You are here: / ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD...

Search Results

/ ,

ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THEIR PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF DECEDENT’S WIFE FOR HER ESTATE PLANNING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the law firm representing the executor and trustee of the estate in a removal proceeding should not have been disqualified based upon the firm’s prior representation of the decedent’s wife, Sandra, for Sandra’s estate planning:

” A party seeking disqualification of it[s] adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of that party must establish (1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse'” … . “When the moving party is able to demonstrate each of these factors, an irrebuttable presumption of disqualification follows”… . ” A party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his or her own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted'”… .

Here, although the law firm had a prior attorney-client relationship with Sandra in connection with her own estate planning, which may have been intertwined somewhat with that of the decedent, the record does not reveal that the law firm’s prior representation of Sandra is substantially related or materially adverse to the removal proceedings. In the removal proceedings, Sandra’s estate is not being administered or litigated, and there is nothing to suggest that any confidences with Sandra might be breached by the law firm’s representation of the appellant in his capacity as executor and trustee of the decedent’s estate … . Matter of Kopet, 2018 NY Slip Op 05678, Second Dept 8-8-18

ATTORNEYS (DISQUALIFICATION, ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THEIR PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF DECEDENT’S WIFE FOR HER ESTATE PLANNING (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (ATTORNEYS, DISQUALIFICATION, ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THEIR PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF DECEDENT’S WIFE FOR HER ESTATE PLANNING (SECOND DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION (ATTORNEYS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES,  ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THEIR PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF DECEDENT’S WIFE FOR HER ESTATE PLANNING (SECOND DEPT))

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for a variance to allow construction of an in-law apartment should not have been granted:

To obtain a use variance, an applicant must demonstrate to the zoning board of appeals that “applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship” (Village Law § 7-712-b[2][b]). This imposes a “heavy burden” on the applicant …, who is required to establish: “[F]or each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, (1) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created” (Village Law § 7-712-b[2][b]).

“Under a zoning ordinance which authorizes interpretation of its requirements by a board of appeals, such as Village of Patchogue Code § 93-47(B), specific application of a term of the ordinance to a particular property is governed by that body’s interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational . . . [J]udicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” …

The petitioner failed to make the requisite showing of “unnecessary hardship” for a use variance … . Additionally, there is no evidence that the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] failed to adhere to any prior precedent of granting use variance applications in similar situations … . Matter of Gray v Village of Patchogue, 2018 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 8-8-18

ZONING (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff property owners who sought to contest the approval of the construction of condominiums near their properties. Because the approval of the project was never filed within the meaning of the Village Code, the 30-day period for appeal never began to run and plaintiffs’ action should not have been dismissed as untimely. In addition, because no duly noticed public hearing (as required by the Village Code) was held, the site plan approval was jurisdictionally defective:

… the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] determined that the 30-day period set forth in Village Code § 300-23(A)(2) began to run in November 2012, when the Building Inspector forwarded [the] application to the Planning Board, an act that was not disclosed to the public. It is undisputed that any determination of the Building Inspector in November 2012 that [the] proposed use was zoning-compliant was not “filed” anywhere at that time. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the ZBA’s determination in this respect was contrary to the plain language of Village Code § 300-23(A)(2). Since this is a purely legal conclusion based on arguments raised in the motions to dismiss, and based on undisputed facts, contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the conversion of their motions into motions for summary judgment was proper, and we agree with the court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on this issue prior to the filing of an answer … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on the second cause of action to the extent of declaring that the determination of the BOT dated December 18, 2013, granting site plan approval, was jurisdictionally defective and thus void in that no duly noticed public hearing was held thereon in accordance with Village Code § 300-28(G). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, Village Code § 300-28(G)(1) plainly requires that public hearings be held on site plan applications. That section further provides that the applicant shall be required to send notices of the hearing to owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject property by certified mailing. Since no notice of a public hearing was given, the BOT acted without jurisdiction in granting site plan approval … . Matter of Corrales v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Dobbs Ferry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05676, Second Dept 8-8-18

ZONING (BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a covenant not to compete which prohibited defendant surgeon from practicing within a ten-mile radius of his former employer was unreasonable and was properly invalidated. The argument that the covenant should be partially enforced was rejected as well:

“Agreements restricting an individual’s right to work or compete are not favored and thus are strictly construed” … ” [A] restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee'” … . The determination of whether a restrictive covenant is reasonable involves the application of a three-pronged test. “A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public” … . The “violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . “With agreements not to compete between professionals . . . [courts] have given greater weight to the interests of the employer in restricting competition within a confined geographical area” … . That said, “the application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . “The rationale for the differential application of the common-law rule of reasonableness . . . was that professionals are deemed to provide unique or extraordinary'” services … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the provision of the covenant prohibiting Andrade for a period of two years from practicing surgery of any kind, within a 10-mile radius of all of the plaintiff’s offices and affiliated hospitals, even those at which he had never worked, was geographically unreasonable, because it effectively barred him from performing surgery, his chosen field of medicine, in the New York metropolitan area … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to modify the covenant rather than invalidating it. The determination of whether an overly broad restrictive covenant should be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate interest involves “a case specific analysis, focusing on the conduct of the employer in imposing the terms of the agreement” … . Partial enforcement may be justified if an employer demonstrates, in addition to having a legitimate business interest, “an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct” … . “Factors weighing against partial enforcement are the imposition of the covenant in connection with hiring or continued employment—as opposed to, for example, imposition in connection with a promotion to a position of responsibility and trust—the existence of coercion or a general plan of the employer to forestall competition, and the employer’s knowledge that the covenant was overly broad”… . Long Is. Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05674, Second Dept 8-8-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

n a breach of contract action too complex to fairly summarize here, the Second Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) because plaintiff did not demonstrate when the damages were incurred:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest. CPLR 5001(a) provides that interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded for a breach of contract. CPLR 5001 further mandates that “[i]nterest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed” (CPLR 5001[b]). “Where such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date” (CPLR 5001[b]…). CPLR 5001 further provides that “[t]he date from which interest is to be computed shall be specified in the verdict, report or decision” (CPLR 5001[c]). With limited exception, “[i]f a jury is discharged without specifying the date, the court upon motion shall fix the date” (id.). The party seeking prejudgment interest bears the burden of demonstrating the date from which interest should be computed… .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate when the damages were incurred. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination that the damages were not incurred until the jury rendered its verdict was warranted … . Kachkovskiy v Khlebopros, 2018 NY Slip Op 05671, Second Dept 8-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5001 (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT))

/

CRITERIA FOR AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR STANDING IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS NOT THE SAME AS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action concerning an equitable mortgage should not have been granted in this action to quiet title. The court noted that the criteria for standing in an action to quiet title is not the same as in a foreclosure action.  The facts are too complicated to fairly summarize here:

“New York law allows the imposition of an equitable lien if there is an express or implied agreement that there shall be a lien on specific property” … . “While [a] court will impose an equitable mortgage where the facts surrounding a transaction evidence that the parties intended that a specific piece of property is to be held or transferred to secure an obligation, it is necessary that an intention to create such a charge clearly appear from the language and the attendant circumstances” … . …

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to substitute Fannie Mae as the plaintiff on the ground that Fannie Mae lacked standing. In reaching its conclusion, the court erroneously applied the standard used to establish standing in mortgage foreclosure actions. “Standing to commence the foreclosure action is not properly raised in this action to quiet title” …  Since the plaintiff sufficiently established that Fannie Mae “claims an estate or interest” in the subject property (see RPAPL 1501[1]), that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to substitute Fannie Mae as the plaintiff should have been granted.  JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bank of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 05670, Second Dept 8-8-18

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (CRITERIA FOR AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR STANDING IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS NOT THE SAME AS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/QUIET TITLE (CRITERIA FOR AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR STANDING IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS NOT THE SAME AS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (QUIET TITLE, CRITERIA FOR AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR STANDING IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS NOT THE SAME AS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE MORTGAGE (CRITERIA FOR AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR STANDING IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS NOT THE SAME AS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission on a lease entered by defendants (Budhu and RLRC) just after defendants terminated plaintiff’s services, an action deemed to have been done in bad fact warranting recovery under an implied contract theory and in quantum meruit:

A real estate broker is entitled to recover a commission upon establishing that it (1) is duly licensed, (2) had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) was the procuring cause of the transaction … . There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a licensed brokerage firm. …

The plaintiff established that it had an implied contract to provide brokerage services for Budhu and RLRC. The plaintiff also established that it was the procuring cause of the transaction. In order to establish that it was the procuring cause of a transaction, a “broker must establish that there was a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” … . While the plaintiff was not involved in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the deal between RLRC and Hillside, it established that it created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded, and that it generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the transaction… . Even if the plaintiff were not the procuring cause of the transaction, it would still be entitled to recover a commission, as the evidence established that Budhu and RLRC terminated the plaintiff’s activities in bad faith and as a mere last-minute device to escape the payment of the commission … .

Moreover, even assuming that there was no contract, express or implied, between the parties, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for its services in quantum meruit in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of Budhu and RLRC … . The plaintiff established that it performed services in good faith, that Budhu and RLRC accepted the services, that it expected to be compensated therefor, and the reasonable value of the services … . Gluck & Co. Realtors, LLC v Burger King Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05668, Second Dept 8-8-18

REAL ESTATE (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/BROKER’S COMMISSION (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMISSION  (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligent training a supervision cause of action against the school district was properly dismissed and the negligent maintenance of the premises cause of action should have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff fell from an apparatus on the school playground during recess:

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent maintenance of its premises by submitting evidence which demonstrated that it adequately maintained the playground and that it did not create an unsafe or defective condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff’s expert opined, in part, that the ground cover beneath the apparatus from which the plaintiff fell was inherently dangerous as installed and/or maintained, because it did not meet American Society of Testing Material standards or standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These standards, however, are guidelines and not mandatory, and are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding negligent installation or maintenance … . Boland v North Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05663, Second Dept 8-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL STANDARDS (NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS (NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the statute of limitations defense in this foreclosure action:

Supreme Court erred in sua sponte raising the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and directing the dismissal of the complaint on that ground. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which is waived by a party unless it is raised either in a responsive pleading, or by motion prior to the submission of a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3211[e]…). “A court may not take judicial notice,’ sua sponte, of the applicability of a statute of limitations if that defense has not been raised” … . Here, the defendant neither answered the complaint nor submitted a pre-answer motion which raised the statute of limitations defense. 352 Legion Funding Assoc. v 348 Riverdale, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05662, Second Dept 8-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ( JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))

/

INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, in affirming a $1.8 million verdict in this car accident case, determined that the increased susceptibility to injury jury instruction did not affect the verdict so it didn’t discuss the propriety of the instruction. The Second Department also determined that defendants were not entitled to a duty to mitigate instruction based upon plaintiff’s failure to lose weight:

The defendants contend that the instructions on increased susceptibility prejudiced them because, based upon those instructions, the jury could find that the plaintiff’s apparent predisposition to obesity rendered him more susceptible to pain and suffering from his injuries. Increased susceptibility to injury “must be affirmatively pleaded and proven before recovery therefor can be allowed” …  In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the accident aggravated a preexisting back injury, indicating an increased susceptibility to an aggravated back injury.

The increased susceptibility instruction given by the Supreme Court did not refer to any condition. The pattern jury instruction for aggravation of a preexisting injury provides that “the plaintiff is entitled to recover for any (increased) disability or pain resulting from” the aggravation of a preexisting injury or condition where the aggravation was caused by the accident (PJI 2:282). This charge is somewhat similar to the increased susceptibility charge, which instructs the jury that “[t]he fact that the plaintiff may have a physical or mental condition that makes [him or her] more susceptible to injury than a normal healthy person does not relieve the defendant[s] of liability for all injuries sustained as a result of [their] negligence” (PJI 2:283). On the issue of aggravation of the preexisting back condition, the jury found in favor of the defendants, and therefore did not award any damages based upon an increased susceptibility to an aggravated back injury. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the jury instructions did not affect the verdict.

We … agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to decline to instruct the jury with respect to the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages by losing weight. “A party seeking to avail itself of the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages must establish that the injured party failed to make diligent efforts to mitigate its damages, and the extent to which such efforts would have diminished those damages” … . The defendants failed to meet that burden. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon testified that the plaintiff’s decision whether to have bariatric surgery to facilitate weight loss was “a personal decision.” The plaintiff’s expert further testified that the plaintiff’s obesity did not change the need for knee and hip replacements, as “the dye [sic] was cast the minute that this injury occurred.” The trial evidence established that the plaintiff complied with medical directives for physical therapy in an effort to mitigate damages, and there was no evidence presented that his damages would have been less if he had more actively participated in physical therapy. People v Kolsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 8-8-18  [Note that the name of this case probably should be Rivera v Kolsky. “People” v Kolsky is how the case was (mis)named when the decision was first released.]

NEGLIGENCE (INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (DAMAGES, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, (INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (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