You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance

The First Department, in a detailed decision, determined Supreme Court had properly balanced the requirement that a criminal trial be open to the public and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.  Because the court properly used its discretion to balance the two concerns neither mandamus nor prohibition was an available remedy.  The decision is worth reading—many of the issues discussed are not noted here:

The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … . This right must be kept in balance with the compelling interest of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the right to privacy of prospective jurors … . The public’s right of access may be limited where there is a compelling governmental interest and closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … .

New York’s approach to courtroom closure is “comparable to the federal analysis” … . The press is not imbued with any special right of access, and while it possesses “the same right of access as the public,” it has no right to information about a trial that is “greater” or “superior” to that of the general public … . A ” trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity'” … . Decisions to seal or disclose records fall within the inherent power of the court to control the records of its own proceedings … . While a court must guarantee that the defendant receives a fair trial, it must do so in a manner that balances the interests of “the defendant, jurors, witnesses, attorneys and the public at large” … . Matter of Daily News, L.P. v Wiley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02010, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

, ,

Engineer/Engineering Firm Did Not Have Standing to Contest Variance

The Third Department determined the petitioner, Klein, an engineer who claimed to be representing neighbors opposed to a variance granted by the town zoning board, did not have standing to contest the variance:

The Town Code permits appeals by “any person aggrieved” by, among other things, the zoning administrator’s decisions (Code of the Town of Queensbury § 179-14-040 [C]). As the Town Code does not define the quoted phrase, it must be interpreted according to its plain meaning … . This language seems to be taken directly from Town Law § 267-a (4). This same phrase in that statute has been consistently interpreted to mean a person who “has sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . Even without establishing an injury in fact, a person is presumed to have standing if he or she falls within the statute’s zone of interests and his or her property is sufficiently proximate to the property at issue … .

The notice of appeal to the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] listed Klein’s engineering firm as the appellant and Klein as the appellant’s agent. Klein and his firm did not exhibit any specialized harm and do not own property near the Kitchens’ property. Thus, Klein does not have standing in his individual capacity or as an agent for his firm. Klein asserts that at the public hearings and in letters he identified himself as appearing on behalf of neighbors. While this is true, at no point up until the day before the hearing on his appeal did he identify who his clients were. The other petitioners involved in this appeal, who later claimed that Klein was their agent, were not listed on the notice of appeal and did not file a formal designation form naming him as their agent — as the Town generally requires — prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for appealing an administrative determination. Under the circumstances, the ZBA did not err in finding that Klein was not a duly authorized agent of an aggrieved party during the requisite limitations period for the appeal and was not himself aggrieved, so he had no standing … . Matter of Fund for Lake George, Inc. v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 518831, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) based upon the “single motion” rule.  The defendants had made motions to dismiss certain causes of action in the original complaint.  Therefore the defendants could not make those motions again with respect to an amended complaint:

CPLR 3211(e) provides, in relevant part, that at any time before service of a responsive pleading is required, a party may move to dismiss a pleading “on one or more grounds set forth” in CPLR 3211(a), and that “no more than one such motion shall be permitted.” Accordingly, this “single motion rule prohibits parties from making successive motions to dismiss a pleading” pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) … . The rule bars both repetitive motions to dismiss a pleading pursuant CPLR 3211(a), as well as subsequent motions to dismiss that pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) that are based on alternative grounds … . Here, the defendants previously moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that documentary evidence established a complete defense to the action (see CPLR 3211[a][1]), that the action was time-barred (see CPLR 3211[a][5]), and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). * * * Accordingly, those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss … [substantially identical] causes of action in the amended complaint were procedurally barred by the single-motion rule, and were properly denied (see CPLR 3211[e]…). Bailey v Peerstate Equity Fund, L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 01911, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court

The Second Department noted that a sua sponte determination does not become the law-of-the-case  and does not bind the appellate court:

Supreme Court determined that, pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, it was bound by the prior Supreme Court order to hold that [a nonparty] was a bona fide purchaser of the subject property. On that ground, the Supreme Court concluded that, “[h]aving failed to obtain a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold, [defendant] [was] relegated to an action for money damages, and would not be able to recover the real property” … . However, since the parties had not litigated the sua sponte determination as to [the nonparty’s] status, application of the doctrine of law of the case was improper … . In any event, this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court’s prior determination finding [the nonparty] to be a bona fide purchaser and may reach the merits of that issue … . Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01920, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Motion to Set Aside Verdict Properly Denied—The Jury Determined Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident—Analytical Criteria Explained

In finding the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence was properly denied, the Second Department explained how to analyze the jury’s conclusion the defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . “A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . “[W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view” … . Moffett-Knox v Anthony’s Windows on the Lake, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 01929, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Jury’s Failure to Award Damages for Future Pain and Suffering Did Not Warrant Setting Aside Verdict

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

In determining a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, the court must decide whether the evidence so preponderates in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Resolution of the motion does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors … . Moreover, “[g]reat deference is accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … . Thus, “[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, with consideration given to the credibility of the witnesses and the drawing of reasonable inferences therefrom, and there was no basis in the record for the trial court to disturb the jury’s resolution of credibility issues against the plaintiff … . Raso v Jamdar, 2015 NY Slip Op 01934, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed on Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff had brought a frivolous lawsuit to harass and costs were properly imposed on the plaintiff:

A court may award a party “costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130.1.1[a]). “In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]…). “[C]onduct is frivolous if . . . (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]…). The decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount of any such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court’s sound discretion … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined, after a hearing, that the plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct in commencing this action, as this action is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” and was undertaken primarily to harass the defendants … . Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 01936, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact re: whether the three-year statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. The court explained the doctrine as follows:

The three-year limitations period applicable to causes of action to recover damages for legal malpractice “may be tolled by the continuous representation doctrine where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” … . “For the doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney” … . ” One of the predicates for the application of the doctrine is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties'” … . Beroza v Sallah Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 01913, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Statutes of Limitations for Actions Stemming from the Alleged Fraudulent Transfer of Real Property Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s actions, which stemmed from the allegation defendant had acquired a deed to his property by fraud, were timely. The court explained the statutes of limitations for actual and constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, actions to quiet title, conversion by fraud, money had and received, and constructive trust. In essence, actions which have an equitable component are governed by a six-year statute of limitations:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated … . * * *

The statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought. The Court of Appeals ruled in IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Deal Witter & Co. (12 NY3d at 139):

“New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims. Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging injury to property’ within the meaning of CPLR 214(4), which has a three-year limitations period. Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies. Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” (citations omitted).

Since the plaintiff’s right to the subject property is in issue, awarding damages would not be adequate. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in equity should be applied … . Since the second and third causes of action accrued in 2006, when the defendants allegedly acted contrary to their fiduciary obligations, to the plaintiff’s detriment, those causes of action, interposed four years later in 2010, are not time-barred.

The first cause of action, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, is not time-barred, since the plaintiff was seized or possessed of the premises within 10 years before the commencement of the action and is in essence seeking a determination that the quitclaim deed which he executed in 2003 was part of a mortgage transaction, and not a conveyance of title (see CPLR 212[a]; Real Property Law § 320…).

The fourth cause of action, alleging conversion based upon fraud, is not time-barred, since it is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(8) … .

The fifth cause of action, seeking damages for money had and received …, is equitable in nature and, therefore, the applicable statute of limitations is six years … . Since the defendants’ receipt of money occurred in 2006, and the action was commenced in 2010, the cause of action is not time-barred. Similarly, the sixth cause of action, sounding in unjust enrichment, is equitable in nature, and is not time-barred … .

The seventh cause of action alleging a constructive trust is equitable in nature and governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . The elements of a cause of action to impose a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment … . The cause of action accrued on the date of the “wrongful transfer” of the subject property … . Loeuis v Grushin. 2015 NY Slip Op 01926, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

 

 

, , ,

Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that Article78/mandamus-to-compel proceedings were properly brought by owners of rental-properties against the NYC Housing Authority seeking rulings re: increased and suspended “Section 8” rent subsidies. The court held that the property-owners could compel the NYCHA to consider its requests (a ministerial act), but could not compel any specific result (an exercise of discretion).  The action was deemed timely because the NYCHA had never denied the requests, therefore the four-month statute never started running.  With respect increased subsidies, the court wrote:

An article 78 mandamus proceeding may be brought to compel an agency “to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law” (CPLR 7803[1]). It is well-settled that a mandamus to compel “applies only to acts that are ministerial in nature and not those that involve the exercise of discretion” … . Thus, “the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the relief demanded and there must exist a corresponding nondiscretionary duty on the part of the administrative agency to grant that relief” … .

Supreme Court properly found that the determination of the amount of any increase in the Section 8 subsidy is not purely ministerial but a matter entrusted to NYCHA’s discretion. An owner cannot receive a rent increase unless NYCHA first determines the reasonable rent (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i]). In doing so, NYCHA is required to compare the unit’s rent to comparable unassisted units and must consider a myriad of discretionary factors, including location, quality, size, type and age of the unit, and any services, utilities and amenities provided (24 CFR 982.507[b]). Because the determination of the amount of any rental increase involves the exercise of discretion, it is not subject to mandamus. * * *

Although the eventual determination of reasonable rent will be the product of NYCHA’s judgment, the agency does not enjoy similar discretion to not make a decision at all on the rent increase requests. The applicable regulation, relied upon by NYCHA, provides that before any rent increase is allowed, NYCHA “must redetermine the reasonable rent” (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i] [emphasis added]; see also 24 CFR 982.519[a] [under regulation relied upon by petitioners, NYCHA must annually adjust rent at owner’s request]). Upon the proper submission of a request for rent increase, NYCHA must process the request and come to a determination, whether adverse to petitioners’ position or not. NYCHA cannot leave petitioners in limbo, neither granting nor denying their requests, many of which have been pending for a significant amount of time. Thus, the petition states a claim for mandamus relief to the extent it seeks an order directing NYCHA to make a determination with respect to the rent increase requests … . Matter of Flosar Realty LLC v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 01906, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

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