You are here: / PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL...

Search Results

/

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))

/

MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over a comprehensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirmed defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon. Defendant was charged with possession of a BB gun and a handgun (Taurus). The judge dismissed the BB gun charge prior to submission of the handgun charge to the jury:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the non-inclusory charge of unlawful possession of an air pistol or rifle which related to the BB gun … . The jury was free to credit defendant’s theory that he possessed the BB gun but not the Taurus firearm that was also recovered in his vicinity — which was the subject of separate weapon possession counts. Contrary to defendant’s contention, his defense that he never possessed the Taurus firearm was not removed from consideration when the trial court dismissed the charge related to the BB gun, nor did defendant argue in the trial court that the dismissal of the BB gun count impaired his constitutional right to present a defense.

From the dissent:

The trial court abused its discretion when it did not submit the unlawful possession of an air pistol count to the jury and submitted instead only the more serious counts relating to the possession of a handgun. This error allowed the jury to consider highly prejudicial testimony completely irrelevant to the counts submitted, including defendant’s admission of guilt to the possession of the air pistol. So doing, the trial court encouraged reverse jury nullification and provoked confusion in the jury’s deliberative process.  People v Boyd, 2018 NY Slip Op 02120, CtApp 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/BB GUN (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/HANDGUN (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))

/ , , ,

NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the nuisance and trespass actions based upon the alleged diversion of surface water were not continuing torts and were therefore time-barred:

Defendants established that the nuisance and trespass causes of action accrued, at the latest, in June 2010, which is when plaintiff received the information from the USACE [US Army Corps of Engineers] and the damage to its property was apparent … .

Plaintiff contends that, because the water flows continually onto its property, the torts are continuous in nature and, as a result, plaintiff’s causes of action for nuisance and trespass are not time-barred. We reject that contention. Courts will apply the continuing wrong doctrine in cases of ” nuisance or continuing trespass where the harm sustained by the complaining party is not exclusively traced to the day when the original objectionable act was committed’ “… . Here, plaintiff’s allegations establish that its damages may be traced to a specific, objectionable act, i.e., the implementation of the remedial plan. Where, as here, there is an original, objectionable act, “the accrual date does not change as a result of continuing consequential damages” … . EPK Props., LLC v PFOHL Bros. Landfill Site Steering Comm., 2018 NY Slip Op 02085, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/NUISANCE (SURFACE WATER, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRESPASS (SURFACE WATER, CONTINUING TORTS, NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/SURFACE WATER (NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS BASED UPON SURFACE WATER WERE NOT CONTINUING TORTS AND WERE THEREFORE TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA FOR CONTINUING TORTS IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer involved a traffic accident with plaintiff was proceeding through a red light or a green light on his way to an (another) accident scene. If the light was red, the reckless disregard standard would apply to the officer’s driving. If the light was green, the normal negligence standard would apply:

We reject defendants’ contention that the color of the traffic light is not a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment. If the factfinder determines that defendant officer was engaged in the exempt conduct of proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [2]), then the reckless disregard standard of care would apply under the circumstances presented herein … . If, however, the factfinder credits defendant officer’s account that he was proceeding through a green light, then the alleged injury-causing conduct by defendant officer would be governed by principles of ordinary negligence… . Inasmuch as the resolution of that factual issue will determine the standard of care by which the factfinder must evaluate defendant officer’s conduct … , we conclude that the court erred in determining on the submissions before it that the reckless disregard standard applies as a matter of law. Furthermore, the determination of the color of the traffic light at the time of the collision, and each driver’s compliance with the standard of care that will apply upon resolution of that material factual issue, depends on the memory and credibility of witnesses … . Inasmuch as a court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is ” issue-finding, rather than issue-determination’ ” … , we reject defendants’ contention that they are entitled to summary judgment at this juncture … . Oddo v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02041, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action based upon a cancer misdiagnosis was time-barred. The misdiagnosis was made before the statute of limitations for cancer misdiagnosis was changed (it now runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the misdiagnosis). The court rejected the attempt to extend the statute of limitations by asserting fraud-related causes of action based upon the malpractice and alleged concealment of the misdiagnosis:

Defendants … contend that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that they are not estopped from invoking the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. We agree. “The elements of a cause of action for fraud in connection with charges of medical malpractice are knowledge on the part of the physician of the fact of his [or her] malpractice and of [the] patient’s injury in consequence thereof, coupled with a subsequent intentional, material misrepresentation by [the physician] to [the] patient known by [the physician] to be false at the time it was made, and on which the patient [justifiably] relied to his [or her] damage’ ” … . “The damages resulting from the fraud must be separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice” … . Additionally, “a defendant may be estopped to plead the [s]tatute of [l]imitations where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action”… . However, “without more, concealment by a physician or failure to disclose his [or her] own malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action in fraud or deceit separate and different from the customary malpractice action, thereby entitling the plaintiff to bring his [or her] action within the longer period limited for such claims” … . Forbes v Caris Life Sciences, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02086, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH 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