You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s (Duran’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell from a beam which was four feet above the ground. There was evidence plaintiff previously alleged in a document that he fell over debris, but there was a question whether plaintiff, who spoke Spanish, understood the statement in the document. Plaintiff’s counsel asked that the jury be instructed to decide whether plaintiff fell off the beam, but the trial judge refused that request:

​

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ request to ask the jury to determine not only whether the temple violated Labor Law § 240(1), but also to determine whether Duran fell off the beam … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, this constituted a fundamental error warranting a new trial because the court’s instructions failed to explain to the jury that, in light of arguably inconsistent accounts of how the accident occurred, the jury was entitled to find that Duran did not fall from the beam or, alternatively, that he did fall from the beam but no safety device was required under Labor Law § 240(1). Further, there was sufficient evidence of juror confusion with respect to this issue … . Notably, the jury requested a readback of Labor Law § 240(1). The court’s errors in failing to properly charge the jury and add the interrogatory requested by the plaintiffs prejudiced a substantial right and warrants a new trial … . Duran v Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (a) (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a contract was not actionable because the consideration for a past or executed promise was not spelled out in it. The court noted that a decision on a motion to dismiss does not become the law of the case in a subsequent motion for summary judgment:

​

General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-1105 provides:

“A promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed.”

It essentially codifies the notion that “[g]enerally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because the detriment did not induce the promise.’ That is, since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise'”… . However, General Obligations Law § 5-1105 makes an exception where the past consideration is explicitly recited in a writing. To qualify for the exception, the description of the consideration must not be “vague” or “imprecise,” nor may extrinsic evidence be employed to assist in understanding the consideration … . * * *

… “[T]he law of the case doctrine does not apply when a motion to dismiss is followed by a summary judgment motion” … . Korff v Corbett, 2017 NY Slip Op 07677, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-1105  (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (HEAR) controlled an action in New York making a claim to a painting that was confiscated during the German occupation of France in 1944. Under HEAR the action was timely commenced:

​

HEAR supplants the statute of limitations provisions otherwise applicable to civil claims such as these (see Pub L 114-308, § 5[a]). Under HEAR, the applicable statute of limitations is six years from the date of “actual discovery” of “the identity and location of the artwork” and “a possessory interest of the claimant in the artwork” (id.). We reject defendants’ argument that HEAR can be displaced by a choice-of-law analysis.

 

Under section 5(c) of HEAR, for purposes of starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations provided by section 5(a), a preexisting claim covered by HEAR is “deemed to have been actually discovered on the date of enactment of [HEAR].” However, section 5(c) is made subject to the exception provided in section 5(e), which, as here relevant, provides that HEAR does not save a preexisting claim that was “barred on the day before the date of enactment of [HEAR] by a Federal or State statute of limitations” where “not less than 6 years have passed from the date [the] claimant . . . acquired such knowledge and during which time the civil claim or cause of action was not barred by a Federal or State statute of limitations.” Accordingly, to establish that HEAR does not save the subject claim, defendants were required to show that [plaintiff] discovered the claim on or before December 15, 2010 (six years before the day before the date of HEAR’s enactment). This they have failed to do. Maestracci v Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07676, First Dept 11-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/PAINTINGS (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))

HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (HEAR) controlled an action in New York making a claim to a painting that was confiscated during the German occupation of France in 1944. Under HEAR the action was timely commenced:

​

HEAR supplants the statute of limitations provisions otherwise applicable to civil claims such as these (see Pub L 114-308, § 5[a]). Under HEAR, the applicable statute of limitations is six years from the date of “actual discovery” of “the identity and location of the artwork” and “a possessory interest of the claimant in the artwork” (id.). We reject defendants’ argument that HEAR can be displaced by a choice-of-law analysis.

Under section 5(c) of HEAR, for purposes of starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations provided by section 5(a), a preexisting claim covered by HEAR is “deemed to have been actually discovered on the date of enactment of [HEAR].” However, section 5(c) is made subject to the exception provided in section 5(e), which, as here relevant, provides that HEAR does not save a preexisting claim that was “barred on the day before the date of enactment of [HEAR] by a Federal or State statute of limitations” where “not less than 6 years have passed from the date [the] claimant . . . acquired such knowledge and during which time the civil claim or cause of action was not barred by a Federal or State statute of limitations.” Accordingly, to establish that HEAR does not save the subject claim, defendants were required to show that [plaintiff] discovered the claim on or before December 15, 2010 (six years before the day before the date of HEAR’s enactment). This they have failed to do. Maestracci v Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07676, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/PAINTINGS (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, MULTIPLE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined members of the Buffalo Jills, cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills football team, were properly certified as a class to bring an action alleging Labor Law violations (failure to compensate) and fraud. The Fourth Department noted that evidence submitted in the reply papers was properly considered because the defendants had the opportunity to address the evidence and further noted Supreme Court properly certified three law firms as class counsel:

​

Class action is appropriate only if all five of the requirements are met … , and the burden of establishing those requirements is on the party seeking certification … . The first prerequisite is that the class must be so numerous that joinder of all of its members is impracticable (see CPLR 901 [a] [1]). …

The second prerequisite is that there are common questions of law or fact that predominate over questions affecting only individual members (see CPLR 901 [a] [2]). …

The third prerequisite is that the class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of the class (see CPLR 901 [a] [3]). …

​

The fourth prerequisite is that the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class (see CPLR 901 [a] [4]). …

The fifth prerequisite is that class action is the superior method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy (see CPLR 901 [a] [5]).  …

… Once the section 901 (a) prerequisites have been met, a court must consider the class members’ interest in prosecuting individual actions; the impracticality or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; the extent and nature of any separate action already pending; the desirability of the forum; and the difficulties likely to be encountered in managing a class action (see CPLR 902…) …

… [T]he court properly certified three law firms as class counsel. It is within the court’s discretion to allow representation by more than one counsel … . Ferrari v The Natl. Football League, 2017 NY Slip Op 06755, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CLASS ACTION,  CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/CLASS ACTIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED) NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of attorney’s fees and 18% interest in this breach of contract action was error. Summary judgment cannot be granted by the court, sua sponte, on a ground (account stated) not raised in the motion papers:

​

… [T]he court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest at the rate of 18% based on an unpleaded account stated theory. The record establishes that plaintiff neither pleaded an account stated theory nor moved for summary judgment on that ground … . It is well settled that, generally, a party may not obtain summary judgment on an unpleaded cause of action… , but there is an exception to that general rule where the proof supports such a cause of action and the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice … . Here, we conclude that defendant was substantially prejudiced by the court’s sua sponte reliance on the unpleaded account stated theory … . Indeed, we note that plaintiff’s moving and reply papers did not even mention that theory, nor did they mention attorney’s fees or interest at the rate of 18% per annum … .

We conclude that the court further erred in searching the record pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) and granting summary judgment on an account stated theory to plaintiff, the moving party. Although a court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see id.), that authority is applicable “only with respect to a [claim] or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court”… . Here, plaintiff was the moving party and an account stated theory was not the subject of the motion before the court. Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v PCL Props., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06745, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED) NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED) NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED) NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED) NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (in part) Supreme Court, determined one of defendant’s motions for a directed verdict was premature because plaintiff had not finished presenting proof, a second motion for a directed verdict was properly granted based upon admissions made by plaintiff’s witness, and a cross-claim based upon an indemnification agreement failed because the agreement purported to indemnify a party for its own negligence (in violation of the General Obligations Law). With respect to the premature motion for a directed verdict, the court wrote:

​

“Any party may move for judgment with respect to a cause of action or issue upon the ground that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue, or at any time on the basis of admissions.”

In interpreting this provision, this Court has held that the requirement that a party opposing a directed verdict motion must have closed its presentation of evidence “must be strictly enforced” (Griffin v Clinton Green S., LLC, 98 AD3d 41, 46 [1st Dept 2012]). Further, we have held that “the grant of a dismissal [pursuant to CPLR 4401] prior to the close of the opposing party’s case will be reversed as premature, even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . This Court in Griffin emphasized the importance of each party being “afford[ed] . . . a day in court” … . * * *

​

[Defendant] essentially asks us to endorse a system whereby a party can make a directed verdict motion at any time during trial, so long as the party opposing the motion has put in some unspecified quantum of evidence that, though it may not have been everything the opposing party intended to put in, was sufficient for the trial court to determine that there were no issues of fact and it could decide for the movant as a matter of law. We decline to do so. 11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 06709, First Dept 9-28-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DIRECTED VERDICT, MOTION FOR  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT  (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cooperative board should not have given the owner of a second-floor cooperative apartment (Haffey) permission to construct a second floor terrace without the consent of the investor-owner of the first-floor cooperative apartment. The cooperative’s guidelines, which can be waived, required the first-floor owner’s consent to the construction of a second-floor terrace. The board’s decision singled out investor-owners for different treatment and cannot be justified under the business judgment rule. The court noted the board’s determination is properly the subject of an Article 78 proceeding:

​

… [In] “the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination so long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . “To trigger further judicial scrutiny, an aggrieved shareholder-tenant must make a showing that the board acted (1) outside the scope of its authority, (2) in a way that did not legitimately further the corporate purpose or (3) in bad faith”… . “[T]he broad powers of cooperative governance carry the potential for abuse when a board singles out a person for harmful treatment or engages in unlawful discrimination, vendetta, arbitrary decision making and favoritism” … .

… [T]he board’s determination to dispense with the consent requirement and allow Haffey to erect the subject terrace without the petitioner’s consent was not protected by the business judgment rule. By dispensing with the petitioner’s consent, and, more generally, the consent of first-floor shareholders-tenants who do not reside in the building, the board deliberately singled out the petitioner, as well as tenant-shareholders who do not reside on the premises, for harmful treatment and engaged in favoritism toward tenants-shareholders who resided on the premises. As such, the petitioner established that the board’s determination to dispense with his consent did not legitimately further the corporate purpose and was made in bad faith … . Matter of Dicker v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06645, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

COOPERATIVES (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an attorney who worked for defendant insurer must be deposed to ascertain his role in an investigation of a fire at plaintiffs’ property and the denial of coverage. Based on the deposition, Supreme Court will address what portions of the insurer’s files, including the attorney’s, are discoverable by plaintiffs:

​

“[T]he CPLR establishes three categories of protected materials, also supported by policy considerations: privileged matter, absolutely immune from discovery (CPLR 3101[b]); attorney’s work product, also absolutely immune (CPLR 3101[c]); and trial preparation materials, which are subject to disclosure only on a showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means CPLR 3101 [d][2]” … . “[I]n order for attorney-client communications to be privileged, the document must be primarily or predominantly a communication of a legal character” … . …

“Reports of insurance investigators or adjusters, prepared during the processing of a claim, are discoverable as made in the regular course of the insurance company’s business” … . “Furthermore, attorney work product applies only to documents prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer’s learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy” … . “Documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurance company’s investigation to determine whether to accept or reject coverage and to evaluate the extent of a claimant’s loss are not privileged and are, therefore, discoverable. In addition, such documents do not become privileged merely because an investigation was conducted by an attorney” … . Venture v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06594, First Dept 9-26-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL INFORM WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL INFORM WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, ATTORNEYS, INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL INFORM WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEYS, (INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL INFORM WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT))

,

COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant manufacturer was not entitled to amend its answer with counterclaims for indemnification and contribution based upon negligent supervision by the injured child’s mother in this products liability action. The child was injured by blender blades. The blender was on the kitchen counter but was not running at the time:

​

… [P]laintiff’s … four-year-old daughter allegedly was injured when her hand came into contact with the blades of a hand-held stick blender that was left on the kitchen counter, plugged in but not running, while the plaintiff went to retrieve something from the freezer. The plaintiff commenced this action … to recover damages for strict products liability and breach of warranty against the defendants, which allegedly manufactured and sold the blender. The defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff for contribution and indemnification. …

​

In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications for leave to amend a pleading are to be freely granted “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit”… . Here, the acts complained of in the proposed counterclaim did not implicate a duty owed to the public at large, but rather, only gave rise to an allegation that the plaintiff negligently supervised her child, which cannot serve as the basis for cognizable claims for contribution or indemnification … . The proposed amendment was, therefore, palpably insufficient, and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Siragusa v Conair Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06564, Second Dept 9-20-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRIBUTION (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND 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