You are here: / TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO...

Search Results

/

TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined a that Tender Age PT (TAPT), which provided supplemental education services to the Department of Education, was not required to make additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant, a behavior analyst therapist who received assignments from TAPT:

TAPT’s overall control over important aspects of the service professionals’ work is lacking largely because the policies and procedures related thereto are “dictated by statutes and regulations governing the provision of supplemental educational and related services”… . Indeed, although TAPT collected resumes and interviewed candidates wishing to be placed on its registry, this was primarily for the purpose of insuring that they met the requirements imposed by the Department of Health with regard to certification and licensing. Once candidates became approved service professionals, TAPT offered assignments based upon availability and other criteria, but the service professionals were free to reject an assignment or work for other agencies. If an assignment was accepted, TAPT supplied the service professionals with documentation furnished by the client, including the child’s treatment plan and a prescription for the service, as well as other legally mandated documents. The service professionals then worked directly with the child and his or her parent, providing all necessary equipment and materials, and scheduling appointments without any involvement or oversight by TAPT, usually at the child’s home, school or day care center.

The compensation paid to the service professionals was negotiable, but was limited by the amount that TAPT received from its clients. Although the service professionals prepared daily work logs, as well as periodic status reports, on preprinted forms that they submitted to TAPT, this was done in order to comply with the requirements of TAPT’s clients. In accordance with such requirements, they also submitted monthly invoices containing treatment information that TAPT compared with the daily logs. They would not, however, get paid until TAPT received payment from its clients. Matter of Giordano (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 03573, Third Dept 5-17-18

​UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT))/EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT))

/

OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that plaintiffs, who owned property abutting a road, could not prohibit defendants from parking along the road unless plaintiffs’ access to the property was blocked by the defendants:

Supreme Court properly ruled that plaintiffs cannot prevent others from parking their vehicles within the highway easement on the road front property along the shoulder of Route 34, unless those individuals unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs’ right of ingress and egress … . Augusta v Kwortnik, 2018 NY Slip Op 03574, Third Dept. 5-17-18

​REAL PROPERTY (OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING (HIGHWAYS AND ROADS, REAL PROPERTY, OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (PARKING, OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT))

/

NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the tow service’s notice to the owner and lienholder of a car that was towed and then stored did not comply with the Lien Law and, therefore, no storage fees were due to the tow service:

… [R]espondent’s purported lien for storage was invalid. Pursuant to Lien Law § 184 (5), where an entity seeks to assert a lien for the storage of a motor vehicle that it has towed and stored at the direction of a law enforcement agency, such entity must “mail by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice . . . to every person who has perfected a security interest in such motor vehicle or who is listed as a lienholder upon the certificate of title . . . within [20] days of the first day of storage.” Under the statute, which must be strictly construed … , the “notice shall include the name of the [entity] providing storage of the motor vehicle, the amount being claimed for such storage, and [the] address and times at which the motor vehicle may be recovered”… . In addition, “[t]he notice shall also state that the [entity] providing such notice claims a lien on the motor vehicle and that such motor vehicle shall be released upon full payment of all storage charges accrued on the date the motor vehicle is released”… .

Here, the notice — which was mailed to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested — included respondent’s name, address and regular business hours, as well as the total amount being claimed for storage. The notice further stated that the vehicle would “be released to the owner thereof, or his or her lawfully designed [sic] representative upon full payment of all charges accrued to the date that the said motor vehicle is released.” Fatally, however, the notice did not state, as required, that respondent “claim[ed] a lien” on the vehicle … . The word “lien” does not appear in the notice at all. Moreover, we are not persuaded by respondent’s contention that the requirement was satisfied by the language indicating that the vehicle would be released “upon full payment of all charges.” Strictly construed, Lien Law § 184 (5) requires that the notice state both that respondent “claims a lien on the motor vehicle and that such motor vehicle shall be released upon full payment of all storage charges accrued on the date the motor vehicle is released” … . Matter of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp v All County Towing, 2018 NY Slip Op 03583, Third Dept 5-17-18

​LIEN LAW (NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))/TOWING SERVICE (LIEN LAW, NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))/STORAGE FEES (TOWING SERVICE, LIEN LAW, NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))

/

FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that, although the fall through an unguarded floor opening at a construction site was covered under Labor Law 240 (1), there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was able to tie off his harness. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted:

“[A] fall through an unguarded opening in the floor of a construction site constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) only where a safety device adequate to prevent such a fall was not provided. A safety line and harness may be an adequate safety device for a person working over an open area or near an elevated edge” … . Here, the record demonstrates that although plaintiff was wearing a harness and lanyard at the time of the accident, triable issues exist as to whether static lines were in place for him to safely tie off. Maman v Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03614, First Dept 5-17-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/

NO INDICATION IN THE INDICTMENT OR THE ALLOCUTION THAT THE THREE ‘POSSESSION OF A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD’ OFFENSES TOOK PLACE AT DIFFERENT TIMES OR LOCATIONS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT AUTHORIZED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined, based upon the wording of the indictment, the defendant should not have been given consecutive sentences the three counts of possession of a sexual performance of a child. The indictment alleged the offenses occurred at the same time and place:

… [T]he imposition of consecutive sentences for possession of a sexual performance by a child convictions were not authorized because his conduct amounted to a single criminal act … . “It is well settled that sentences are authorized to be imposed consecutively if multiple offenses are committed through separate and distinct acts, even though they may be part of a single transaction”… . To justify consecutive sentences in this context, the People were required to establish, either through the indictment or the facts adduced during the allocution, that defendant came into possession of the images at separate and distinct times … . Here, the counts in the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty contained identical language as to the time, date and place of possession. Inasmuch as neither the indictment nor the facts adduced during the allocution establish that the digital images came into defendant’s possession at separate and distinct times, consecutive sentences were not authorized … . People v Stein, 2018 NY Slip Op 03566, Third Dept 5-17-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NO INDICATION IN THE INDICTMENT OR THE ALLOCUTION THAT THE THREE ‘POSSESSION OF A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD’ OFFENSES TOOK PLACE AT DIFFERENT TIME OR LOCATIONS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT AUTHORIZED (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (NO INDICATION IN THE INDICTMENT OR THE ALLOCUTION THAT THE THREE ‘POSSESSION OF A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD’ OFFENSES TOOK PLACE AT DIFFERENT TIME OR LOCATIONS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT AUTHORIZED (THIRD DEPT))

/

NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined New York law controlled the police entry and search of defendant’s apartment building in New Jersey, and defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building:

We find it unnecessary to decide any questions of New Jersey search and seizure law, because we find that New York law governs the issues raised here. Suppression issues, including those arising out of a defendant’s constitutional rights, are generally governed by the law of the forum, and “New York has a paramount interest in the application of its laws to this case” … . …

… [W]e find that “defendant has failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common [areas] of his building, accessible to all tenants and their invitees” … . The unremarkable fact that access to the building was controlled by a locked outer door does not create an expectation of privacy that would not otherwise exist … . The basic principle … is that general access to common areas negates a personal expectation of privacy in those areas for an individual resident. This principle applies except in unusual circumstances, such as where common areas are “shared for eating and bathing purposes essential to daily living and facilities for which are commonly found in any home” … . At least where common areas are used primarily as a means of ingress and egress, to be used by the residents of individual units and their invitees, the presence of a locked outer door does not create a legitimate expectation of privacy. Accordingly, defendant’s rights were not violated when the police used his key to enter the building. People v Espinal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03613, First Dept 5-17-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (COMMON AREAS OF APARTMENT BUILDING, (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/APARTMENT BUILDINGS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, COMMON AREAS, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON AREAS (APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined, although the usual rule is one who signs an agreement is deemed to have read it, the rule may not apply when there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties and reliance on the assurances of a party (here the parties to a trust agreement were father and son). Plaintiff alleged he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. The court noted that a certified, unsigned transcript of a deposition was admissible because the transcript had been mailed to opposing counsel more than 60 days before the motion was brought:

Plaintiff’s claim … is that defendant led him to believe that the documentation that defendant presented for his signature (a trust agreement and two deeds) was for the conveyance of [one condominium unit] only. In fact, the paperwork provided for the conveyance of [two condominium units] to the trust. Ordinarily a person is bound by the terms of an instrument he or she signs, and may not claim to have justifiably relied on false representations concerning the contents of a document that he or she failed to read without valid excuse … . In this case, however, whether this principle applies to bar plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim … cannot be determined as a matter of law because plaintiff alleges that he and defendant, his son, had a relationship of trust and confidence … . Tsai Chung Chao v Chao, 2018 NY Slip Op 03620, First Dept 5-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

/

THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the time period for substituting a named defendant for a “John Doe” in a complaint does not begin to run when plaintiff retains counsel. Plaintiff alleged an overhead door fell on him and brought a negligence and products liability action naming “John Doe” defendants. The action was commenced when plaintiff retained counsel on August 1, 2014, three days before the statute of limitations expired. The attorney acted quickly by sending an investigator to the accident scene. The named defendants were added to amended complaints after the statute had run. The Third Department held Supreme Court correctly dismissed the action as time-barred:

A plaintiff who is unaware of the name or identity of a defendant may proceed against such defendant by designating so much of his or her name as is known (see CPLR 1024) and must show that he or she made timely and diligent efforts to ascertain the identity of an unknown defendant prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations… . In the absence of evidence that a plaintiff made the requisite timely and diligent efforts to identify an unknown defendant, he or she may not take advantage of the procedural mechanism provided by CPLR 1024 … .

We conclude that Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to establish that he made timely and diligent efforts to discover defendants’ identities prior to when the statute of limitations expired on August 4, 2014 … . The only action that plaintiff took was retaining counsel on August 1, 2014, three days before the statute of limitations expired. Such fact, however, does not relieve him of his obligation to exercise diligent efforts. Indeed, we note that, upon retention, counsel immediately took action by sending an investigator to the accident scene. There is no explanation as to why plaintiff waited so long to retain counsel or any indication that he was somehow precluded from doing so prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, preaction discovery under CPLR 3102 (c) is not limited to those parties who appear with counsel.

To that end, we reject plaintiff’s assertion that whether he exercised due diligence must be measured from the point when he retained counsel … . Plaintiff’s additional contention that the duty to exercise due diligence for purposes of CPLR 1024 commences when litigation is reasonably foreseeable is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … and, in any event, is without merit. Walker v Glaxosmithkline, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03581, Third Dept 5-17-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOHN DOES, THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 1024  (JOHN DOES, THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3102 (JOHN DOES,  THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/JOHN DOES (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , , ,

FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the ostensible president the corporation (Lowbet) which owned an apartment building, Liu, had the apparent authority to sell the building, and the buyer, 44th Street Realty, was a bona fide purchaser. Although Liu had been removed as president and replaced by petitioner, that information was not provided to the Department of State Division of Corporations:

The petitioner and Liu married in 1985 and then separated in 1995, after which the petitioner moved to China. Since 1995, Liu has run the day-to-day business of Lowbet, with the petitioner’s knowledge and consent. In August 2006, Liu was removed as president of Lowbet and the petitioner and his son were named president and vice president, respectively. However, the petitioner did not update this information with the Department of State Division of Corporations.

44th Street Realty established, prima facie, that the subject deed was only voidable, not void ab initio, since the petitioner alleged that Liu’s signature and authority to convey were acquired by fraudulent means, but did not allege that Liu’s signature was forged … .

44th Street Realty also established, prima facie, that Liu was cloaked with apparent authority to sign the deed on behalf of Lowbet. The petitioner had condoned Liu’s unfettered control and operation of the day-to-day business of Lowbet, which gave rise to the appearance that Liu possessed authority to enter into a real estate transaction on behalf of Lowbet … . Under the circumstances, 44th Street Realty’s reliance upon the appearance of Liu’s authority was reasonable … .

Further, 44th Street Realty made a prima facie showing that it was a bona fide purchaser by demonstrating that it had paid valuable consideration for the property, in good faith and without knowledge of any alleged fraud by Liu … . Real Property Law §§ 266 and 291 protect the title of a bona fide purchaser for value who lacks knowledge of fraud by the grantor or affecting the grantor’s title … . 44th Street Realty’s submissions established that it had no knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to inquire about possible fraud … . Matter of Shau Chung Hu v Lowbet Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03529, Second Dept 5-16-18

​REAL ESTATE (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (BONA FIDE PURCHASER, APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (REAL ESTATE, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/BONA FIDE PURCHASER (REAL ESTATE,  FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))

/

LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

In an action involving two contracts for the sale of property owned by tenants by the entirety, one contract with plaintiff and one with defendant, the Second Department determined questions of fact precluded defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained the law applicable to the sale of property owned by tenants by the entirety by only one of the spouses:

Where spouses own property as tenants by the entirety, a conveyance by one spouse, to which the other has not consented, cannot bind the entire fee or impair the nonconsenting spouse’s survivorship interest … . Thus, generally, where property is held by spouses as tenants by the entirety, an agreement of sale signed by only one spouse is ineffective to constitute an agreement to convey full title, unless it is shown, inter alia, that the nonsigning spouse had complete knowledge of and actively participated in the transaction, that he or she ratified the purchase option after the fact, or that the signing spouse was authorized in writing to act as the nonsigning spouse’s agent in the matter … . However, each spouse may sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber his or her rights in the property, subject to the continuing rights of the other … . Carpenter v Crespo, 2018 NY Slip Op 03501, Second Dept 5-16-18

​REAL ESTATE (LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY  (LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (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