You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

Village’s Unauthorized Use of Dedicated Park Land Prohibited by the “Public Trust Doctrine”—Village’s Use of the Land Was a “Continuing Wrong” Which Tolled the Statute of Limitations and Precluded the Application of the Laches Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly granted a permanent injunction, pursuant to the common law “public trust doctrine,” prohibiting the village from building public works structures on dedicated park land.  The action was brought by residents who live near the park, who were later joined by the state.  Because the park land had been used without legislative authority by the village for many decades, the village argued the action was prohibited by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.  The Court of Appeals determined the “continuing wrong doctrine” tolled the statute of limitations and the laches doctrine did not apply to a continuing wrong, or to actions by the state:

The harm sustained by the public when structures having “no connection with park purposes . . . encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred” … cannot be traced exclusively to the day when the illegal encroachment began. “In New York, we have consistently characterized an unlawful encroachment as a continuous trespass giving rise to successive causes of action” … . Even though here, because the Village owns the parkland, the encroachment is not trespass, it clearly bears the hallmark of continuity common to the trespass cases: defendants are, continuously, in violation of the public trust doctrine and able to abate that wrong. Just as the failure of a landlord to repair a building's common elements, in violation of by-laws, “constituted a continuing wrong that is not referable exclusively to the day the original wrong was committed” … and “[t]he alleged violation of defendants' contractual obligations to comply with the law and refrain from interfering with the rights of other lessees amounts to a continuous or recurring wrong” …, so does a municipality's ongoing failure to comply with the law and seek legislative authorization for non-park use of parkland. The harm does not consist of the lingering effects of a single, discrete incursion, but rather is a continuous series of wrongs. In short, the claim here is “predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct” …  Capruso v Village of Kings Point, 2014 NY Slip Op 04228, CtApp 5-12-14

 

, ,

Plaintiffs in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases Are Not Required to Hire an Expert to Link Injuries to Lead-Paint Exposure at the CPLR 3121 (a) Discovery Stage—However, Plaintiffs Must Provide Medical Reports Which Include a “Recital of the Injuries and Conditions as to which Testimony Will Be Offered at the Trial”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, reversed the appellate division and determined the trial judge abused his discretion in the discovery phase of a lead-paint exposure case.  The trial judge ordered the plaintiffs “to produce, prior to the defense medical examinations, medical reports detailing a diagnosis of each injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs and causally relating those injuries to plaintiffs' exposure to lead-based paint.”

CPLR 3121 (a) provides that when a party's mental or physical condition is in issue, any other party may serve on the party whose condition is in controversy notice “to submit to a physical, mental or blood examination by a designated physician.” A noticed party then is obligated under 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b)(1) to deliver:

“copies of the medical reports of those medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery. These shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial, referring to and identifying those X-ray and technicians reports which will be offered at the trial, including a description of the injuries, a diagnosis and a prognosis.”

In most personal injury cases, disclosure under this rule is straightforward. The injured plaintiff goes to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The doctor drafts a report. The plaintiff turns over the report to the defendant.

This case is more complicated. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as children. Now adults, plaintiffs allege that their childhood exposure to lead caused them numerous injuries. It appears from the dearth of medical evidence in the record that plaintiffs may never have been treated for or diagnosed with many of the alleged injuries. This raises the question of what plaintiffs must disclose in order to comply with rule 202.17 (b) (1).

Plaintiffs argue that the rule requires them to turn over only those reports that currently exist from providers who have “previously treated or examined” them. They argue that they are not required to document or create medical evidence of every alleged injury. To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and create a report solely for purposes of the litigations, we agree. Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) could make it prohibitively expensive for some plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits. Some plaintiffs may not be able to afford a medical examination or may not even have access to a doctor. Plaintiffs therefore need only produce reports from medical providers who have “previously treated or examined” them.

To the extent, however, that plaintiffs claim that they need to turn over only those medical reports that currently exist, we disagree. The rule obligates plaintiffs to provide comprehensive reports from their treating and examining medical providers — the reports “shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial” (22 NYCRR 202.17 [b] [1]) [emphasis added]). Plaintiffs therefore cannot avoid disclosure simply because their treating or examining medical providers have not drafted any reports within the meaning of rule 202.17 (b) (1) … . If plaintiffs' medical reports do not contain the information required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical providers draft reports setting forth that information (see id.)… . If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]). Hamilton v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 04230, CtApp 6-12-14

 

, ,

“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis

In an action arising out of the credit default swap crisis, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a “no action” clause, which imposed restrictions on actions brought by securityholders, must be construed narrowly according to its terms.  The “no action” clause stated in pertinent part:  “Limitations on Suits by Securityholder. No holder of any Security shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture… .”  The “Indentures” were agreements entered into with trustees who served as third party administrators of the issuance of securities.  The Court of Appeals held that the clause related solely to actions “with respect to this Indenture” and did not affect the common law and statutory actions brought by securityholders to enforce their rights:

A trust indenture is a contract, and under New York law “[i]nterpretation of indenture provisions is a matter of basic contract law” … .

In construing a contract we look to its language, for “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . As the case law further establishes, we read a no-action clause to give effect to the precise words and language used, for the clause must be “strictly construed” … .

Applying these well established principles of contract interpretation, and with the understanding that no-action clauses are to be construed strictly and thus read narrowly, we turn to the language of the no-action clause presented by the certified question. The no-action clause here states that no securityholder “shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture . . .”. The clear and unambiguous text of this no-action clause, with its specific reference to the indenture, on its face limits the clause to the contract rights recognized by the indenture agreement itself. Further supporting this construction of the clause is the sole textual reference to securities, which is contained in the clause's provision for a Trustee-initiated suit for a continuing “default in respect of the series of Securities.”[FN11] This part of the no-action clause permits the trustee to sue in its name, after notice by a securityholder of a continuing default and upon approval of the suit by a majority of securityholders. Thus, the clear import of the no-action clause is to leave a securityholder free to [*10]pursue independent claims involving rights not arising from the indenture agreement. Quadrant Structured Prods Co Ltd v Vertin, 2014 NY Slip Op 04114, CtApp 6-10-14

 

, , ,

Prohibition Proceeding Was the Proper Vehicle to Contest the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor—the District Attorney Had Disqualified Himself from an Election-Related Investigation and Successfully Applied for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor

The Court of Appeals determined an Article 78 proceeding sounding in “prohibition” was the appropriate vehicle to contest the appointment of  a special prosecutor. The district attorney sought to disqualify himself from an election-related investigation and successfully applied to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the NYC Courts for an appointment of a special prosecutor.  The petitioner then brought the prohibition proceeding to contest the appointment.  The appellate division dismissed the petition finding the “prohibition” action inappropriate.   The Court of Appeals determined prohibition was the correct action and the special prosecutor was validly appointed:

The Appellate Division denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. It held that relief by prohibition was unavailable because the conduct that petitioner was seeking to prevent was not “the quasi-judicial act of representing the State in its efforts to bring individuals accused of crimes to justice” but rather a “purely investigative function” that was “executive in nature” (Working Families Party v Fisher, 109 AD3d 478, 480 [2d Dept 2013]). * * *

The Appellate Division erred in holding that an article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is an inappropriate remedy in this case. We recently restated the rule that “prohibition is an appropriate remedy to void the improper appointment of a [special] prosecutor when made by a court” … . While the power to grant prohibition should be exercised sparingly, its availability in cases like this serves an important purpose. When the validity of the appointment of a prosecutor is in question, the question should where possible be given a prompt and definitive answer. It is not in the public interest to allow a prosecutor to carry out a lengthy investigation when there is doubt that his or her appointment is valid, and to run the risk that the process will have to start all over again with a different prosecutor. Matter of Working Families Party v Fisher, 2014 NY Slip Op 04116, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

Judge’s Speaking to a Juror During Deliberations, With Defense Counsel’s Permission, Outside the Presence of the Defendant and Counsel, Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the judge's conducting a transcribed colloquy with a juror during deliberations, outside the presence of counsel and the defendant, was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal.  Counsel were informed that a juror wished to talk to the judge and agreed that the judge could do so their absence. Counsel and the defendant were subsequently apprised of the substance of the colloquy and given the opportunity to read the transcript. Defense counsel did not raise an objection:

A defendant's fundamental constitutional right to be present at all material stages of a trial encompasses a right to be present during the court's charge, admonishments and instructions to the jury … . This “absolute and unequivocal” right is further embodied in CPL 310.30 (Mehmedi, 69 NY2d at 760; see Collins, 99 NY2d at 17).

Under CPL 310.30, when a deliberating jury requests further instruction or clarification on the law, trial evidence, or any other matter relevant to its consideration of the case, “the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant,” the court must give such information or instruction as it deems proper (CPL 310.30…). We have consistently held that a defendant's absence during non-ministerial instructions, in violation of CPL 310.30, affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and presents an error of law for our review — even absent an objection or where defense counsel has consented to the procedures used.  People v Rivera, 2014 NY Slip Op 04115, CtApp 6-10-14

 

In Cases Not Involving Death or Bodily Injury Arising from an Accident, Whether a Notice of Disclaimer is Timely Is Governed by Common Law Waiver and Estoppel Principles, Not by the Provisions of Insurance law 3420

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the requirement that a disclaimer of coverage be made “as soon as reasonably possible after first learning of the … grounds for disclaimer” did not apply in a case involving coverage for the clean up of environmental contamination.  The Court explained that the “as soon as reasonably possible” language comes from Insurance Law 3420 and applies only to coverage for death or bodily injury arising from accidents:

By its plain terms, section 3420 (d) (2) applies only in a particular context: insurance cases involving death and bodily injury claims arising out of a New York accident and brought under a New York liability policy … . “Where, as here, the underlying claim does not arise out of an accident involving bodily injury or death, the notice of disclaimer provisions set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (d) are inapplicable” … . In such cases, the insurer will not be barred from disclaiming coverage “simply as a result of the passage of time,” and its delay in giving notice of disclaimer should be considered under common-law waiver and/or estoppel principles… . KeySpan Gas E Corp v Munich Reins Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04113, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

A SORA Assessment in a Child Pornography Case Can Take Into Account Whether the Depicted Children Were Strangers to the Defendant (Factor 3) and the Number of Children Depicted (Factor 7)—-The Standard of Proof for a Defendant’s Application for a Downward Departure from the SORA Guidelines is “A Preponderance of the Evidence”

In a full-fledged, detailed and extensive opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over dissents, the Court of Appeals determined that factors 3 and 7 of an assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) applied to child pornography cases.  Factor 7 allows the assessment of points where the victim of a sex offense is a stranger to the defendant, and factor 3 allows the assessments of points based on the number of victims.  In the context of child pornography, therefore, the images of children the defendant does not know and the number of children depicted in the images, i.e., the number of victims, can be taken into account in determining a defendant's SORA score.  The Court of Appeals also settled a difference among the appellate divisions by setting “a preponderance of the evidence” as the standard for the defendant's evidence submitted in support of a downward departure from the guidelines:

Given that child pornography offenders substantially harm the mental health of abused children and, via the consumption of child pornography, encourage others to commit the hands-on sexual abuse needed to produce that material, it is difficult to credit defendants' claims that, due to their failure to personally physically abuse children, the risk of harm caused by their offenses should not be accounted for in the manner authorized by the plain language of factors 3 and 7. Although those aggravating factors may not represent the exact same risks in child pornography cases as in those involving physical contact, the presence of those factors in child pornography cases increases the offender's potential to psychologically harm a greater number of children to a greater degree. The guidelines may account for the variable risk that certain child pornography offenders who have an unusually strong compulsion to consume and distribute child pornography will provide exceptional support to an illicit trade that physically and psychologically harms children. People v Gillotti, 2014 NY Slip Op 04117, CtApp 6-10-14

 

, ,

Records of Criminal Proceedings Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Accessed by the Commission on Judicial Misconduct Investigating the Alleged Misconduct of a Judge—The Law Surrounding the Sealing of Criminal Records Explained—Mootness Doctrine Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is authorized under the Judiciary Law to request records of a criminal matters sealed under Criminal Procedure law 160.50 for use in its investigations.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained why the case before it could not be considered moot (the Court of Appeals can hear only “live”cases). The appellant is an attorney who had been charged, along with a judge, with crimes related to the judge's election campaign.  The Commission sought the sealed records of those criminal proceedings, which had ended in dismissal and acquittal.  The appellant opposed release of the records:

…[A]bsent “extraordinary circumstances” …, a specific grant of power …, or the existence of a legal mandate the nature of which would be impossible to fulfill without unsealing criminal records …, sealed criminal records may only be accessed by individuals and agencies specifically enumerated, and “narrowly defined” in CPL 160.50 (1) (d) … .

Given the Commission's broad powers under the Judiciary Law, specifically its authority under Judiciary Law § 42 (3) to request and receive a wide range of records and data, and its constitutional duties and obligations to ensure the integrity of the judicial system by investigating and sanctioning judicial misconduct, we conclude that the Commission may obtain documents sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. Continued public confidence in the judiciary is of [*9]singular importance, and can be furthered only by permitting the Commission access to information that allows it to quickly identify and respond to judicial misconduct, including criminal behavior, abuse of power, corruption, and other actions in violation of laws applicable to judges. Matter of New York State Commission on Jud Conduct v Rubenstein, 2014 NY Slip Op 04118, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, in another case arising from the “toxic debts” crisis, determined that the plaintiff was an exclusive agent for the sale of assets, and was not granted an exclusive right to sell the assets. If plaintiff had been granted an exclusive right to sell, it may have been entitled to a commission when the assets were sold by the principal.  But, since the contract was silent about the plaintiff's right to a commission when the principal sells the assets, plaintiff was granted only an exclusive agency for the sale of the assets and the principal could sell the assets without any obligation to pay a commission to the plaintiff.  The exclusive agency agreement only precluded the principal from hiring another agent:

The distinction between an exclusive agency and an exclusive right to sell is well established in a body of Appellate Division case law … . As stated nearly a century ago, “The general rule is that where an exclusive right of sale is given a broker, the principal cannot make a sale [herself] without becoming liable for the commissions. But where the contract is merely to make the broker the sole agent, the principal may make a sale [herself] without the broker's aid, if such sale is made in good faith and to some purchaser not procured by the broker”… .

Put differently, “[a] broker is entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property by the owner only where the broker has been given the exclusive right to sell; an exclusive agency merely precludes the owner from retaining another broker in the making of the sale” … . We have endorsed this dichotomy implicitly in the past …, and now do so explicitly.

Furthermore, we agree with the case law of the lower courts holding that a contract giving rise to an exclusive right of sale must “clearly and expressly provide[] that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude[] the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . Requiring an affirmative and unequivocal statement to establish a broker's exclusive right to sell is consistent with the general principle that an owner's freedom to dispose of her own property should not be infringed upon by mere implication. Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v UBS AG, 2014 NY Slip Op 04112, CtApp 6-10-14

 

, ,

City Employee Blocking Roadway to Facilitate Repairs Was Engaged in a Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function–Ordinary Rules of Negligence Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the appellate division, finding that a city employee was acting in a proprietary, not a governmental, capacity when he told the plaintiff she could proceed on a roadway that he was closing for repairs but did not warn her of the depression in the roadway which caused her to fall.  The question came down to whether the employee was performing a road repair (proprietary) or a traffic control (governmental) function.  Because the employee was deemed to be performing a proprietary function, the ordinary rules of negligence applied to the city:

We recently explained the framework that must be used when a negligence claim is asserted against a municipality in Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. (21 NY3d 420 [2013]). First, a court must decide “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” (id. at 425). If the municipality's actions fall on the proprietary side, “it is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties”… . A governmental entity undertakes a proprietary role when its “activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises” … . “In contrast, a municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers” (id. [internal question marks and citation omitted]). Generally, “the distinction is that the government will be subject to ordinary tort liability if it negligently provided services that traditionally have been supplied by the private sector” … . In deciding whether a function is proprietary or governmental, a court examines “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred . . . , not whether the agency involved is engaged generally in proprietary activity or is in control of the location in which the injury occurred” … .

Historically, the maintenance of roads and highways was performed by both private entities and local governments, with each subject to the ordinary rules of negligence… . Wittorf v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04037, CtApp 6-5-14

 

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