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]).

… The mother testified that she complied with all of the requirements that were communicated to her in order for the children to be returned to her care. According to the mother, these requirements included visiting with the children regularly, undergoing multiple mental health evaluations, consistently participating in mental health treatment, undergoing drug testing, completing parenting skills classes, visiting the children’s school as much as allowed, and keeping up with the children’s health status. The case files … generally supported the mother’s testimony … .

In light of the petitioner’s failure to adduce other evidence beyond the mother’s own testimony as to the initial reasons for the children’s removal from her care, the significance of the mother’s mental health diagnosis, or the significance of the special needs diagnoses of the children, there was no basis for a determination that the mother’s testimony on these subjects demonstrated a failure “to take such steps as may be necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child[ren] within a period of time which is reasonable under the financial circumstances available to the parent” … . Matter of Jaylen R.B. (Lisa G.)2018 NY Slip Op 08643, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER REQUESTED INVOICES IN DISCOVERY WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, BUT PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE INVOICES AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that requested invoices which were alleged not to exist could not be the subject of evidence at trial:

Durante’s affidavit demonstrated that the requested invoices of Croton could not be located and that the invoices of Iron Age were not in the respondents’ possession or control … . Under the circumstances of this case, there was no clear showing that the respondents’ failure to produce the invoices was willful and contumacious, since, inter alia, the respondents complied, albeit tardily, with the appellants’ discovery demands and demonstrated that the invoices requested could not be located, or were not in their possession or control (see CPLR 3101[d][2] … ). Nevertheless, the respondents should have been precluded from later offering evidence regarding the requested invoices of Croton that were not produced … . Accordingly, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to preclude the respondents from introducing at trial evidence of the requested invoices of Croton that were not provided should have been granted. Cap Rents Supply, LLC v Durante, 2018 NY Slip Op 08458, Second Dept 12-12-18

SPOLIATION

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEBRIS IN A WALKWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYCRR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE FALL OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE ENTRANCE TO A SHANTY, THE NYCRR PROVISION WHICH PERTAINS TO PASSAGEWAYS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, modifying Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the applicability of certain provisions of the New York Code Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) to plaintiff’s accident in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action. Plaintiff slipped and fell on snow covered pipes near the entrance to the employer’s work site shanty. The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1,7(d) should not have dismissed because there is a question of fact whether the slip and fall occurred in a “walkway.” The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), which deals with “passageways” as opposed to “walkways,” was properly dismissed:

The Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) should not have been dismissed because there was an issue of fact as to whether the accident occurred in a walkway. There were conflicting accounts of whether the pipes were located in a manner that impeded ingress and egress into the shanty. …

… .[I]n contrast to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) which pertains to slipping hazards on a “floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface,” 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) is limited to passageways. A “passageway” is commonly defined and understood to be “a typically long narrow way connecting parts of a building” and synonyms include the words corridor or hallway … . In other words, it pertains to an interior or internal way of passage inside a building. Quigley v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 08577, First Dept 12-13-18

 

/ , ,

CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have transferred custody to father and suspended all contact between the child and mother for a year without conducting a hearing. The First Department further held that the judge should not have, sua sponte, prohibited mother from filing future petitions for custody or visitation without leave of court because no party requested that relief:

… [T]he court erred when, without holding an evidentiary hearing, it made a final order transferring physical and legal custody to the father and suspending all contact between the mother and the child for a year. Determination of the child’s best interests requires examination of the totality of the circumstances … . We have consistently held that “an evidentiary hearing is necessary before a court modifies a prior order of custody or visitation,” even where the court is familiar with the parties and child, and particularly where there are facts in dispute … . Furthermore, while we have stated that a hearing on modification of a custody arrangement in the child’s best interests “may be as abbreviated, in the court’s broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant. . . ,’ it must include an opportunity for both sides, and the children’s attorney when there is one, to present their respective cases, and the factual underpinnings of any temporary order [must be] made clear on the record'” … .

Here, the court made a final determination without taking any testimony or entering any documents into evidence. The court’s reliance on statements made by the ACS caseworker during a court conference was inappropriate, since the mother’s attorney had requested, but was denied, a full hearing at which counsel could have cross-examined the caseworker. Matter of Michael G. v Katherine C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08568, First Dept 12-13-18

 

/ , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There exist questions of fact on whether plaintiff has standing and whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was served:

The borrower raised a meritorious standing defense based on questions as to the sufficiency of the content of the conclusory lost note affidavit, which does not state that a thorough and diligent search was made based on a review of the business records or anything else, does not state that any search was made or by whom, and does nothing to indicate when approximately the note was lost … .

The borrower also raised a plausible notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . AS Helios LLC v Chauhan, 2018 NY Slip Op 08565, First Dept 12-13-18

 

/

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division, holding that County Court should not have empaneled an anonymous jury:

The trial court committed reversible error by empaneling an anonymous jury. Assuming that trial courts may, under certain circumstances, anonymize jurors, here County Court acted without any factual predicate for the extraordinary procedure. Indeed, the trial court expressly based its decision to empanel an anonymous jury on anecdotal accounts from jurors in unrelated cases and, then, exacerbated the error by taking “no steps to lessen the potential prejudice” to defendants … . People v Flores, 2018 NY Slip Op 08540, CtApp 12-13-18

 

/

PETITIONER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE UNAUTHORIZED MEDICATION WAS FOUND IN HIS CELL, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that the determination petitioner was guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled because petitioner may not have been afforded his right to be present when the pill was discovered:

… [T]he part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled as the record reflects that petitioner may not have been afforded his conditional right to observe that portion of the cell search that resulted in the pill being discovered. As such, the determination must be annulled to that extent and all references to the charge of possessing unauthorized medication must be expunged from his institutional record … . Matter of Torres v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 08595, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

/

LARGE CELLULAR DATA TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT OWNED BY T-MOBILE IS TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 102 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that certain large cellular data transmission equipment owned by T-Moblle is taxable real property subject to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 102 (12) (i):

T-Mobile owns large cellular data transmission equipment that it has installed on the exterior of buildings in Mount Vernon. The installations — which are large enough to require the use of “stealth walls” that shield them from view — consist of multiple pieces of interconnected equipment, including base transceiver stations (essentially cabinets housing wiring and providing battery power); antennas that transmit and receive the signals; and coaxial, T-1, and fiber optic cables running amongst the other components. T-Mobile enters multi-year leases with the owners of the buildings to enable it to occupy the exterior space on the buildings for installation of the equipment. * * *

Under the RPTL, all “real property within the state” is subject to real property taxation unless otherwise exempt by law (see RPTL 300). “Real property” is defined under subdivision (12) of RPTL 102. Under RPTL 102(12)(i), that term includes: “When owned by other than a telephone company as such term is defined in paragraph (d) hereof, all lines, wires, poles, supports and inclosures for electrical conductors upon, above and underground used in connection with the transmission or switching of electromagnetic voice, video and data signals between different entities separated by air, street or other public domain . . . .” … . …

The plain language of paragraph i encompasses each component of T-Mobile’s data transmission equipment, which consists of base transceiver stations; antennas; and coaxial, T-1, and fiber optic cables. The base transceiver stations are essentially cabinets that house cables and other electrical components and provide battery power, so they qualify as “inclosures for electrical conductors.” The large rectangular antennas are part of the base transceiver stations and, thus, also “inclosures for electrical conductors.” The various cables in the installations are “lines” and/or “wires” under the plain text of the statute. Because the primary function of the equipment installations is to transmit cellular data, the components are “used in connection with the transmission or switching of electromagnetic voice, video and data signals between different entities separated by air, street or other public domain,” as required by the statute. Thus, although ambiguities in tax statutes are generally resolved in favor of the taxpayer (… , that doctrine is not implicated here because the plain text of RPTL 102(12)(i) unambiguously indicates that T-Mobile’s equipment installations are taxable real property. Matter of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v DeBellis, 2018 NY Slip Op 08539, CtApp 12-13-18

CELL PHONE COMPANIES, CELL TOWERS

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER WHO KILLED A BICYCLIST WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES IS LIABLE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT (1) THE EMPLOYER’S SPECIAL USE OF THE AREA WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, (2) A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EMPLOYEE (MASTER-SERVANT) GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO CONTROL THE EMPLOYEE, AND (3) PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether the employer (BorgWarner) of the driver who killed a bicyclist (plaintiff’s decedent) while exiting the employer’s premises was liable. There was a question whether the employer exercised a special use of the area, whether the employer had a duty to control the conduct of the employee because of a special relationship (master-servant), and whether the employer’s acts or omissions constituted a proximate cause of the accident:

A finding of a special use arises where there is a modification to the public sidewalk, such as the installation of a driveway, or a variance of the sidewalk to allow for ingress and egress… , that was “constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner or occupier” … . The owner must derive a “unique benefit unrelated to the public use” … . Contrary to BorgWarner’s claims that it uses Warren Road in the same manner as the general public, there was substantial evidence in the record, submitted by plaintiff, suggesting that the public roadway in question had been altered for the exclusive benefit of BorgWarner to facilitate its relocation. …

… [A] duty may be created to control the conduct of a person when a special relationship exists, such as master-servant … . Here, not only did BorgWarner control the flow of traffic from its private parking lot at the south exit via a control gate, but BorgWarner also placed a yield sign on BorgWarner South Drive for motorists entering the merge lane on Warren Road. Also, as an employer, BorgWarner had the opportunity to conduct training or communicate in some way to its employees to use due caution and follow traffic laws when using the south exit. In fact, BorgWarner did provide training programs, including obeying traffic signs, however, none were specific to the use of the south exit. This evidence raises a question of fact as to the extent of BorgWarner’s control over its employees and whether this control is sufficient to establish a duty… .Further, although it is true that, at the time of the accident, [the employee] had completed her shift and was going home, activity arguably outside the scope of her employment, exiting the facility was also “necessary or incidental to such employment,” and her actions were still controlled in part by the gate and signage installed by BorgWarner … . Giannelis v Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08593, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

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