You are here: / DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION...

Search Results

/ , , ,

DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof of damages stemming from the alleged breach of a home improvement contract, and the restitution and punitive damages awards were improper. The statutory General Business Law awards, including attorney’s fees, were applicable:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving damages for breach of contract. The appropriate measure of damages for breach of a home improvement contract by the contractor for defective construction is the cost to repair the defects … , as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Here, the plaintiff did not proffer competent evidence to establish her costs to repair the defendants’ defective work as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Accordingly, the damages award in the sum of $9,358.96 for breach of contract must be set aside.

We also agree with the defendants that the jury improperly awarded the sum of $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, representing the total sum paid by the plaintiff under the home improvement contract before the defendants abandoned the project, since restitution damages are not provided for under that statute … .

Further, we agree with the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages. Although the jury found that the defendants were liable for breach of contract, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was egregious, directed toward the plaintiff, and part of a pattern directed at the public … . Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff’s case rested on allegations of fraud, she failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was so gross, wanton, or willful, or of such high moral culpability, as to justify an award of punitive damages … . Crippen v Adamao2018 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 10-31-18

CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action were property dismissed. Although defendant (Domnitser) may not have intended to strike plaintiff in an altercation with others, the complaint alleged only intentional conduct by the defendant:

Although “the same act may constitute battery or negligence depending on whether or not it was intentional, . . . there cannot be recovery for both”… . As such, “if the only inference that may be drawn from plaintiff’s evidence is that defendant’s contact with plaintiff was intentional, plaintiff may recover only in battery and the issue of negligence should not be submitted to the jury”. Accordingly, “[o]nce intentional offensive contact has been established, the actor is liable for battery, not negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of Domnitser’s intentional acts which were directed toward third parties during the physical altercation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, even if Domnitser lacked any intent to make physical contact with, or otherwise injure, the plaintiff, the conduct attributed to Domnitser in the amended complaint, even as amplified by the plaintiff’s affidavit, constituted intentional, rather than negligent, conduct … . …

“A cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires a plaintiff to show a breach of a duty owed to him [or her] which unreasonably endangered his [or her] physical safety, or caused him [or her] to fear for his [or her] own safety” … . A negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action “must fail where, as here, [n]o allegations of negligence appear in the pleadings'” … . Borrerro v Haks Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07282, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NEGLIGENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case should have been granted. Infant plaintiff, Deb B, a special education student, alleged she was sexually assaulted by another special education student outside the school building before classes started. Deb B.’s education plan did not provide for a school aide to escort her to school from the bus or between classes:

After arriving at school one morning, she entered the building in the company of JG, another special education student who had been a passenger with her on the same school bus. After stopping by the school’s cafeteria, and before the first-period class, JG asked Deb B. to accompany him outside the school building to the bleachers near the athletic field, and Deb B. agreed to do so. Deb B. alleges that JG then sexually assaulted her while they were on the bleachers. …

“Under the doctrine that a school district acts in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty’ to the students themselves” … . Thus, schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “Schools are not, however, insurers of students’ safety and cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students'” … . “The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information” … . …

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted evidence that Deb B.’s individualized education plan did not provide for a school aide to escort her from the school bus to the school building or to escort her throughout the building as she moved between classes. Deb B.’s mother testified that she was aware that Deb B. was not so escorted, and that she had no expectation that this would be done. The evidence submitted by the defendants also indicated that Deb B. had no history of leaving the school building improperly. Finally, neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars alleged that JG had a propensity to engage in dangerous conduct, or that the defendants knew or should have known of any such propensity … . Deb B. v Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 07280, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))

/

MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the denial of a cross motion as untimely was improper because plaintiff did not mail the motion papers 21 days before the return date:

The plaintiff served its motion by regular mail on March 17, 2016, with a return date of April 6, 2016. In order to make effective its demand for seven days’ notice of answering papers or a cross motion (see CPLR 2214[b]; CPLR 2215), the plaintiff was required to have mailed its motion papers at least 21 days prior to the return date (seeCPLR 2103[b][2]; CPLR 2214[b]… ). The plaintiff mailed its motion papers only 20 days before the return date. Thus, the cross motion, which was served six days before the return date, was timely (see CPLR 2215). Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP v Mandel, 2018 NY Slip Op 07349, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CROSS MOTIONS (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2013, 2014, 2015 (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed the counts of the sexual-offense indictment which were rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence. The counts alleging sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was 13 were not duplicitous on the face of the indictment, but the complainant testified sexual intercourse occurred at least 20 times during each month alleged in the relevant counts. The convictions for the counts where the complainant testified only one act occurred were upheld:

Counts 28 through 47 and counts 49 through 58 of the indictment are valid on their face. However, at trial, the complainant testified that when she was 13 years old, the then 26-year-old defendant had sexual intercourse with her and engaged in oral sex with her at least 20 times per month, i.e., at least 20 times during the one-month period encompassed by each of those counts. Thus, the complainant’s testimony demonstrated that each of those counts was premised upon multiple acts of rape and criminal sexual act, and they are, therefore, void for duplicitousness … . Accordingly, we vacate the convictions of rape in the second degree under counts 28 through 47 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the second degree under counts 49 through 58 of the indictment, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and dismiss those counts in the indictment.

The defendant was also charged under count 27 of the indictment with committing rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30[1]) by, being 18 years old or more, engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with a person less than 15 years old between March 11, 2011, and March 31, 2011. Count 48 of the indictment charged the defendant with committing criminal sexual act in the second degree …  by, being 18 years old or more, engaging in oral sexual conduct with a person less than 15 years old between March 11, 2011, and March 31, 2011.

Where a crime, such as rape or criminal sexual act, “is made out by the commission of one act, that act must be the only offense alleged in the count” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, counts 27 and 48 of the indictment were not duplicitous on their face, since they each charged the defendant with a single act … . Further, since the complainant testified at trial that a single act of rape and a single oral sexual act occurred during the period of March 11, 2011, to March 31, 2011, acts which formed the basis of counts 27 and 48 of the indictment, these counts are not duplicitous … . People v Gerardi, 2018 NY Slip Op 07325, Second Dept 10-31-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS,  TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/DUPLICITOUS INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/RAPE (DUPLICITOUS INDICTMENT, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))

/

COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the company which hired plaintiff’s employer, New York Plumbing, and the property owner,, Park Plaza, were liable for plaintiff’s fall, pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). New York Plumbing was liable because it had the authority to supervise plaintiff’s work, even if it did not exercise that authority. Park Plaza was not entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against New York Plumbing because it did not demonstrated New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff fell from the top of a temporary oil storage tank which was being emptied and cleaned:

Contrary to New York Plumbing’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that New York Plumbing had the authority to exercise control over the plaintiff’s work, even if it did not actually do so, and that New York Plumbing was therefore a proper defendant under the Labor Law … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) when he was injured … .

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the Park Plaza defendants [the property owner] and New York Plumbing. The plaintiff submitted evidence that he fell from a 12-to 16-foot high surface, and that he had not been provided with safety devices to protect him from such a fall … . …

The plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) … . The Park Plaza defendants and New York Plumbing failed to establish, prima facie, that a slippery condition on the oil tank was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall … .

Finally, the Park Plaza defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cross claim for common-law indemnification against New York Plumbing, as their submissions did not establish, prima facie, that New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over the plaintiff’s work … . Padilla v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07317, Second Dept 10-31-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined (1) defendant should have been allowed to present expert evidence of the cross-race effect on the ability of a witness to identify a defendant, and (2) the request to instruct the jury on the cross-race effect should have been granted. The First Department further held that the new (2017) cross-racial identification rule should be applied cases like this one, where the rule was announced while the direct appeal was pending:

The court should have permitted defendant to introduce expert testimony to the effect that witnesses are less likely to accurately identify persons of other racial groups than persons of their own race … . The case turned on the accuracy of the victim’s cross-racial identification of defendant, and there was no corroborating evidence connecting defendant to the crime. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the identification did not render it so reliable as to justify precluding expert testimony. The expert testimony produced during the Frye hearing sufficiently established that the cross-race effect has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The People do not dispute that this phenomenon applies to identifications of certain racial groups. Moreover it can be deduced from the expert testimony that the cross-race effect applies to all racial groups.

The court should also have granted defendant’s explicit request for a jury instruction on cross-racial identification. Initially, we reject the People’s argument that defendant failed to preserve this issue.

People v Boone (30 NY3d 521, 535-536 [2017]), which requires that a jury charge on the cross-race effect be given on request, should be applied retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal. Boone plainly announces a new rule, and that rule is plainly based on state rather than federal law. Accordingly, its application to cases pending on appeal is not automatic, but depends on a balancing of the three factors set forth in the Mitchell-Pepper test … .

As to the first factor (the purpose of the rule), “standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence will be applied retroactively, but decisions which are only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial apply prospectively only” … . Here, cross-racial identification instructions go to the fact-finding process, and are essential to a reliable determination of guilt or innocence… . Thus, the first factor favors retroactive application.

As to the second factor (extent of reliance on the old rule), the People cite a number of cases showing that courts have relied on the pre-Boone rule in declining to give a charge on cross-racial identification, in the exercise of discretion. This favors prospective application of the rule, but we do not find that it outweighs the other factors.

As to the third factor (effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application), retroactive application of Boone would not significantly affect the administration of justice. A limited number of cases turn on the accuracy of single-witness, cross-racial identifications, and the particular evidence could render a failure to give a cross-racial identification charge harmless. Moreover, the rule in Boone is expressly limited to cases where the charge has been requested … , and the fact that Boone had not yet been decided at the time of a particular trial would not provide an exemption from the requirement of a timely request … . Thus, contrary to the People’s contention, it is unlikely that retroactive application of Boone would result in wholesale reversals and burden trial courts with unnecessary retrials … . People v Crovador, 2018 NY Slip Op 07273, First Dept 10-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/EXPERT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF NEW RULING, (EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))/RETROACTIVE APPLICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, THE REQUEST TO GIVE THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE NEW (2017) RULING ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL WHEN THE RULING WAS MADE (FIRST DEPT))

/

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who repeatedly expressed a predisposition to credit police testimony, and a belief that innocent defendants would testify on their own behalf, since the totality of his responses established that he would be unable to put aside his inclinations and be fair and impartial … . At no point did the panelist give an unequivocal assurance that he would put aside his beliefs and concerns and render an impartial verdict … . People v Brith, 2018 NY Slip Op 07250, First Dept 10-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

/

DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Dram Shop Act cause of action was properly granted, but the negligence cause of action in this third-party assault case should not have been granted. There was uncontested evidence the assailant did not appear to be drunk when served. But there was a question of fact whether the defendant restaurant took adequate measures to protect plaintiff from a second attack by the assailant:

Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; see also Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65). A witness testified that plaintiff’s assailant did not appear visibly intoxicated at the time he was served two drinks by defendant. This evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie showing that the assailant was not visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcohol, since it is clear from the record that he was not served from that point in time until he attacked plaintiff … . …

While the first assault was sudden and unforseeable, and therefore not actionable, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it took reasonable actions to protect plaintiff from the assailant on the second assault and that it was not foreseeable. It is true that the husband of defendant’s owner averred that he was escorting the assailant, who appeared to have calmed down “somewhat,” from the premises, when he suddenly lunged two or three feet to where plaintiff was standing, and struck him. However, another witness testified that immediately prior to assailant’s attack on plaintiff, he did not see anyone accompanying or escorting the assailant while the assailant exited defendant’s establishment. Ricaurte v Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07242, First Dept 10-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY  (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

/

UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined an unsigned form purporting to make respondent (Cunney) the beneficiary of decedent’s IRA was insufficient and did not constitute substantial compliance:

The Surrogate correctly determined that, despite the decedent’s clear intent to designate respondent Cunney as the beneficiary of her IRAs, Cunney is not entitled to the proceeds of the IRAs in the absence of a signed change of beneficiary form (see EPTL 13-3.2[e][1] [“A designation of a beneficiary or payee to receive payment upon death of the person making the designation . . . must be made in writing and signed by the person making the designation”] …).

Citing the doctrine of substantial compliance, Cunney argues that Morgan Stanley’s Client Data Form for New Personal Accounts filled out in the decedent’s handwriting is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a signed writing, as that document did not require a signature. However, she cites no authority for excusing the signed writing requirement in the context of a retirement account. Indeed, as the Surrogate noted, even in the insurance context, where strict compliance is not always required … , this Court has rejected the contention that an insured’s specific testamentary disposition of an insurance policy in a will constitutes substantial compliance with the policy’s requirements for effecting a change in the beneficiary of the policy … . Matter of Durcan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07241, First Dept 10-30-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/ESTATES POWERS AND TRUSTS LAW (EPTL) 13-3.2 (UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/IRA (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT))/BENEFICIARIES (IRA, UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (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