You are here: / PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING...

Search Results

/

PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh too complex to fairly summarize here, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary to the contract, despite the boilerplate exclusion of third-party beneficiaries:

…[W]e reject defendant's contention that plaintiff does not have standing to sue for breach of the [agreement] because it is not a party to that agreement. Plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary of the [agreement], as that agreement explicitly refers to plaintiff and grants it enforceable rights. Accordingly, the [agreement's] boilerplate exclusion of third-party beneficiaries does not apply to plaintiff, and this action may not be properly dismissed for lack of standing … . MPEG LA, LLC v Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 9-19-18 

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a party who has been granted a preliminary injunction must give an undertaking, although the amount is within the court’s discretion:

The plaintiff commenced this action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real property in Queens. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, inter alia, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or encumbering the subject property. In an order entered March 17, 2015, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In the order appealed from, the court determined that an undertaking was not required. The defendants appeal.

“[U]pon the granting of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff shall give an undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court'” (…CPLR 6312[b]). Thus, “[w]hile fixing the amount of an undertaking when granting a motion for a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, CPLR 6312(b) clearly and unequivocally requires the party seeking an injunction to give an undertaking” … . Chao-Yu C. Huang v Shih, 2018 NY Slip Op 06075, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 6321 (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/UNDERTAKING (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/INJUNCTION, PRELIMINARY (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

A PENALTY OR DISGORGEMENT STEMMING FROM IMPROPER PROFIT-TAKING BY BEAR STEARNS IS NOT AN INSURABLE LOSS, EVEN IF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROFIT-TAKING WENT TO OTHERS AND NOT TO BEAR STEARNS (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined that the requirement that Bear Stearns repay $160,000,000 constituted a penalty (disgorgement) for improper profit-taking, even where the benefits went to others and not Bear Stearns,  and therefore was not a “loss” for which Bear Stearns' insurer was liable:

The law of the case is applicable to “legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … . On the prior appeal, the Court of Appeals stated that “the Insurers do not earnestly dispute that the claims fall within the policy's definition of Loss” … , but did not rely on the policy language in denying defendants' motions. Instead it focused on the public policy issue. Furthermore, the doctrine does not apply where a motion for summary judgment follows a motion to dismiss that was not converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(c)… .

Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, “while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'” … . Here, the United States Supreme Court's decision in [Kokesh v Securities and Exchange Commission (_ US_, 137 S Ct 1635 [2017])], characterizing SEC disgorgement as a penalty, represents such a change of law. * * *… Kokesh has now provided the missing precedent, establishing that disgorgement is a penalty, whether it is linked to the wrongdoer's gains or gains that went to others. In Kokesh, the Supreme Court, emphasizing that when a sanction “can only be explained as . . . serving either retributive or deterrent purposes,” it is a “punishment,” rejected the SEC's argument that disgorgement is remedial because it simply puts the defendant back in the position “he would have occupied had he not broken the law.” J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06146, First Dept 9-19-18

INSURANCE LAW (SECURITIES, A PENALTY OR DISGORGEMENT STEMMING FROM IMPROPER PROFIT-TAKING BY BEAR STEARNS IS NOT AN INSURABLE LOSS, EVEN IF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROFIT-TAKING WENT TO OTHERS AND NOT TO BEAR STEARNS (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITIES (INSURANCE LAW, A PENALTY OR DISGORGEMENT STEMMING FROM IMPROPER PROFIT-TAKING BY BEAR STEARNS IS NOT AN INSURABLE LOSS, EVEN IF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROFIT-TAKING WENT TO OTHERS AND NOT TO BEAR STEARNS (FIRST DEPT))/DISGORGEMENT (INSURANCE LAW, SECURITIES, A PENALTY OR DISGORGEMENT STEMMING FROM IMPROPER PROFIT-TAKING BY BEAR STEARNS IS NOT AN INSURABLE LOSS, EVEN IF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROFIT-TAKING WENT TO OTHERS AND NOT TO BEAR STEARNS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the causes of action alleging that parties should have been named as additional insureds in this Labor Law 200 and 241 (6) action should have been dismissed. Contracts which call for the procurement of insurance do not, without specific provisions, require parties to be named as additional insureds:

“A provision in a construction contract cannot be interpreted as requiring the procurement of additional insured coverage unless such a requirement is expressly and specifically stated. In addition, contract language that merely requires the purchase of insurance will not be read as also requiring that a contracting party be named as an additional insured” … . Uddin v A.T.A. Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06136, Second Dept 9-19-18

INSURANCE LAW (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner's challenge to the city water bills was properly deemed time-barred. Petitioner argued that the city should be estopped from taking advantage of the four-year statute because of a delay in correcting an inaccurate bill:

The petitioner's contention that DEP and the Water Board should be estopped from applying the four-year limitations period is without merit. ” The doctrine of estoppel will be applied against governmental agencies only in exceptional cases'” … , such as where there is fraud, misrepresentation, or other affirmative misconduct upon which the other party relies to its detriment… . “Generally, the doctrine of estoppel is not available against a governmental agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties, even when the results are harsh” … . Here, the Water Board was performing its statutory duties in, inter alia, establishing, charging, collecting, and enforcing payment for the use of the water and sewer systems (see Public Authorities Law § 1045-f[9]). Although an error had been made resulting in the petitioner being over-billed from June 2000 to April 2015, DEP corrected the error and credited the accounts of the 10 subject properties to the extent allowable under applicable law and the Water Board's rate schedule …. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any improper conduct on the part of DEP or the Water Board that would warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel. Matter of Maimonides Med. Ctr. v New York City Water Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 06094, Second Dept 9-19-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/WATER BILLS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))

/

RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation-back doctrine should have been applied to allow plaintiff to add a party to the Labor Law 200 and 241 (6) complaint after the statute of limitations had run:

On October 15, 2007, the plaintiff, a construction worker, allegedly was injured while performing demolition work on the roof of a condominium building in Brooklyn. In December 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action against A.T.A. Construction Corp. (hereinafter A.T.A.), the general contractor for the construction project, and Park Slope Condominium (hereinafter Park Slope), the alleged owner of the subject building. The complaint asserted causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6).

In June 2014, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend his complaint to add Flan Realty, LLC (hereinafter Flan), as a defendant in the action. * * *

…[T]he claims against Flan arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claims asserted against Park Slope. In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated that, under the particular circumstances presented, Park Slope and Flan are united in interest inasmuch as the two entities, “intentionally or not, often blurred the distinction between them” … . Moreover, Flan had notice of this action within the applicable limitations period, inasmuch as the Flancraichs jointly operated both Park Slope and Flan, and Flan was designated in the condominium declaration to receive service of process on behalf of Park Slope … .Finally, the plaintiff demonstrated that the initial failure to add Flan was not intentional, but was the result of an excusable mistake … . Uddin v A.T.A. Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06135, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother's guardianship petition should not have been dismissed simply because paternity had not been established. Mother was seeking special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for her child:

… [M]other filed a petition … to be appointed the guardian of the subject child for the purpose of obtaining an order, inter alia, so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) … . In an order dated April 9, 2018, the Family Court dismissed the petition, without a hearing, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action because the putative father's paternity had not been established. …

We disagree with the Family Court's determination to dismiss the petition, in which the mother sought to be appointed guardian of her child. A natural parent may be appointed guardian of his or her child (see Family Ct Act § 661[a]…), and the mere fact that paternity has not been established for the putative father does not preclude the mother's guardianship petition … .

Accordingly, since the Family Court dismissed the guardianship petition without conducting a hearing or considering the child's best interests, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court … for an expedited hearing and a new determination thereafter of the guardianship petition … . Matter of Olga L.G.M. (Santos T.F.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06093, Second Dept 9-19-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY LAW, (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))

/

CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE’S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a contract provision about the use of property by a Catholic school (CTK) was ambiguous about other allowed uses (daycare, charter school, etc.) and therefore the plaintiff's (the Diocese's) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

It cannot be said that the language of the 1976 Agreement requiring CTK to “maintain and operate a Catholic high school in and upon the entire premises herein described and . . . use the same for no other purpose not customarily or usually associated with such use” has ” a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion,'” particularly given the time that has passed and the changes in circumstances since the negotiation of the 1976 Agreement… . CTK came forward with evidence of other instances where unused or underused portions of Catholic schools were rented to charter schools, raising a triable issue of fact as to whether such a use is customarily and usually associated with the operation of a Catholic school under the budgetary and enrollment constraints currently facing schools within the Diocese. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v Christ the King Regional High Sch., 2018 NY Slip Op 06130, Second Dept 9-19-18

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE'S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the student-petitioner's due process rights were not violated when the state college (SUNY Purchase] refused to adjourn a disciplinary hearing because petitioner's attorney could not be present. Petitioner was accused of having sex with another student without her consent. After the hearing the petitioner was found responsible and expelled. The dissent argued that the failure to grant the requested three-hour adjournment so petitioner's counsel could attend the hearing deprived petitioner of due process:

In disciplinary proceedings at public colleges, ” [d]ue process requires that the [accused students] be given the names of the witnesses against them, the opportunity to present a defense, and the results and finding of the hearing'” …  Due process does not require colleges to provide accused students with legal representation at disciplinary hearings … . Purchase's rules, the legality of which the petitioner does not challenge, allow for an attorney to be present and advise an accused student at a disciplinary hearing, but not to represent the student or interact with anyone at the hearing other than the accused student. Here, the petitioner had hired an attorney as of September 30, 2014. … [t]he petitioner was notified on September 30, 2014, that the hearing would likely be scheduled for October 6 or 7, and was informed of the exact time of the hearing on October 2, 2014. He alleges that he did not request an adjournment until “on or about” October 5, 2014, which was two days before the date of the hearing. Under these circumstances, contrary to the suggestion of our dissenting colleagues, the petitioner was not denied the opportunity to have an attorney present at the hearing … .

Purchase's determination that the petitioner committed the charged violations was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]…).

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the penalty of expulsion was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see CPLR 7803[3]…). Matter of Bursch v Purchase Coll. of the State Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 06090, Second Dept 9-19-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (DISCIPLINARY CHARGES, STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant's (RB Juice's] truck was a proximate cause of the vehicle accident which injured plaintiff. Although the police report indicated the truck was not a proximate cause, the officer did not witness the collision and therefore the officer's conclusions were inadmissible hearsay:

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … , and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, RB Juice failed to establish, prima facie, that its truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. In support of the motion, RB Juice submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, her husband, its employees, and the responding police officer, as well as a copy of the police accident report prepared by the responding police officer. The evidence submitted by RB Juice revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as what its box truck was doing at the time of the accident and how the accident occurred … . With respect to the deposition testimony of the responding police officer, who did not witness the accident, about the section of the police accident report in which he identified “passing or lane usage improper” by the plaintiff as a contributing factor to the happening of the accident, and attributed no contributing factors to the operation of the box truck, such testimony and the related section of the police accident report constituted inadmissible hearsay. Since the source of the information contained in this section of the police accident report was not identified, it could not be established whether the source of the information had a duty to make the statement or whether some other hearsay exception applied … . Further, that information bore directly on the ultimate issue to be decided by the factfinder … . Ardanuy v RB Juice, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06074, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (HEARSAY, (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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