You are here: / LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS...

Search Results

/ ,

LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined two lawsuits (the Davids plaintiffs and the Wright plaintiffs) brought on behalf of New York public school students, alleging that certain statutes and policies concerning the hiring and firing of teachers leads to the retention of ineffective teachers, properly survived motions to dismiss. The statutes were alleged to violate the right to a sound basic education guaranteed by the NY Constitution:

… [T]he Davids plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the [teacher] Dismissal Statutes and the LIFO [last in first out] Statute separately and together violate the right to a sound basic education protected by the Education Article of the NY Constitution. In addition, the Wright plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the Challenged Statutes violate the NY Constitution. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7). Davids v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02168, Second Dept 3-28-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (NY) (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/TEACHERS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/SOUND BASIC EDUCATION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

/

EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant Dominguez’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine was properly granted. The court noted that the emergency doctrine usually presents a question of fact but the egregious circumstances warranted summary judgment here. Plaintiff was a passenger in Chuquillanqui’s vehicle which was struck by a car driven by Dominguez:

Dominguez submitted evidence showing that the accident occurred when Chuquillanqui attempted an illegal U-turn from the far-right lane of a two-way road that had two lanes traveling in each direction. Dominguez was operating a vehicle traveling in the same direction as Chuquillanqui’s vehicle, but in the left lane at some distance back from Chuquillanqui’s vehicle. Dominguez testified that he had only had a couple of seconds to react when Chuquillanqui abruptly began the U-turn across his right of way in the left lane, and that he unsuccessfully attempted to avoid the collision by turning his vehicle to the left … .

Plaintiff’s opposition was insufficient to raise factual issues as to whether an emergency situation existed prior to the collision, and as to whether Dominguez’s actions before the accident were reasonable under the circumstances. While the “reasonableness of a defendant driver’s reaction to an emergency is normally left to the trier of fact,” in “egregious circumstances,” as here, the issue may be resolved on summary judgment … . Morales v Chuquillanqui, 2018 NY Slip Op 02139, First Dept 3-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/ TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

/

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Housing Court, determined that the relationship between the tenant of record (Montgomery) in a rent-stabilized apartment and respondent (Zenker) justified the finding that Zenker was a “family member” entitled to succession rights. Although Zenker and Montgomery were not married, their relationship exhibited the care and sacrifice sufficient to meet the definition of a “family member” in this context:

The fact that Zenker moved back into the apartment in 2003 because of her own housing problems, and the couple’s lack of sexual intimacy, does not diminish their relationship to that of roommates. The unrefuted evidence establishes that this couple shared decades of dedication, caring and self-sacrifice. Consideration of the factual record in light of the factors listed in the Rent Stabilization Code demonstrates that Zenker was family to Montgomery. Matter of 530 Second Ave. Co., LLC v Zenker, 2018 NY Slip Op 02143, First Dept 3-27-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT, SUCCESSION RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT (SUCCESSION RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SUCCESSION RIGHTS (RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST DEPT))/FAMILY MEMBER (LANDLORD-TENANT, RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT, SUCCESSION RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST DEPT))

/

PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined coverage for a slip and fall of a security company (Protection Plus) employer was not available to the property owner (Manhattan School) as an additional insured on the security company’s policy. the security guard slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor at the school:

Plaintiff Manhattan School is an additional named insured under a policy issued by defendant to nonparty Protection Plus Security Corporation. In an additional insured endorsement, the policy provides that the Manhattan School is an additional named insured “only with respect to liability for bodily injury’. . . caused, in whole or in part, by” the acts or omissions of Protection Plus in the performance of its operations for the Manhattan School.

When “an insurance policy is restricted to liability for any bodily injury caused, in whole or in part,’ by the acts or omissions’ of the named insured, the coverage applies to injury proximately caused by the named insured” … . Such language in a policy does not equate to “but for” causation and is not the same as policies containing the phrase, “arising out of” … . Fundamentally, ” arising out of’ is not the functional equivalent of proximately caused by'”… . Thus, it is not enough to merely establish a causal link to the injury.

Notably, the language in the endorsement was “intended to provide coverage for an additional insured’s vicarious or contributory negligence, and to prevent coverage for the additional insured’s sole negligence” … .

Accordingly, when a policy limits coverage to an injury “caused, in whole or part” by the “acts or omissions” of the named insured, coverage is extended to an additional insured only when the damages are the result of the named insured’s negligence or some other act or omission … .

Here, the acts or omissions of Protection Plus were not a proximate cause of the security guard’s injury. Rather, the sole proximate cause of the injury was the additional insured, and thus coverage is not available to the Manhattan School under defendant’s policy … . Hanover Ins. Co. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121, First Dept 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (INSURANCE LAW, PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))

/

PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined placing the defendant in handcuffs improperly elevated an investigatory detention to an illegal arrest and the suppression motion should have been granted. The court noted that Supreme Court explicitly found that the detective did not have probable cause to arrest at the time of the handcuffing so the appellate court could not consider the People’s argument to the contrary:

During a buy and bust operation, the police made what the suppression court found to be an investigatory stop of defendant, based on reasonable suspicion, followed by a confirmatory identification that provided probable cause to arrest defendant for selling drugs. However, during the stop, but before the identification, the police handcuffed defendant because defendant was “a little irate” and the officer wanted to “make sure nothing escalated.

“Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances”… . Here, defendant was not suspected of anything more than a street-level drug sale, the police had no reason to believe that he was armed, dangerous or likely to flee, and there was no indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance before he was handcuffed. That defendant was “a little irate” does not establish dangerousness or resistance that would justify the use of handcuffs during an investigatory stop … . People v Steinbergin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02123, First Dept 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/STREET STOPS  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/INVESTIGATORY STOP (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/

THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment should not have been awarded to the plaintiff (Related) in this breach of contract action. The agreement provided that loan payments be made to plaintiff by the defendant (Tesla) from available cash. The existence of available cash was deemed a condition precedent. Because plaintiff could not show defendant had available case, summary judgment was not an available remedy:

A condition precedent is “an act or event, other than a lapse of time, which, unless the condition is excused, must occur before a duty to perform a promise in the agreement arises” … . The term sheet does not contain an unconditional promise by Tesla to repay the cash advances, distinguishing the transactions from the typical loan arrangement, which involves an unconditional promise to repay the amount advanced. Rather, pursuant to the waterfall provision, Tesla was to repay the cash advances from cash that was available for distribution after the payment of taxes. Related failed to establish that this condition precedent was satisfied, and its motion for summary judgment should have therefore been denied once the court determined that Tesla presently had no “available cash” to repay Related … . Related Cos., L.P. v Tesla Wall Sys., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02122, First Dept 3-27-18

CONTRACT LAW (CONDITION PRECEDENT, THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONDITION PRECEDENT (CONTRACT LAW, THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge partial dissenting opinion, determined that the defendant’s attempt to dissolve a partnership violated the partnership agreement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, the reduction for goodwill was supported by the record, the lack-of-marketability discount issue was not preserved, and the minority discount was applicable. The dissent agreed with everything except the applicability of the minority discount:

… [Parties to a partnership agreement generally have the right to contract around a provision of the Partnership Law, provided of course they do so in language that is “clear, unequivocal and unambiguous”… . No particular magic words need be recited, provided that the parties’ intent is clear.  * * *

Here, the Agreement stated that the Partnership “shall continue until it is terminated as hereinafter provided,” and, in a subsequent provision, stated that the Partnership would dissolve upon “[t]he election by the Partners to dissolve the Partnership” or “[t]he happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the Partnership to be carried on or for the Partners to carry it on in Partnership.” The partners clearly intended that the methods provided in the Agreement for dissolution were the only methods whereby the partnership would dissolve in accordance with the Agreement, and by implication that unilateral dissolution would breach the Agreement. In other words, the Agreement contemplated dissolution only in two instances, leaving no room for other means of dissolution that would be in accordance with its terms. * * *

We conclude … that to award fees to plaintiffs would be to contradict New York’s well-established adoption of the American Rule that “the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect . . . attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents” … . Contrary to Supreme Court, the standard is not which party was “more responsible” for the litigation. Attorneys’ fees are treated as “incidents of litigation” … . * * *

A minority discount is a standard tool in valuation of a financial interest, designed to reflect the fact that the price an investor is willing to pay for a minority ownership interest in a business, whether a corporation or a partnership, is less because the owner of a minority interest lacks control of the business. Congel v Malfitano, 2018 NY Slip Op 02119, CtApp 3-27-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP (PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY’S FEES, PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/GOODWILL REDUCTION (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/LACK OF MARKETABILITY DISCOUNT (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/MINORITY DISCOUNT (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))

/ ,

IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the insured, Keyspan Gas, not the insurer, Century, bore the risk of damages from environmental contamination during the years that coverage for such damage was not available:

The liability underlying this insurance dispute emanates from environmental contamination caused by manufactured gas plants (MGPs) owned and operated by KeySpan’s predecessor … .Gas production at the sites began in the late 1880s and early 1900s. After operations ceased decades later, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) determined that there had been long-term, gradual environmental damage at both sites due to contaminants, such as tar, seeping nto the ground and leeching into groundwater. The DEC required KeySpan to undertake costly remediation efforts … . …

… [Environmental contamination] coverage was not available to utilities until approximately 1925, and … a “sudden and accidental pollution exclusion” was later generally adopted by the insurance industry sometime in or after October 1970. Thus, KeySpan argued, the allocation should not take into account any years prior to the availability, or after the unavailability, of the applicable coverage. * * *

… [T]he Appellate Division … [held] that “under the insurance policies at issue, Century does not have to indemnify KeySpan for losses that are attributable to time periods when liability insurance was otherwise unavailable in the marketplace” … . * * *

The policyholder is the one who allegedly caused the injury and, therefore, who ultimately will be financially responsible should insurance prove insufficient” … . …

… “[T]he very essence of pro rata allocation is that the insurance policy language limits indemnification to losses and occurrences during the policy period” … . Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02116, CtApp 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/POLLUTION (INSURANCE LAW, (IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))/UTILITIES (INSURANCE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP))

/

UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the language of the policy which required a written contract with an additional insured (Gilbane JV) was unambiguous and precluded coverage:

The relevant portion of the Liberty policy is the “Additional Insured-By Written Contract” provision, which reads:

“WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured any person or organization with whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract but only with respect to liability arising out of your operations or premises owned by or rented to you.”… . …

… [T]he endorsement would have the meaning Gilbane JV desires if the word “with” had been omitted. Omitting “with,” the phrase would read: “. . . any person or organization whom you have agreed by written contract to add . . .”, and Gilbane JV’s position would have merit. But [the general contractor] and Liberty included that preposition in the contract between them, and we must give it its ordinary meaning. Here, the “with” can only mean that the written contract must be “with” the additional insured. Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02117, CtApp 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP))

/ , ,

THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the record supported the trial court’s finding that the stop and search of the defendant, in an apartment building, met the DeBour street stop criteria:

Police were conducting a vertical patrol of a New York City Housing Authority building in a high crime area and interviewing tenants in search of a robbery suspect in an investigation unrelated to this case. Defendant got off the elevator, observed the police officers — who were approximately eight feet away with shields displayed — and immediately retreated into the elevator. Defendant ignored an officer’s request that he hold the door and instead “kept pushing the button” and the elevator doors closed. In light of this behavior, as well as the building’s history of narcotics and trespass activity, the police followed defendant to determine whether he lived in the building. Rather than respond to the officer’s questions, defendant turned away from the police to face the wall, held his head down with the hood of his sweatshirt over his head, and kept his hands hidden inside his sweatshirt. The officer immediately noticed a large bulge in defendant’s right arm, which defendant held stiffly and straight down from his body in an unnatural position. … When the officer touched the defendant’s wrist, he felt a metal object, lifted the sleeve of the defendant’s shirt, saw the point of a blade, and ordered him to “drop it.” Defendant did not comply and officers had to pull the weapon — a two-foot-long machete — from defendant’s shirt. Minutes later, the officer learned of a recent robbery in the area involving a machete-wielding suspect wearing clothing matching that worn by defendant.

The issue on appeal to this Court, whether the police conduct conformed to De Bour, presents a mixed question of law and fact …  Accordingly, “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …  People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 02118, CtApp 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/DEBOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))

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