You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

“Bad Faith Claims Handling” Cause of Action Properly Dismissed As Duplicative of Breach of Contract Cause of Action/Sanctions Appropriate for Inclusion of Dismissed Cause of Action in Amended Complaint

The First Department determined a purported cause of action for “bad faith claims handling” in an insurance-coverage dispute was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (and was therefore properly dismissed). The court further determined that attorney sanctions were appropriate for including a dismissed cause of action in an amended complaint. The First Department explained the (rare) circumstance when breach of contract will give rise to a distinct tort cause of action (not the case here):

In some circumstances “[t]he very nature of a contractual obligation, and the public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care, may give rise to a duty of reasonable care in performance of the contract obligations, and the breach of that independent duty will give rise to a tort claim” …, in which the Court held that “a fire alarm company owed its customer a duty of reasonable care independent of its contractual obligations, and that notwithstanding a contractual provision exculpating the alarm company from damages flowing from its negligence, it could be held liable in tort for its gross failure to properly perform its contractual services” … . Further, “[w]here a party has fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract, it may be liable in tort” … . However, “where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie” … . Orient Overseas Assoc. v XL Ins. Am., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07788, 1st Dept 10-27-15

 

,

Multi-million Dollar Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities Dismissed

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a multi-million dollar malpractice action should have been dismissed. The law firm, Cadwalader, was hired by the plaintiff, Nomura, in connection with Nomura’s commercial mortgage-backed securities investments. Cadwalader’s role was to advise and confirm that Nomura’s securitized commercial mortgage loans qualified as real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) trusts. When a hospital which had been deemed REMIC-qualified by Cadwalader went bankrupt and defaulted on its loan, Nomura settled with the trustee for $67.5 million. Nomura then sued Cadwalader. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. Based upon the facts and the evidence, the Court of Appeals determined Cadwalader demonstrated it had done what it was hired to do, and had exercised due diligence in fulfilling its limited obligations. Nomura failed to raise a question of fact to the contrary. Nomura, the court found, was seeking to impose duties upon Cadwalader which it had expressly reserved to itself. Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 07693, CtApp 10-22-15

 

,

“For Cause” Challenge to Juror Who Socialized with District Attorney Should Have Been Granted—Concept of “Implied Bias” Explained

The Third Department determined a new trial was necessary because of the denial of a “for cause” challenge to a juror who socialized with the district attorney (the case was tried by an assistant district attorney). The court explained the concept of “implied bias” which is not easily “cured:”

A statement by a potential juror suggesting a possible bias can be cured, and the juror not excused, if the juror “provide[s] ‘unequivocal assurance that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence'” … . However, where, as here, the challenge for cause involves a juror’s relationship with a trial participant, a so-called “implied bias” may be implicated which “requires automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial” … . Of course, “[n]ot all relationships . . . require disqualification . . . [and] [t]he frequency of contact and nature of the parties’ relationship are to be considered in determining whether disqualification is necessary” … . As a practical matter, “the trial court should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality” … .

Here, during voir dire, juror no. 3372 stated that her family was “good friends” with the family of the District Attorney. She added that she socialized with the District Attorney, including having him and his wife as dinner guests at her home, and she and her husband had dined as guests at the District Attorney’s home. County Court nonetheless denied defendant’s challenge for cause as to such juror. People v Bedard, 2015 NY Slip Op 07703, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed

The Second Department determined that the denial of mother’s petition for custody (and the grant of father’s petition) must be reversed because mother was denied her right to counsel. Three attorneys assigned to represent mother had been relieved. Family Court refused to assign another attorney and told mother to hire an attorney or proceed pro se. Although Family Court informed mother of the dangers of representing herself, mother never formally waived her right to counsel. Mother represented herself in the custody proceedings:

The Family Court Act enumerates “[e]ach of the persons [who] has the right to the assistance of counsel” (Family Ct Act § 262[a]). One such person is “the parent of any child seeking custody . . . in any proceeding before the court in which the court has jurisdiction to determine such custody” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]…). “[A]n indigent party has a right to assigned counsel in a Family Court custody proceeding” … . Where, as here, an indigent party has a right to assigned counsel, “this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing” … . An application by an indigent person for the assignment of new counsel may be granted only “upon [a] showing [of] good cause for a substitution” … . “Good cause determinations are necessarily case-specific and therefore fall within the discretion of the trial court” … . * * *

A party to a Family Court proceeding who has the right to be represented by counsel may only proceed without counsel if that party has validly waived his or her right to representation … . “To determine whether a party is validly waiving the statutory right to counsel, the Family Court must conduct a searching inquiry’ to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent” … . “The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding is a denial of due process which requires reversal, regardless of the merits of the unrepresented party’s position” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the mother waived her right to counsel … . Matter of Tarnai v Buchbinder, 2015 NY Slip Op 07671, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Appellant of Right to Counsel In Contempt Proceedings Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, which found appellant, Patricia Howlett, to be in civil and criminal contempt for the alleged failure to comply with a court order, because appellant was not informed of her right to counsel in the contempt proceedings:

The Supreme Court erred in holding Patricia Howlett in criminal and civil contempt. There is no evidence in the record which would establish that the court informed Howlett of her right to the assistance of counsel in connection with the contempt proceedings (see Judiciary Law § 770…). Howlett must be fully advised of her right to counsel, and her right to appointed counsel must be adequately explored, with counsel to be provided if appropriate … . Accordingly, we must reverse the order dated January 7, 2015, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination of the motion to hold Howlett in contempt. Matter of Anthie B. (Howlett), 2015 NY Slip Op 07496, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an explicit (not implied) unconditional attorney approval of a real estate contract is a necessary pre-requisite for a valid contract. Here plaintiff’s attorney had approved the contract on the condition that an environmental warranty be provided by the sellers, a condition which was never met or explicitly waived. Despite plaintiff’s desire to go through with the purchase, defendant-sellers’ attorney correctly determined there was no valid contract of sale because plaintiff’s attorney never explicitly unconditionally approved it:

As the Court of Appeals has stated, “[c]larity and predictability are particularly important” in the area of law dealing with attorney approval of real estate contracts … . Here, we conclude that, although plaintiff could have unilaterally waived the environmental conditions that [his attorney] placed on his approval of the contract inasmuch as those conditions benefitted only him …, neither [of plaintiff’s attorneys] clearly and unequivocally did so. Thus, the contract was never unconditionally approved by plaintiff’s attorneys. * * *

“[C]onsiderations of clarity, predictability, and professional responsibility weigh against reading an implied limitation into the attorney approval contingency” … . If [plaintiff’s attorney] intended to waive the conditions placed … on … approval of the contract, he should have done so expressly and not left anything for inference, or he should have stated that he, as plaintiff’s counsel, unconditionally approved the contract as proposed by defendants. Because he failed to do so, we conclude that there was not a valid contract between the parties and that the court erred in directing defendants to sell the property to plaintiffs. Pohlman v Madia, 2015 NY Slip Op 07379, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, , ,

Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, developed analytical criteria for determining whether documents sought by the plaintiff major investor (NAMA) in defendant limited liability company (Alliance) (formed for a major real estate development project) were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The documents at issue are communications between the managers of defendant Alliance and their attorneys, defendant Greenberg.  Supreme Court held that the 3000 communications were not protected by attorney-client privilege pursuant to the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege (re: derivative actions) because the interests of the plaintiff were not adverse to Alliance. However, that finding was not based upon a review of the communications. The First Department determined each individual communication must be reviewed to find whether it evinces an adversarial relationship. If so, such “adversity” would be only one factor to weigh in concluding whether “good cause” exists to invoke the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege. The First Department adopted the reasoning of a Fifth Circuit case, Garner v Wolfinbarger, 430 Fed 1093, which sets out a list of factors to be applied in finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception to the privilege. “Adversity” is but one of those factors:

In the corporate context, where a shareholder (or, as here, an investor in a company) brings suit against corporate management for breach of fiduciary duty or similar wrongdoing, courts have carved out a “fiduciary exception” to the privilege that otherwise attaches to communications between management and corporate counsel. * * *

In 1970, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended the fiduciary exception to the corporate environment in Garner v Wolfinbarger (430 F2d 1093 [5th Cir 1970], cert denied 401 US 974 [1971]), for the first time allowing shareholders to use the exception to pierce the corporate attorney-client privilege. The Garner court was persuaded by two English cases that “treat[ed] the relationship between shareholder and company as analogous to that between beneficiaries and trustees” (id. at 1102). Relying on those cases and the traditional crime-fraud and joint-representation exceptions for the proposition that the corporate attorney-client privilege is not absolute, the court summarized its reasoning in the following way:

“[W]here the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockholders to show cause why it should not be invoked in the particular instance” (id. at 1103-1104). * * *

While some factors in the Garner test are relevant to a determination of adversity, Garner did not create a categorical adversity limitation. Thus, adversity is not a threshold inquiry but a component of the broader good-cause inquiry. Moreover, of the Garner factors that pertain to adversity, some will indicate whether the parties are generally adverse, while others will require a review of the communications in dispute; the relevant factors may weigh against finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception with respect to those communications that reveal adversity. Accordingly, a court may find that the party seeking disclosure has shown good cause to be given access to some communications but not others. NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 07346, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Setting Aside the Verdict

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it set aside the verdict in a personal injury trial based upon the conduct of the defense attorney:

The plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a): (1) in the interest of justice, contending that defense counsel’s improper and inflammatory remarks during summation deprived them of a fair trial; and (2) contending that the verdict as to damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the first ground, and the defendants appeal.

Under CPLR 4404(a), a trial court has the discretion to order a new trial “in the interest of justice” (CPLR 4404[a]…). In considering whether to exercise its discretionary power to order a new trial based on errors at trial, the court “must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to [its] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision’ … . On appeal, however, this Court is invested with the power to decide whether the trial court providently exercised its discretion … .

Here, we conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a new trial. The plaintiffs’ claims regarding defense counsel’s conduct center on remarks made by defense counsel during her summation, although they also challenge her cross-examination of certain witnesses. Some of the challenged conduct was certainly improper, and we do not condone it … . Nonetheless, viewing defense counsel’s conduct in the context of the entire trial, we conclude that it was not pervasive or prejudicial, or so inflammatory as to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial … . Lariviere v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06894, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

,

The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis

The Second Department determined the trial court erred when it denied defense counsel’s request to withdraw a peremptory challenge to a juror. However, the error was deemed harmless because of the nature of the evidence against the defendant. On appeal the Second Department primarily addressed whether the harmless error analysis applied to the withdrawal of a peremptory challenge:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s improper denial of his request to withdraw his peremptory challenge is not subject to harmless error analysis, since the error deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury in whose selection he had a voice … . We disagree. While peremptory challenges “are a mainstay in a litigant’s strategic arsenal,” they are “not a trial tool of constitutional magnitude” … . The right to exercise peremptory challenges “is protected by the Criminal Procedure Law, which provides that each party must be allowed’ an equal number of peremptory challenges and that a court must exclude’ any juror challenged” … . Therefore, “the unjustified denial of a peremptory challenge violates CPL 270.25(2) and requires reversal without regard to harmless error” … . However, there is no statutory right to withdraw a peremptory challenge. Further, the instant case does not involve a situation in which the People attempted to peremptorily challenge a juror who had been accepted by the defense in violation of CPL 270.15(2), inasmuch as the People did not object to the defendant’s request to withdraw the peremptory challenge … . Moreover, the defendant was not prejudiced by the loss of the peremptory challenge since, at the conclusion of jury selection, defense counsel had exercised only 9 of his 15 peremptory challenges … . Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the error was harmless. People v Marshall, 2015 NY Slip Op 06830, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, , ,

Apportionment of Damages Between the City and the Contractor Who Negligently Set Up Lane Closures for Its Highway Work Was Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence—New Trial for Apportionment of Damages Ordered/Two-Justice Dissenting Opinion Argued that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Vouching for His Own Credibility and Attacking the Credibility of Defense Witnesses In Summation Warranted a New Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the weight of the evidence did not support a 65%/35% apportionment of damages to the city (65%) and the contractor (35%) who set up lane closures for highway repair work. Plaintiff was severely injured in an accident which the jury found was the result of the failure to adequately warn drivers of upcoming lane closures. Because the lane closures were the responsibility of the contractor, the majority determined the 65%/35% damages apportionment was not supported the weight of the evidence and sent the matter back for a new trial on the apportionment of liability. Much of the opinion, including the entirety of the dissenting opinion, focused on the propriety of remarks made by plaintiffs’ counsel during summation (vouching for his own credibility, attacking the credibility of defense witnesses, etc.):

It is well settled that trial counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting arguments to a jury in summation … . During summation, an attorney “remains within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment in pointing out the insufficiency and contradictory nature of a plaintiff’s proofs without depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial” … . However, an attorney may not “bolster his case . . . by repeated accusations that the witnesses for the other side are liars” …. .

Although the City failed to object to the bulk of the challenged comments during summation, the City moved for an immediate mistrial based on comments impugning defense counsel, the reference to “Wang and his gang,” and plaintiffs’ counsel’s allegedly vouching for his own credibility. We find that although some of the comments were highly inflammatory, they did not ” create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair'” … . The jury had ample reason to question the testimony of Officer Pagano, lessening the danger that they were improperly influenced by plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks. Gregware v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06408, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

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