, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for an accounting of a trust should not have been limited to the six years before the filing of the complaint. Although the trustee did not provide a requested accounting. the trustee did not openly repudiate his fiduciary duties, so the six-year statute of limitations was never triggered:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action seeking an accounting is six years (see CPLR 213 [1] … ). It is well settled that the limitations period begins to run only when ” ‘the trustee openly repudiates his [or her] fiduciary obligations’ ” and ” ‘a mere lapse of time is insufficient without proof of an open repudiation’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue of open repudiation” … . Here, defendants “failed to sustain their burden of establishing that [defendant] had openly repudiated [his] fiduciary obligations to [plaintiffs] so as to start the statute of limitations clock” … . Although defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with an accounting, he never outright refused to do so. Further, defendant continued to conduct his duties as trustee by handling the taxes and expenses for the trust, and making the necessary disbursements to plaintiffs as beneficiaries. Thus, the cause of action for an accounting had not accrued at the time plaintiffs commenced this action. Massey-Hughes v Massey, 2021 NY Slip Op 07405, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE RESPONDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court. determined the granting of the Article 78 petition after denying a pre-answer motion to dismiss was not proper:

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, once such a “motion is denied, the court shall permit respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 7804 [f]). Here, in denying the motion, the court essentially treated respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment, searched the record, and granted summary judgment against respondents. It is well settled, however, that “if the court intends to treat the motion as one for summary judgment, it must give adequate notice to the parties that it so intends” … , and the court gave no such notice here. Additionally, only where “the facts are so fully presented in the papers of the respective parties that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” should a court grant the petition without permitting respondents to answer … . Mintz v City of Rochester, 2021 NY Slip Op 07389, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action that did not require plaintiff’s innocence in a criminal matter were time barred. Plaintiff was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation she appropriated life insurance proceeds which were due to other beneficiaries. Plaintiff then sued two insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty. None of those causes of action accrued upon plaintiff’s acquittal. All were therefore time-barred:

Contrary to … the court’s conclusion, those causes of action did not accrue at the time the criminal proceeding terminated. The termination of a criminal proceeding is relevant for claims for malicious prosecution and legal malpractice arising out of a criminal proceeding … . For those claims, a plaintiff is required to make a showing of innocence, and thus the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff can assert the element of his or her innocence on the criminal charges … . Plaintiff here does not need to assert her innocence on the criminal charges as an element of the causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty … . Morrow v Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. of NY, 2021 NY Slip Op 07373, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE AFTER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE INJURED PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the subrogation action by plaintiff-insurer of the property owner, 60 LBC, in this slip and fall case was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

The court determined that plaintiff is barred by res judicata from pursuing 60 LBC’s [the property owner’s] coverage claim against defendant [the insurer of the landscaping business hired by 60 LBC to remove ice and snow] because it was resolved in the global settlement [with the injured party] reached during mediation. We disagree. Defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] was not a party to the underlying personal injury action or the third-party action, and the release resulting from the settlement of those actions makes no mention of any claims directly against defendant by 60 LBC or anyone else. Nor does the stipulation of discontinuance. The breach of contract claim asserted by 60 LBC against Red Cedar [the landscaping company] in the third-party action is separate and distinct from plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action against defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] here. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v Acadia Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 07351, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , ,

AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by justice NeMoyer which cannot be fairly summarized here, held the appellate court had the power to determine a request for a declaratory judgment which was not raised in the motion court, and the regulation mandating certain vaccines, 10 NYCRR 66-1.1(1) , does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the regulatory powers of the NYS Department of Health:

The legislature has determined that vaccines save lives. It has therefore established a mandatory “program of immunization . . . to raise to the highest reasonable level the immunity of the children of the state against communicable diseases” (Public Health Law § 613 [1] [a]). And by promulgating 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l), respondents-defendants-appellants (defendants) merely implemented the legislature’s policy in a manner entirely consistent with the legislative design. We therefore hold that 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l) is valid, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and does not exceed the authority of its promulgator. Matter of Kerri W.S. v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 07349, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPEALABLE ORDER IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, withholding a decision on the merits of the SORA risk-level determination by County Court until the People enter and serve an appealable order, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, explained the “appealable order” requirements for SORA proceedings:

Despite the statutory requirement that the court render a written SORA “order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), the lack of such orders is a recurring problem … . In some cases, as here, the court states during a bench decision that a so-ordered provision will be provided on the transcript but that does not occur … . In others, the court signs a standard form designating the defendant’s risk level classification without “so-ordered” language or specific findings and conclusions … . In each of these situations, this Court generally dismisses the appeal, as we must, because it is not properly before us due to the lack of an appealable order … . This creates a confusing situation in which no proper order exists regarding the defendant’s status under SORA (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

… Generally, in any civil case, upon a clerk’s entry of a written order, the prevailing party should serve a copy of the order, together with notice of entry, upon the losing party (see CPLR 2220 [b]; 5513 [a] … ). The losing party, once served with a copy of that entered order and notice of entry, has 30 days to take an appeal as of right (see CPLR 5513 [a]; see also Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Pursuant to SORA, “the district attorney, or his or her designee,” is statutorily required to appear at the SORA hearing on behalf of the state and bears the burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level determination being sought (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Thus, the People bear the responsibility of ensuring that a written SORA order is entered and that notice of entry, along with a copy of that written order, is served on the defendant. People v Lane, 2021 NY Slip Op 07324, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the calculation of the arrearages for plaintiff’s potion of defendant’s pension was restricted by the six-year statute of limitations for contact actions. The stipulation of settlement, which is the basis for plaintiff’s right to a portion of the pension, was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce such that a breach of the stipulation is a breach of contract:

It is well settled that “[a] stipulation of settlement that is incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation” … , and an action seeking money damages for violation of a separation agreement is subject to the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions … . Contrary to the court’s determination, it is irrelevant that plaintiff sought the arrearages by way of motion rather than by commencement of a plenary action. Although motions to enforce the terms of a stipulation are not subject to the statute of limitations … , in this case plaintiff was seeking arrearages, or money damages, for the amounts that she did not receive because the QDRO was never received by Niagara Mohawk. When a party is seeking arrearages or a money judgment, the statute of limitations applies whether a party commences a plenary action … or, as here, simply moves for that relief … .

Thus, we conclude that plaintiff’s claim is timely only to the extent that she seeks her share of pension payments made within six years prior to her motion filed on July 29, 2019. Mussmacher v Mussmacher, 2021 NY Slip Op 07413, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connelly, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 213-b(1) does not extend the statute of limitations for civil actions against someone “convicted of a crime” where that person has been adjudicated a youthful offender. Here plaintiff, Anthony Pitt, was accused of rape by Ericka Feagles. The charges against Pitt were resolved in his favor in October 2011. Although Feagles was subsequently charged with falsely reporting an incident and making a false written statement, she was adjudicated a youthful offender in connection with those charges in April 2012. Plaintiff’s August 2016 suit against Feagles would only be timely if the seven-year extension of the statute of limitations in CPLR 213-b(1) applied. The Second Department determined being adjudicated a youthful offender does not equate to being “convicted of a crime.” Therefore the extension in CPLR 213-b(1) did not apply and plaintiff’s suit was time-barred. The court noted the plaintiff could have brought an intentional tort action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations:

CPLR 213-b, entitled “Action by a victim of a criminal offense,” provides, as relevant, that “an action by a crime victim . . . may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant: (1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime” … . * * *

… [W]e … must consider the competing legislative purpose of the youthful offender statute. In enacting the youthful offender statute, the legislature sought to relieve youthful offenders of the consequences of a criminal conviction and give them a “second chance” … . It would be inconsistent with that legislative purpose to allow plaintiffs to commence civil actions against youthful offenders long after the conduct underlying the adjudication occurred … .

Our determination does not prohibit civil actions against defendants for the conduct underlying youthful offender adjudications. We simply hold that plaintiffs must commence such actions within the applicable statutes of limitations, without the benefit of the seven-year extension provided in CPLR 213-b(1). We note that here, the plaintiffs commenced the prior action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts and would have had a timely action against Feagles had they properly served her. The plaintiffs did not do so. Pitt v Feagles, 2021 NY Slip Op 07299, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined Family Court did lose jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding when complainant turned 21. The court noted that even if the complainant is incapacitated (but not judicially declared incompetent) Family Court has jurisdiction:

In the context of a family offense proceeding, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is generally confined to whether a qualifying offense has been committed between parties in a qualifying relationship (see Family Ct Act §§ 115[e]; 812[1] … ), irrespective of the complainant’s age. Thus, the fact that the complainant attained the age of 21 during the hearing did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

To the extent the respondent’s motion may be construed as challenging the petitioner’s ability to prosecute this matter in a representative capacity for the complainant, this does not amount to a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the proceeding … . Indeed, “[a]n incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person” … , and courts must not “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such” … . Rather, insofar as the record raises questions of fact as to whether the complainant may require the assistance of a guardian ad litem to protect her interests, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s request to appoint a guardian to the extent of conducting a hearing to determine whether such an appointment was necessary pursuant to CPLR 1201… . Matter of Vellios v Vellios, 2021 NY Slip Op 07276, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, , , , ,

WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined the party-statement exception to the privilege afforded statements made in a peer-review “quality assurance” committee’s review of the medical treatment afforded a patient applied to all of the statements made by speakers who were not identified in the meeting minutes. The defendants, who were asserting the privilege, were unable to demonstrate the statements attributed in the minutes to the “committee” were not made by a party and therefore not subject to the party-statement exception to the privilege. In other words, the statements made at the meeting by unidentified speakers were discoverable by the plaintiff in this medical malpractice action:

Requiring a defendant who is asserting the quality-assurance privilege to identify who made the statements at a medical or quality assurance review meeting, so as to demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, will further the goals of the quality-assurance privilege … . By identifying the maker of the statements at the medical or quality-assurance review meetings, only those statements that are made by a party will be subject to disclosure, and only those statements entitled to protection from disclosure will be protected. … [I]n order to avail itself of the privilege afforded by Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2), the party asserting the privilege must demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, and thus must identify who said what at the meeting. …

… [T]he party-statement exception applied to those statements in the peer-review committee meeting minutes that were attributed to the committee, and for which there was no indication as to who specifically made the statements, as they were not entitled to the quality-assurance privilege set forth in Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2). Siegel v Snyder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07264, Second Dept 12-22-21