You are here: / AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT...

Search Results

/

AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner's affidavit and attorney affirmation constituted the equivalent of a verified petition. The motion to dismiss the Article 78 actions should not have been granted:

A verified petition is required to establish a jurisdictional predicate for a special proceeding (see CPLR 304[a]; 7804[c], [d] …). CPLR 304(a) provides that “[a] special proceeding is commenced by filing a petition.” CPLR 7804(c) provides that “a notice of petition, together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served on any adverse party at least twenty days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard.” However, a document that is not denominated a verified petition may satisfy CPLR 304 and 7804 if it is the functional equivalent of a verified petition … .

Here, none of the papers filed and served by the petitioner was denominated a verified petition. However, the petitioner's papers, particularly her affidavit and the affirmation of her attorney, gave notice as to what administrative action was being challenged, the events upon which the action was taken, the basis of the challenge, and the relief sought … . Therefore, the papers fulfilled the purposes of a verified petition and were the functional equivalent of a verified petition … . Matter of Levine v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 06242, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 304 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 7804 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/VERIFIED PETITION (ARTICLE 78, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her notice of claim in this slip and fall case should have been granted.

“[I]n making a determination on the sufficiency of a notice of claim, a court's inquiry is not limited to the four corners of the notice of claim” … . “A court may consider the testimony provided during an examination conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and any other evidence properly before it to correct a good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the notice of claim” … . Where the defendant is provided with such evidence correcting the notice of claim within a reasonable time after the accident, there is no prejudice… .

Here, the defendant did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the notice of claim was insufficient. The information contained in the notice of claim, supplemented by the testimony of the plaintiff given a few months thereafter at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, was sufficient to allow the defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation into the plaintiff's claim … .

Moreover, the defendant did not demonstrate, prima facie, that it would be prejudiced by the plaintiff's proposed amendment to the notice of claim, which was to state the address of the accident. The plaintiff had testified that there were witnesses to the accident. As such, the defendant could have ascertained the location of the accident ” with a modicum of effort'” … . Moreover, the defendant did not submit any evidence demonstrating that it was misled by the error, or that it conducted an investigation at the wrong location … . Finally, even if the original notice of claim had contained the address of the defect, the plaintiff testified that the road was resurfaced approximately three weeks after her fall, which was prior to service of the notice of claim … . Ruark v City of Glen Cove, 2018 NY Slip Op 06286, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF'S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF'S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF'S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF'S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant property owner's (Medford's) motion for summary judgment declaring that the insurer (NGM) was obligated to reimburse the property owner's costs incurred in defending the action should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot on property owned by Medford Landing, L.P. (hereinafter Medford). The plaintiff commenced this action against Medford to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, Medford commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendants, which provided snow removal services at the premises pursuant to a contract with Medford. The third-party complaint asserted, inter alia, causes of action based on contractual and common-law indemnification, as well as a cause of action sounding in breach of contract for failure to procure insurance naming Medford as an additional insured. Medford also commenced a second third-party action against NGM Insurance Company (hereinafter NGM), which issued a general liability insurance policy to the third-party defendants. Medford moved for summary judgment on the third-party causes of action for contractual indemnification, for common-law indemnification, and alleging breach of contract, and separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Medford also separately moved for summary judgment declaring that it is an additional insured under the NGM policy, and that NGM is obligated to defend and indemnify it in the main action and to reimburse it for costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees incurred in defending the main action. * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Medford's motion which was for summary judgment declaring that NGM is obligated to reimburse Medford for costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees incurred in defending the main action.  “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . “If any of the claims against an insured arguably arise from covered events, the insurer is required to defend the entire action”… . “An additional insured is entitled to the same coverage as if it were a named insured” … . Here, Medford established, prima facie, that the allegations in the complaint suggested a reasonable possibility of coverage … . In opposition, NGM failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident arose from Medford's independent acts so as to preclude coverage under the NGM policy, since there is no requirement that liability must be determined before an additional insured is entitled to a defense … . Further, there is no merit to NGM's contention that the subject policy provided only excess insurance coverage to Medford. The NGM policy was written as primary coverage for the third-party defendants and added Medford as an additional insured, which entitles Medford to the same coverage rights as the primary insured … . McCoy v Medford Landing, L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 9-26-18

INSURANCE LAW (PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FEES, INSURANCE LAW, PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, INSURANCE LAW, (PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEY'S FEES, PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a breach of duty cause of action was duplicative of the breach of contract action and was properly dismissed:

The cause of action alleging breach of duty was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . Junger v John V. Dinan Assoc., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 9-26-18

CONTRACT LAW (BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/BREACH OF DUTY (CONTRACT LAW, BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that an exposed root in a town park, over which plaintiff tripped and fell, was an open and obvious condition that was not actionable:

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff's presence on the property” … . A landowner, however has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the exposed tree root was an open and obvious condition which was inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and known to [plaintiff] prior to the subject accident … . Moreover, the location of the exposed tree root in relation to the picnic table was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous … . Ibragimov v Town of N. Hempstead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TREE ROOTS (SLIP AND FALL, EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment was properly granted for the Labor Law 200 cause of action, but should not have been granted on the negligence cause of action. Plaintiff was injured using a telescoping lift. The lift belonged to MIS and defendant property owners had borrowed it. The Labor Law 200 action against MIS was dismissed because Labor Law 200 applies only to owners, contractors and their agents. The negligence action against MIS should not have been dismissed because MIS did not demonstrate the lift was not in a defective or dangerous condition:

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of MIS's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against it. “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . The evidence MIS submitted in support of its motion established, prima facie, that MIS was not an owner, contractor, or agent with regard to the plaintiff's work … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of MIS's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its sole contention regarding this cause of action, MIS failed to establish, prima facie, that the lift was not in a defective or dangerous condition. Hill v Mid Is. Steel Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06230, Second Dept 9-26-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should not have been consolidated with an contract action to determine an insurance-coverage obligation in the malpractice action:

… Salvatore Leone and Santa Leone (hereinafter together the Leones) commenced an action to recover damages for medical malpractice against Alvin Hershfeld and Medical Office of Howard Beach, P.C. (hereinafter together Hershfeld; hereinafter the malpractice action). … Hershfeld commenced the instant action against JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc. (hereinafter JM Woodworth), seeking a declaration that JM Woodworth was obligated to defend and/or indemnify Hershfeld in the malpractice action, and to recover damages for breach of contract, and also named the Leones as defendants. * * *

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in consolidating the two actions for the purpose of a joint trial and in amending the caption accordingly. In the malpractice action, the issues involve, inter alia, the alleged negligence of Hershfeld and the alleged damages suffered by the Leones. In the instant action, the issue to be resolved is JM Woodworth's alleged contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage to Hershfeld in the malpractice action. The two actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602[a]…). Moreover, a joint trial of the two actions could result in substantial prejudice to JM Woodworth. Indeed, it has long been recognized that it is inherently prejudicial to insurers to have the issue of insurance coverage tried before the jury that considers the underlying liability claims, even where common questions of law and fact exist … . Hershfeld v JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06229, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 602  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , , ,

LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER’S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that legal documents, bills for legal services, and an insurance carrier's file were not subject to disclosure. All the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or conditional immunity. The underlying medical malpractice action was against defendant Louis Lasky Memorial Medical and Dental Center and defendant Frederick Ast. The documents were requested by Ast in a proceeding to determine the amount of the settlement to be attributed to Louis Lasky and Ast:

With respect to the files maintained by Louis Lasky's attorneys, the only documents contained therein that have not already been disclosed are absolutely protected by CPLR 3101(b) and (c), as they are “primarily and predominately legal in nature and, in their full content and context, were made to render legal advice or services” to Louis Lasky … . Regarding the legal bills, it was improper for the court to order Louis Lasky to produce unredacted copies because such disclosure would reveal factual investigation and legal work done by counsel, which is privileged material … . As for the insurance carrier's file, the court correctly concluded that this file is protected by a conditional immunity, as it contained material prepared for litigation … . However, the court erred in finding that Ast met his burden of demonstrating that he had a “substantial need” for the materials in the carrier's file, and that he could not obtain their “substantial equivalent” by other means “without undue hardship” (CPLR 3101[d] …). Teran v Ast, 2018 NY Slip Op 06288, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITY, DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3101  (DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (INSURER'S FILE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (DISCLOSURE, INSURER'S FILE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))

/

HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the two habeas corpus petitions, stemming from the denial of bail in an attempted murder case, were properly denied. The petitioner was charged with the attempted murder of her husband. It was petitioner's cousin who actually attacked petitioner's husband. The cousin had been convicted after trial before the judge who twice denied petitioner's bail applications, resulting in the two habeas corpus petition's before the First Department:

… [W]e find that the habeas court in the first proceeding correctly found that Justice Farber did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner's initial bail application. The denial of bail was amply supported by the seriousness of the charges including attempted murder, the potential sentence of at least 5 years and up to 25 years in prison for the class B violent felonies of attempted murder in the second degree or first-degree burglary … , as well as the strength of the evidence. Notably, Justice Farber had just presided over Nolan's trial for carrying out the plot allegedly orchestrated by petitioner … .

To the extent [petitioner] argues that the court improperly focused on the seriousness of the charges and the sentencing exposure to the exclusion of other factors, the court's failure to explicitly address each statutory factor or every specific argument raised by the parties on the record does not establish that the court abused its discretion. The court implicitly based its ruling on all of the parties' arguments … . * * *

“Petitioner's position, if accepted, would mandate that bail be granted in every case in which the accused has the financial resources to offer private security and monitoring, thereby depriving the court of its discretion to grant or deny bail on consideration of the factors enumerated in CPL 510.30(2)(a). While petitioner claims that her security package is foolproof and trumps all other factors, the fact remains that no ad hoc arrangement based on keeping a defendant in her private home under the watch of a security firm that she hired could be as secure as remand” … . Matter of State of NY ex rel. Fischetti v Brann, 2018 NY Slip Op 06220, First Dept 9-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/BAIL  (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the notice issued by two partners purporting to dissolve the partnership was a nullity because the notice did not comport with the relevant provisions of the partnership agreement:

On October 15, 2015, two of the partners issued a notice purporting to withdraw from and dissolve the partnerships, pursuant to New York Partnership Law § 62(1)(b), “which,” the notice said, “provides that a partnership is terminable at will on notice.” * * *

“New York's Partnership Law creates default provisions that fill gaps in partnership agreements, but where the agreement clearly states the means by which a partnership will dissolve, or other aspects of partnership dissolution, it is the agreement that governs the change in relations between partners and the future of the business” … . Where, as here, a partnership agreement contains provisions governing the dissolution of the partnership by the will of the partners, ordinary contract principles apply … , and a notice by a partner or partners to dissolve a partnership in contravention of the partnership agreement's dissolution provisions is a legal nullity and does not effect a dissolution of the partnership. Wiener v Weissman, 2018 NY Slip Op 06205, First Dept 9-26-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (PARTNERSHIP LAW, NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (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