You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, ,

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Macy’s defendants did not eliminate all triable issues of fact concerning whether Macy’s sold the plaintiff’s skirt which caught fire from a heater. Although plaintiff could not identify the store where the skirt was purchased, Macy’s could not rely on the gaps in plaintiff’s proof as […]

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to discover the reports of other accidents involving defendant bus driver. Plaintiff’s children were injured after getting off the bus. Both the driver (Morin) and his employer (CDTA) were sued. Although the bill of particulars mentioned negligent hiring and retention, the complaint did […]

,

CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined the City of New York’s Living in Communities (LINC) Program, designed to move homeless persons into apartments, violated the Urstadt Law, which prohibits the expansion (by a city) of rent controls to buildings beyond those subject to controls at the time […]

, , ,

TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s Site Plan Review Law was a valid substitute for zoning ordinances and explained the difference. The court also explained the meaning of a “comprehensive plan” in this context. In the underlying action the petitioners contested certain conditions placed upon the storage and sale of firewood […]

, ,

RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court (which had affirmed Town Court), determined that the tenant-respondent’s defenses in this eviction proceeding should have been considered: “When a landlord-tenant relationship exists, the landlord may maintain a special proceeding to remove a tenant if, as relevant here, ‘[t]he tenant continues in possession of any portion of the premises […]

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court after a trial, determined plaintiff did not prove he had standing to bring the foreclosure action: … [T]he complaint should have been dismissed for lack of standing. Because defendant raised the issue of standing as an affirmative defense in his answer, plaintiff had to prove his standing to maintain […]

INCLUDING INCOME FROM STOCK ON A JOINT TAX RETURN, USING INCOME FROM THE STOCK FOR MARITAL PURPOSES AND USING THE STOCK AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN DID NOT TRANSMUTE THE STOCK FROM SEPARATE TO MARITAL PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not err in finding IBM stock to be the wife’s separate property in this divorce proceeding, The facts that income from the stock was reported on joint tax returns and was used for marital expenses did not convert the stock to marital property: … [T]he mere reporting of […]

,

HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motions should have been granted because the hearsay in an accident report was not admissible: … [A]lthough the report’s author had a business duty to prepare the report, the statement in the report that the platform “must have been moved during demolition and trench work […]

, , ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the failure to instruct the jury witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law requiring corroboration of their testimony was reversible error, and defense counsel’s failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance: We conclude that the lack of an accomplice corroboration charge […]

, ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the jury should have been instructed that a witness, Dozier, was an accomplice as a matter of law and his testimony therefore required corroboration: … “[T]o be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to […]

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