You are here: / FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING...

Search Results

/ ,

FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, determined the Tramadol pills possessed by the inmate defendant did not constitute dangerous contraband, requiring a reduction of the conviction from promoting prison contraband first degree to second degree. The Fourth Department disagreed with the cases from other departments which held small amounts of drugs to constituted dangerous contraband:

The Court of Appeals in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2008]) considered the unrelated prosecutions of two inmates for promoting and attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, both involving small amounts of marihuana. The Court pronounced the test for courts to apply: “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” (id. at 657). * * *

We recognize that, after Finley was decided, some courts have considered cases involving the possession of drugs other than marihuana and have concluded that the possessed drugs were dangerous contraband on what may be viewed as less “specific, competent proof” of a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats … . For example, testimony that the defendants were engaged in drug trafficking has been held to be sufficient to establish that there was dangerous contraband (see e.g. People v Ariosa, 100 AD3d 1264, 1265-1266 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Cooper, 67 AD3d 1254, 1256-1257 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 799 [2010]). We disagree with those cases to the extent that they do not focus on the dangerousness of the use of the particular drug at issue, but instead focus on broad concerns that could involve any sort of contraband, such as alcohol, cigarettes or other items that are not dangerous in themselves … . People v Flagg, 2018 NY Slip Op 07849, Fourth Dept (11-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/DANGEROUS CONTRABAND (CRIMINAL LAW, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/INMATES (CRIMINAL LAW, CONTRABAND, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRABAND (CRIMINAL LAW, INMATES, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined two evidentiary errors deprived defendant of a fair trial. Defendant was precluded from presenting evidence of a witness’s motive to lie, and the evidence of prompt outcry should not have included the identity of the assailant:

It is well settled that ” [t]he right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations’ “… . “It is also well settled that in presenting the defense, counsel for the defendant may establish, during both cross[-]examination and on [defendant’s] direct case, the [complainant’s] . . . motive to lie . . . This is not a collateral inquiry, but is directly probative on the issue of credibility’ ” … , “the excluded evidence was not speculative . . . or cumulative . . . , as it went directly to the credibility of the complainant[, and] the defense counsel offered a good faith basis for the excluded line of questioning [and evidence].” “Because it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict, the error cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal therefore is required” … .

Defendant also correctly contends that the court erred in permitting the People to present prompt outcry testimony that exceeded the proper scope of such testimony. Although “evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place” … , such evidence is limited to “only the fact of a complaint, not its accompanying details,” including the identity of the assailant … . We thus conclude that the court erred in permitting two of the three prompt outcry witnesses to testify concerning the identity of the alleged assailant … .

We thus conclude that either error, alone, would justify reversal and that the cumulative effect of the errors denied defendant a fair trial … . People v Vo, 2018 NY Slip Op 07909, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/LIE, MOTIVE TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROMPT OUTCRY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, PROMPT OUTCRY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PROMPT OUTCRY,  DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court’s custody ruling because the ruling was not supported by factual findings. The matter was remitted:

It is “well established that the court is obligated to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” (…see CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a]). Here, the court utterly failed to follow that well-established rule inasmuch as it made no findings to support its determination. “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the mother’s petition, and remit the matter to Family Court to make a determination on the petitions, including specific findings as to a change in circumstances and the best interests of the child, following an additional hearing if necessary … . Matter of Brown v Orr, 2018 NY Slip Op 07905, Fourth Dept 11-16-28

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this snowplow traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant alleged the plow blade was in his lane, but there was evidence the road markings were covered with snow:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts all vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’—including [snowplows]—from the rules of the road” … . Here, defendants established as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the incident… , and plaintiff’s evidence that the plow blade was up at the time of the accident did not raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that Farr [the snowplow driver] was “working his run or beat at the time of the accident” … . …

At most, plaintiff established that Farr did not see plaintiff’s vehicle and that a portion of the snowplow crossed the center line of the road, which does not amount to recklessness. Moreover, plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence that Farr’s operation of the snowplow without either a “wing man” or certification to operate the snowplow without a wing man was reckless. Finally, while plaintiff and Farr provided different versions of the accident, those differences alone do not create a question of fact on the issue of reckless disregard here … . Clark v Town of Lyonsdale, 2018 NY Slip Op 07870. Fourth Dept 11-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SNOWPLOWS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOWPLOWS (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, SNOWPLOWS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, SNOWPLOWS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this police-car traffic accident case should have been granted because the officer’s actions did not rise to the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic La 1104. Plaintiff was behind the police car when the officer made an abrupt u-turn to pursue a suspect in a domestic incident. There was evidence the officer did not activate the emergency lights until after the collision:

Before [the officer] attempted the U-turn, he checked his driver’s side and rearview mirrors, turned his head, and saw no vehicles behind him. …

We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “[T]he reckless disregard standard of care . . . applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b)” … . When the accident occurred, Baldwin was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” (§ 1104 [a]), and he “was engaged in an emergency operation by virtue of the fact that he was attempting a U-turn in order to pursu[e] an actual or suspected violator of the law’ ” … . Thus, Baldwin’s conduct was exempted from the rules of the road by section 1104 (b) (4) and is governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in section 1104 (e) … .

A ” momentary judgment lapse’ does not alone rise to the level of recklessness required of the driver of an emergency vehicle in order for liability to attach” … . In support of their motion, defendants submitted evidence of the precautions Baldwin took before he attempted the U-turn and established as a matter of law that Baldwin’s conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others, i.e., “he did not act with conscious indifference’ to the consequences of his actions” … .  Flood v City of Syracuse, 2018 NY Slip Op 07869, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/

NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly ruled that the guidelines for back pain treatment applied to claimant in Nevada. Claimant qualified for benefits in New York in 1996 and moved to Nevada in 2005:

… [W]e disagree with claimant that the Board impermissibly departed from its earlier decisions, as the Board acknowledged such a departure in its May 2017 decision and articulated its reasons for doing so … . Moreover, we find that the Board’s decision to depart from its prior decisions and apply the guidelines to the out-of-state treatment received by claimant in this case was rational. “The Board has the authority to promulgate medical treatment guidelines defining the nature and scope of necessary treatment” … .. “An agency’s construction of its statutes and regulations will be upheld if rational and reasonable” … . …

There is no dispute that claimant, who was injured in New York but has since moved to Nevada, is entitled to continue to receive medical treatment from qualified physicians in her new state and that the employer remains liable for the reasonable value of necessary medical treatment from qualified physicians in her new state … . In our view, the plain language of the regulations governing the guidelines do not limit their applicability to such medical treatment provided to claimants in other states, and a “treating medical provider” includes “any physician, podiatrist, chiropractor or psychologist that is providing treatment and care to an injured worker pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law” without regard to, or limitation of, geographic location … . Consistent with the regulations, the guidelines also state that “[a]ny medical providerrendering services to a workers’ compensation patient must utilize the . . . [g]uidelines as provided for with respect to all work-related injuries and/or illnesses” … . Matter of Gasparro v Hospice of Dutchess County, 2018 NY Slip Op 07815, Third Dept 11-15-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s injuries did not arise out of his employment. Claimant, a farm worker, used his employer’s ATV to go across the street to where his girlfriend was moving into a house. There was evidence he may have drunk beer, which was prohibited by his employer. When crossing the street to return to the farm claimant was struck by a vehicle and injured:

Regardless of whether claimant was permitted to use the employer’s ATV or to take a break and leave the farm for a brief period of time before returning to work, the employer’s testimony makes clear that consuming alcohol on the job was not a permitted, acceptable or customary deviation from claimant’s employment … . As the record as a whole provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was engaged in an impermissible deviation from his employment at the time of his accident, his resulting injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and, therefore, are not compensable … . Matter of Button v Button, 2018 NY Slip Op 07809, Third Dept 11-15-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

/

LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a limousine driver for XYZ was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

XYZ imposed rules “regarding every aspect of claimant’s performance” and thereby “exercised control over the results produced [and, more importantly,] the means used” to service XYZ’s clients … . While XYZ was obligated to comply with the rules governing the for-hire car service industry established by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the testimony and a comparative review of the rules together established that XYZ’s rules were significantly more specific and detailed or involved interpretations that often went well beyond the Commission’s rules … . Indeed, an officer of XYZ explained that these additional specific requirements were designed “to satisfy the customer expectation.” Thus, as we have consistently done in similar cases, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual determination that claimant was an employee of XYZ, despite the existence of evidence that might support a contrary conclusion … . Matter of Jung Yen Tsai (XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 07807, Third Dept 11-15-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging certain payments made in connection with refinancing multi-million dollar loans were unenforceable penalties and were paid under duress. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The central issue was whether the voluntary payment of the charges in question without protest, i.e., the voluntary payment doctrine, warranted dismissal of the complaint. The issues were described as follows:

The relative sophistication of the parties is not a factor to be considered in assessing a claim of economic duress … . Economic duress exists where a party is compelled to agree to terms set by another party because of a wrongful threat by the other party that prevents it from exercising its free will. Accordingly, our analysis consists of two prongs: first, whether Blackrock’s [defendant’s] decision to demand the late charge and extra interest payment was lawful, that is, based on rights enumerated in the agreement; and second, if it was not, whether the demand placed plaintiff in a position such that it had no other choice but to accede. With respect to the first prong, Blackrock [argues] that, because the mezzanine loan agreement is part of the record, we can decide, even at this procedural posture, that, as a matter of law, the charges were not wrongful. … Defendant argues that … the agreement plainly establishes that it had the right to make the demand it did. Plaintiff, in contrast, asserts that the late charge provision is, at the very least, ambiguous with respect to how Blackrock was to calculate the charge, and that, even if the calculation was correct, it constitutes an unenforceable penalty. Beltway 7 & Props., Ltd. v Blackrock Realty Advisers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07844, First Dept 11-15-18

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))/VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTRACT LAW, (VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT))

/ , ,

MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the criteria for prior restraint of speech were not met in this action to impose a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting the publishing of accusations against plaintiff and offensive images on defendants’ website:

Plaintiff, a law professor, sat on the appellate panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) that affirmed the lifetime ban imposed on two stockbrokers, nonparties Talman Harris and William Scholander. Defendants allegedly control a website known as TheBlot, a tabloid-style platform that has published a substantial quantity of material attacking FINRA’s ban of Harris and Scholander and the FINRA personnel, including plaintiff, who were involved in adjudicating that case. The attacks on plaintiff have included — in addition to name-calling, ridicule and various scurrilous accusations — juxtapositions of plaintiff’s likeness to graphic images of the lynching of African Americans, and statements that the banning of Harris, who is African American, constituted a “lynching.”

In this action, plaintiff, who is also African American, seeks, as here relevant, an injunction against the posting on TheBlot of material attacking or libeling him. In this regard, he argues that the lynching images posted alongside photographs of him on TheBlot should be understood as a threat of violence against himself. …

… [T]he preliminary injunction can be affirmed only if it enjoins a “true threat” against plaintiff … . We find, however, that the speech at issue, as offensive as it is, cannot reasonably be construed as truly threatening or inciting violence against plaintiff. Rather, the lynching imagery at issue was plainly intended to draw a grotesque analogy between lynching and FINRA’s banning of Harris, who is an African American (and is identified as such in the posts) … . While this analogy is incendiary and highly inappropriate, plaintiff has not established that any reasonable viewer would have understood the posts as threatening or calling for violence against him. Moreover, even if the posts could reasonably be construed as advocating unlawful conduct, plaintiff has not established that any “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” … . Brummer v Wey, 2018 NY Slip Op 07843, First Dept 11-15-18

DEFAMATION (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT, MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (PRIOR RESTRAINT, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIOR RESTRAINT (FREE SPEECH, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

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