You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

Prevailing Wage Law Not Preempted by Federal Telecommunications Act or Labor Relations Act

In upholding the finding that petitioner had failed to pay the prevailing wage for work done for a school district, the Third Department determined the prevailing wage law was not preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act and the Labor Management Relations Act:

Generally, a federal law may supersede a state law where Congress explicitly declares preemption as its intent …, or where the federal law is “‘so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the [s]tates to supplement it'” …. The Court of Appeals has observed, however, that “[t]he presumption against preemption is especially strong with regard to laws that affect the states’ historic police powers over occupational health  and safety issues” …. While the Telecommunications Act is intended to exclusively govern the field of telecommunications service (see 47 USC § 253 [a]), the prevailing wage law is a minimum labor standard … .As such, it falls within the Telecommunications Act’s safe harbor provision, which provides that  “[n]othing  in this section  shall affect the  ability of  a [s]tate to impose, on a competitively neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to . . . protect the public safety and welfare” (47 USC  §  253  [b]). … Nor is the prevailing wage law preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act. That statute provides that federal law governs suits to enforce collective bargaining agreements (see 29 USC § 185 [a]). While it is true that the Department  of Labor refers to collective bargaining agreements  to determine  prevailing wages,  those  agreements  are  not  necessarily determinative, and the rights conferred by the prevailing wage law  are independent of those conferred by  such  agreements … . Matter of Pascazi v Gardner, 513528, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Prepayment Service Agreement Does Not Constitute a Debt that is Subject to a Restraining Notice Pursuant to CPLR 5222 (b)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that “an at-will, prepayment service agreement, which lacks any obligation to continue services or a commitment to engage in future dealings, [does not] constitute[] a property interest or debt subject to a CPLR 5222 (b) restraining notice:”

The Appellate Division here affirmed the Supreme Court’s findings of fact, which are supported by the record (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 13:10, at 489 [3d ed. rev.][facts affirmed by the Appellate Division with evidentiary support are “conclusive and binding on the Court”]). The affirmed findings established that [defendant] prepaid for its service, and as such, there was no debt past due or yet to become due under the definition of CPLR 5201 (a). The only remaining issue is whether [defendant’s] oral agreement with GNAPs [a telephone switch service agreement which defendant decided weekly whether to continue] is an attachable property interest subject to restraint.  …[B]ecause [defendant] prepaid for services to be provided by GNAPs on a week-to-week basis, without any commitment or promise for additional services, or any assurance of a continued purchase of services, [defendant] neither owed any debt to, nor possessed any property of, GNAPs that could be subject to a restraint notice. Similarly, because [defendant’s] payments to GNAPs constitute neither a debt nor a present or future property interest, CPLR 5201 (a) and (b) are not applicable.  Verizon…v Transcom…, No 70, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

 

, ,

Summary Judgment in Neglect Proceeding Based Upon Proceeding Concerning Other Children in Another County Upheld​

In upholding the grant of summary judgment in a neglect proceeding based upon a prior “derivative neglect” determination (based upon drug abuse) with respect to other children in another county, the Third Department wrote:

“Although it is a drastic procedural device, Family Court is authorized to grant summary judgment in a neglect proceeding where no triable issue of fact exists” ….  We note that “evidence of abuse of one child will not, in and of itself, establish a prima facie case of derivative neglect or abuse of another” … . Rather, a prima facie case of “‘[d]erivative neglect is established where the evidence demonstrates an impairment of parental judgment to the point that it creates a substantial risk of harm for any child left in that parent’s care, and the prior neglect determination is sufficiently proximate in time to reasonably conclude that the problematic conditions continue to exist'” … . * * * Here, the prior neglect determination was proximate in time– the order reflecting respondent’s consent to a finding of neglect based upon excessive drug use was entered in January 2012, and petitioner moved for summary judgment in this proceeding less than one month later.  Matter of Alyssa WW … v Cortland County DSS, 514585, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

 

,

Money Paid Into Court in Conjunction with Stay Pending Appeal Does Not Stop Accruing of Interest Until Prevailing Party is Paid

Where money has been paid into the court in conjunction with a stay pending appeal, interest accrues on it until prevailing party is paid.  The First Department explained:

Contrary to respondents’ claim, their payment of $1,763,080.64 into court on February 18, 2011 to stay the judgment pending appeal did not stop interest from accruing …. This is so even though respondents no longer had the use of the money after paying it into court …. Petitioner is entitled to simple interest until the date he was paid ….  Weiderhorn v Merkin, 2013 NY Slip Op 03166, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Criteria for Application of Equitable Estoppel to Late Disclaimer of Coverage

The circumstances under which an insurer can be equitably estopped from making a late coverage-disclaimer were discussed by the First Department.  Equitable estoppel based on the timing of a disclaimer alone will only be invoked when the insurer has controlled the defense and the character and strategy of the defense can no longer be altered (i.e., when the matter is close to trial).  201-208 Main St Assoc Inc v Arch Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03159, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Sanction for Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith Under Subprime Mortgage Laws Violated Contract Clause

Under CPLR 3408 (one of the Subprime Residential Loan and Foreclosure Laws enacted in response to the “subprime mortgage crisis”) settlement conferences between the bank and the homeowner are made mandatory.  The statute requires that the parties negotiate “in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible”… .  In this case, Supreme Court determined the bank had not negotiated in good faith.  As a sanction, Supreme Court compelled “specific performance of the original modification agreement” proposed by the bank at the outset of the settlement conference.  In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, the Second Department, after describing the sanctions imposed in other cases, determined that the sanction in this case amounted to the Court’s rewriting the mortgage in violation of the Contract Clause and the bank’s due process rights.  Justice Dickerson wrote:

 …[T]the Supreme Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3408(f) as authorizing it to, in effect, rewrite the mortgage and loan agreement would violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution …. * * *In addition, the Supreme Court’s determination violated [the bank’s] due process rights. [The bank] was not on notice that the Supreme Court was considering a remedy such as the imposition of the terms of the modification proposal on a permanent basis… . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Meyers, 2013 NY Slip Op 03085, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

,

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs, in a nuisance action, sought to enjoin the defendants “from maintaining more than one ‘main building’ on the premises, allegedly in violation of the Village Code.”  The Second Department, citing the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, ruled that the case for an injunction had not been made out because the plaintiffs never sought a determination of the legality of the use of the premises from the administrative agency responsible for zoning:

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “generally enjoins courts having concurrent jurisdiction to refrain from adjudicating disputes within an administrative agency’s authority, particularly where the agency’s specialized experience and technical expertise is involved” …. Here, the plaintiffs failed to properly seek a determination regarding the legality of the use of the premises under the Village Code from the administrative bodies authorized to administer and enforce the Village’s zoning law … . Massaro v Jaina Network Sys, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03066, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

, ,

Pursuant to CPLR 5225, a Parent Bank Can Not Be Garnished Because a Judgment Debtor’s Assets Are Held in a Foreign Subsidiary Bank

The question before the Court of Appeals was whether a judgment creditor, pursuant to CPLR 5225, can obtain a turnover order against a bank to garnish the assets held by the bank’s foreign subsidiary. The plaintiff in this case, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, obtained two tax judgments against the tax debtors (the Millards) for over $18,000,000 each. The Millards left the commonwealth before the judgments were issued and settled in the Cayman Islands. The judgments were registered in the Southern District of Florida. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) had a branch in New York. The commonwealth sought to garnish CIBC under the theory that the Millards had accounts in subsidiaries of CIBC, namely First Carribean International Bank Limited (CFIB) or its affiliates in the Cayman Islands. In determining the commonwealth could not get at the Millards assets in the Cayman Islands through the parent Canadian bank, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, wrote:

Under CPLR article 52, a special proceeding for a turnover order is the procedural mechanism devised by the Legislature to enforce a judgment against an asset of a judgment debtor, held in the “possession or custody” of a third-party.* * * … [W]e interpret the omission of “control” from section 5225 (b) as an indication that “possession or custody” requires actual possession. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce …, No 58, CtApp, 4-30-13

 

, , ,

Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station

The First Department reinstated a verdict in favor of police officers who were injured in the course of making as arrest in a subway station. As the officer chased the suspect, he asked a New York City Transit Authority employee to call for police back up.  The theory of the case was that the employee negligently did not call for back up. The trial judge granted the Transit Authority’s motion for judgment finding the employee was under no duty to call for assistance.  In reversing, the First Department wrote:

Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) imposes liability upon the Transit Authority for the negligence of its employees in the operation of the subway system. Although it is a common carrier, the Transit Authority is held to a duty of ordinary care under the particular circumstances of each case …. In Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth. (68 NY2d 165 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid as they watched a gang of thugs fatally assault a passenger. As the Court stated, “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable” (id. at 170 [citation omitted]). The trial court held that Crosland had no application here because plaintiffs were police officers. This was error.

The broad definition of onlooker liability articulated by the Crosland Court does not lend itself to any exception based upon an injured party’s status as a police officer. To be sure, General Obligations Law § 11-106 gives police officers as well as firefighters, who are injured in the line of duty, a distinct right of action against tortfeasors that cause such injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is not barred by their status as police officers and the Transit Authority’s liability was established at trial. The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries. We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing. Filippo v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03025, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

 

, ,

Verdict for Negligent Design Upheld—1987 Car Did Not Have a Starter Interlock Device that Would Prevent Car from Starting When In Gear

The First Department determined a motion to set aside a verdict in a negligent design case was properly denied.  The jury found the car manufacture negligent in not installing a device (starter interlock device) such that the car (1987) car could not be started when it was in gear.  The First Department wrote:

The trial court properly instructed the jury that in determining the negligent design claim it first had to decide whether, from the evidence at trial, there was a general custom or practice by automobile manufacturers selling manual transmission vehicles in the United States in 1987. The proof adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the practice was fairly well defined in the car manufacturing industry. Plaintiffs were not required to prove universal application of the practice in order for the jury to consider this question … . The court further properly instructed the jury that if there was such a custom and practice, it could be considered along with all of the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether Volvo had exercised reasonable care … . From all of the evidence in the record, including the experts’ testimony, the jury reasonably concluded that defendants were negligent in failing to use a starter interlock device in its vehicle …. The trial court correctly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict because there was sufficient evidence supporting plaintiffs’ negligent design claim. Reis… v Volvo…, 2013 NY Slip Op 03024, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

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