The First Department determined the “pierce the corporate veil” causes of action should be dismissed, applying the usual “pierce the corporate veil” criteria in a “fraudulent conveyance” case: “In order for a plaintiff to state a viable claim against a shareholder of a corporation in his or her individual capacity for actions purportedly taken on […]
The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner had stated a cause of action in his Article 78 proceeding for bad faith abolishment of his tenured Assistant Superintendent position. The Third Department noted that the proper criteria for analysis in this Article 78 proceeding is the same as in a pre-answer motion to […]
The Third Department determined petitioner should be granted attorney’s fees because of respondent’s ignoring a FOIL request until an Article 78 proceeding was brought. Even though respondent indicated the requested documents didn’t exist, the Third Department ruled that petitioner had “prevailed” in the FOIL proceedings and was therefore entitled to attorney’s fees: By commencing this […]
In upholding the disciplinary action taken by a SUNY school against a student, the Third Department determined the student’s due process rights had not been violated: Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated in as much as he was given written notice of the charges prior to the hearing, the name of the witness against […]
In finding an appeal frivolous, the Third Department wrote: We also are persuaded that defendant’s pursuit of this appeal is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable counsel fees incurred in responding thereto. … [O]nce plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment in […]
The Third Department upheld a finding by the New York State Division of Human Rights that petitioner, the owner of a restaurant, had created a hostile work environment and had retaliated against two female employees by firing them after they filed sexual harassment complaints. Matter of West Taghanic Diner, II, Inc v NYS Division of […]
The Third Department determined that a pit bull had acted in self-defense when attacked by another dog which broke free of its leash and, on that basis, reversed the “dangerous dog” finding. The Third Department noted that a “dangerous dog” finding should not be based solely on the breed of the dog: The condemnation of […]
In holding that a second summary judgment motion which addressed deficiencies in the first summary judgment motion should not have been entertained, the Third Department wrote: …[W]e agree with plaintiff that the Town’s summary judgment motion should not have been considered. “‘[M]ultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department upheld the denial of defendant’s suppression motions. After hearing gun shots police officers approached the defendant. After defendant answered a couple of questions he “began to place his hand in his back pocket.” At that point, the officer grabbed defendant’s arm and told defendant he […]
The Third Department determined the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule applied to a very young victim who complained about the incident after several days: Under the prompt outcry rule, “evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place” … […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy