You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined the petitioner, a teacher with tenure who resigned and was then rehired, was not rehired with tenure. The NYC Board of Education Chancellor’s Regulations required, in order to be rehired with tenure, the teacher must submit a written request to withdraw the resignation which is subject to a medical examination and the approval of the Chancellor. Because the petitioner did not submit a written request to withdraw his resignation his rehiring was without tenure. Matter of Springer v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 02553, CtApp 4-5-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR)/TEACHERS (TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR)/TENURE  (TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR)

,

FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, determined father’s recording of threats made to his infant son by mother’s boyfriend was not eavesdropping, which is prohibited by statute. Rather, father was deemed to have consented to the recording on his son’s behalf. Father had attempted to call the child’s mother. For some reason, the cell phone call went through but was not picked up by anyone. Father could hear the boyfriend threaten to beat his son. Using a cell phone function, the boyfriend’s words were recorded. The boyfriend was subsequently arrested for assault against the child and endangering the welfare of a child. The recording was played at trial. Recording conversations is prohibited in New York as illegal eavesdropping, unless one of the parties to the conversation consents. Here, the Court of Appeals determined the eavesdropping prohibition did not apply because the child was deemed to have consented to the recording. In addition, the Court of Appeals found the trial judge’s erroneous jury instruction, which allowed the jury to consider an accomplice theory not charged in the indictment, constituted harmless error. The court concluded, based upon the trial evidence, the jury could not have convicted the defendant of any offense other than what was charged. With respect to the recorded conversation, the court wrote:

There is no basis in legislative history or precedent for concluding that the New York Legislature intended to subject a parent or guardian to criminal penalties for the act of recording his or her minor child’s conversation out of a genuine concern for the child’s best interests. By contrast, the vicarious consent doctrine recognizes the long-established principle that the law protects the right of a parent or guardian to take actions he or she considers to be in his or her child’s best interests. Yet it also recognizes important constraints on that right, by requiring that the parent or guardian believe in good faith that it is necessary for the best interests of the child to make the recording, and that this belief be objectively reasonable. People v Badalamenti, 2016 NY Slip Op 02556, CtApp 2016

CRIMINAL LAW (EASVESDROPPING, FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT)/EVIDENCE (EASVESDROPPING, FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT)/EASVESROPPING FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT)/PARENT-CHILD (EASVESDROPPING, FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT)

,

COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY; THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE; RATHER THE USUAL PROBATIVE VS PREJUDICIAL BALANCING TEST APPLIES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined, under an abuse of discretion standard, evidence of third-party culpability was properly excluded as speculative. Defendant was not, therefore, deprived of his constitutional right to present a complete defense when the trial court precluded evidence the defendant’s brother, Warren, was the beneficiary of a $500,000 life insurance policy taken out by the murder victim.  Here defense counsel made no specific attempt to demonstrate Warren killed the victim. Defense counsel made only vague assertions “others” could have committed the crime. The Court of Appeals made it clear there is no heightened standard for the admissibility of evidence of third-party culpability. Rather courts should apply the usual balancing test and exclude such evidence where it has slight probative value and a strong potential for undue prejudice, delay and confusion or where the evidence is so remote it does not connect the third party to the crime:

… [A]dmission of third-party culpability evidence does not necessarily require a specific accusation that an identified individual committed the crime. For example, a proffer of an unknown DNA profile may be sufficient. And we reject the trial court’s assertion that such a specific accusation “is an essential element of third-party culpability.” Such a requirement would conflict with the balancing analysis that we … reaffirm today. Nevertheless, defense counsel’s argument must be assessed based on the proffer as articulated … . The trial court was within its discretion in finding that proffer speculative and in determining the evidence to support it would have caused undue delay, prejudice, and confusion. People v Powell, 2016 NY Slip Op 02555, CtApp 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY, THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, RATHER THE USUAL PROBATIVE VS PREJUDICIAL BALANCING TEST APPLIES)/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW, THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, RATHER, THE USUAL PROBATIVE VS PREJUDICIAL BALANCING TEST APPLIES)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a concurring opinion by Judge Pigott, rejected defendant’s challenge to the use at trial of recordings of his phone calls made from Rikers Island during pre-trial incarceration. Prosecutors routinely request recordings of nonprivileged inmate phone calls and pour through them for use at trial. The Court of Appeals did not condone the practice, and the concurring opinion laid out how access to the phone calls prejudices defendants who cannot make bail:

In order to properly address and frame defendant’s legal claims, we first clarify what defendant does not allege on this appeal. He does not allege that any conversations with his defense counsel were recorded and admitted at trial, or that the Department permits such monitoring. To the contrary, defendant recognizes that the Operations Order expressly prohibits the recording and monitoring of conversations with an inmate’s attorney. Nor does defendant assert that the intention of the City’s regulation or the Department’s Operations Order is to create and collect information strictly for use by the prosecution against a detainee at trial. Defendant candidly admits that the Department has a legitimate interest in recording and monitoring detainee telephone communications.

Defendant instead challenges what he describes as the Department’s practice of “automatic, unmonitored harvesting of intimate conversations of pre-trial inmates,” and the subsequent dissemination of the Department’s recordings to District Attorneys’ offices for use in criminal prosecutions. Defendant claims the practice violated his right to counsel, exceeds the scope of the Department’s regulatory authority, and was conducted without defendant’s consent. The claims are either without merit or unpreserved and therefore do not warrant reversal and a new trial. People v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)/INMATES (RECORDED PHONE CALLS, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ACT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION TO T-SHIRTS REMEMBERING THE MURDER VICTIM WAS ERROR; UNDER THE FACTS, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, with a three-judge concurring opinion, determined defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the trial judge’s failure to take any action when defense counsel informed him family members were wearing T-shirts remembering the murder victim. The Court of Appeals found the trial judge’s failure to act was error. But, under the facts, the error did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The fact that the trial judge noticed family members had worn the T-shirts before the day when defense counsel objected did not bring up those prior occurrences on appeal. Defense counsel did not elicit a ruling from the trial judge (by moving for a mistrial) based on the pror occurrences, therefore only the wearing of the T-shirts on the day counsel objected was before the court:

We conclude … that although spectator displays depicting a deceased victim should be prohibited in the courtroom during trial, and although the trial court here erred in refusing to intervene upon defense counsel’s request, the error is subject to harmless error analysis. Defendant contends that the deprivation of his right to a fair trial can never be considered harmless. We agree only insofar as there can be no harmless error analysis if an appellate court concludes that spectator misconduct was so egregious and the trial court’s response so inadequate that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Where “there has been such error of a trial court . . . or such other wrong as to have operated to deny any individual defendant his fundamental right to a fair trial, the reviewing court must reverse the conviction and grant a new trial,” without regard to whether the proof of guilt was overwhelming or whether “the errors contributed to the defendant’s conviction”… . Here, however, the spectator conduct was not so egregious that defendant was deprived of a fair trial.

A per se rule of reversal is inappropriate in the context of spectator displays of a deceased victim’s image because such displays may vary widely. For example, the display could range from a small button worn on a spectator’s clothing to a life-size image. A trial court’s refusal to intervene in every such display upon defense counsel’s objection is error. However, not every such display requires the drastic remedy of a mistrial, or an appellate reversal. The trial court or the appellate court, respectively, must make that determination based on the unique circumstances of each case.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that the trial court’s error in failing to instruct the spectators to remove or cover the shirts upon defense counsel’s objection is harmless. Consequently, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. People v Nelson, 2016 NY Slip Op 02554, CtApp 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ACT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION TO T-SHIRTS REMEMBERING THE MURDER VICTIM WAS ERROR; UNDER THE FACTS, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS)/SPECTATOR DISPLAYS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ACT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION TO T-SHIRTS REMEMBERING THE MURDER VICTIM WAS ERROR; UNDER THE FACTS, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS)/APPEALS (PRESERATION OF ERROR, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO ELICIT A RULING ON INSTANCES OF SPECTATOR DISPLAYS ON DAYS PRIOR TO THE DAY WHEN COUNSEL OBJECTED, THE PRIOR INSTANCES WERE NOT BEFORE THE COURT ON APPEAL)/PRESERVATION OF ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO ELICIT A RULING ON INSTANCES OF SPECTATOR DISPLAYS ON DAYS PRIOR TO THE DAY WHEN COUNSEL OBJECTED, THE PRIOR INSTANCES WERE NOT BEFORE THE COURT ON APPEAL)

,

THE DEFENSE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE-PROMISE MISTAKE, THEREFORE THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s failure to preserve his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea precluded review in the Court of Appeals. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Division which could entertain the appeal under its interest of justice jurisdiction. The opinion attempts to clarify when a defendant “lacks a reasonable opportunity to object to a fundamental defect in the plea” such that the preservation requirement does not apply. Here the sentencing court made an initial mistake indicating defendant’s sentence would be three years, where the minimum sentence was six years. Defendant argued that his guilty plea was induced by the judge’s mistake. The Court of Appeals found there were many subsequent opportunities to discover the mistake and preserve the error. The defendant violated the terms of his release pending sentencing, an Outley hearing was held, and a six-year sentence, described as an “enhanced sentence,” was ultimately imposed:

… [T]he defense had multiple opportunities to preserve defendant’s current challenge to his plea and seek clarification of the matter, as such opportunities arose from, inter alia: the court’s comment at the plea proceeding about its uncertainty of the legality of the promised sentencing options; the court’s statements at the plea proceeding about the determinative nature of defendant’s predicate felony offender status; the numerous adjournments, the Outley hearing and the post-hearing court appearance that transpired between the plea and sentencing proceedings, which could have allowed counsel and defendant to inquire further into the legality of the promised sentencing options and defendant’s understanding of the plea; and the court’s comments at sentencing, which offered an opening for counsel to confirm the legality of the court’s sentencing options and its effect on the validity of the plea. By failing to seize upon these opportunities to object or seek additional pertinent information, defense counsel failed to preserve defendant’s claim for appellate review … . People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 02551, CtApp 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESERVATION OF ERROR, THE DEFENSE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE-PROMISE MISTAKE, THEREFORE THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA)/APPEALS (PRESERVATION OF ERROR, THE DEFENSE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE-PROMISE MISTAKE, THEREFORE THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA)/PLEA BARGAIN (PRESERVATION OF ERROR, THE DEFENSE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE-PROMISE MISTAKE, THEREFORE THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA)/PRESERVATION OF ERROR (THE DEFENSE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE-PROMISE MISTAKE, THEREFORE THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA)

,

BREACH OF PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLOWED TO PROCEED AGAINST HOSPITAL AND TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT’S TREATMENT AND DEATH IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE FILMED WITHOUT CONSENT; ALLEGATIONS OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined plaintiffs had stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality. At the time plaintiffs' decedent was admitted to the emergency room, a television crew was filming. Without decedent's consent, his treatment and death were recorded and subsequently aired. Although the breach of confidentiality cause of action was allowed to go forward, the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was not. The allegations were deemed not to meet the requirements of the “extreme and outrageous conduct” element of the tort. With respect to the breach of confidentiality, the court explained:

The elements of a cause of action for breach of physician-patient confidentiality are: (1) the existence of a physician-patient relationship; (2) the physician's acquisition of information relating to the patient's treatment or diagnosis; (3) the disclosure of such confidential information to a person not connected with the patient's medical treatment, in a manner that allows the patient to be identified; (4) lack of consent for that disclosure; and (5) damages … .  Here, the complaint alleges that decedent was a patient at the Hospital and that Schubl was his treating physician. In the complaint's fourth cause of action, decedent's estate alleges “[t]hat defendants[] unnecessarily, recklessly, willfully, maliciously and in conscious disregard of [decedent's] rights disclosed and discussed his medical condition with cast members of [the television crew] and allowed them to videotape said conversations and videotape his medical treatment for broadcast and dissemination to the public in an episode of that television show.” Asserting that the public does not have any legitimate interest in this information, the complaint states that “[d]efendants' disclosure of [decedent's] medical information constitutes a violation of physician[-]patient confidentiality and an invasion of his privacy and is a violation of State and Federal statutes protecting the privacy of medical records and information.” The complaint seeks damages for injuries and loss as determined at trial. Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02478, CtApp 3-31-16

PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, BREACH OF BREACH OF (PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLOWED TO PROCEED AGAINST HOSPITAL AND TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFFS' DECEDENT'S TREATMENT AND DEATH IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE FILMED WITHOUT CONSENT)/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (ALLEGATIONS OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS' DECEDENT'S MEDICAL TREATMENT AND DEATH WERE FILMED AND AIRED WITHOUT CONSENT)

OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined an office-based surgery (OBS) center, unlike hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers (ASC), are not entitled to reimbursement for “facility fees” under the no-fault insurance law and the related regulations. The fees at issue in this case amounted to $1.3 million:

As the statutory language illustrates, the legislature capped total payments for basic economic loss, and delegated the determination of fee rates to the Chair and the Superintendent. Neither administrator has chosen to include OBS facility fees in the regulatory schedules. It is not for this Court to decide, contrary to [the OBS's] contention, whether this is a “good idea” or if it would be better for patients covered by no-fault insurance, and for the efficient management of our health care system, to require reimbursement of OBS facility fees as a means to ensure that OBS facilities continue to be viable options for patients. “These policy determinations are beyond our authority and instead best left for the legislature” … . Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Avanguard Med. Group, PLLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02473, CtApp 3-31-16

INSURANCE LAW (OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW)/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW)/OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW)

,

FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined an affirmative defense alleging constructive fraud on the part of attorneys who drafted irrevocable releases of powers of appointment of trust assets was properly dismissed by the Appellate Division. The Benihana Protective Trust (BPT) was formed by Rocky, the founder of the Benihana restaurant chain. The irrevocable releases of powers of appointment allowed disposition of the trust assets only to Rocky's descendants. However, irrespective of the releases, Rocky's will attempted to pass trust assets to his wife. Rocky indicated in a deposition that he would not have signed the releases had he known they would prohibit the disposition of trust assets to his wife. Upon Rocky's death, Rocky's wife sought to have the releases declared invalid under a fiduciary constructive-fraud theory. Rocky's wife argued that the fiduciary exception to the usual constructive fraud proof requirements shifted the burden to the trust beneficiaries to prove the releases were not procured by fraud. Rejecting the applicability of the fiduciary exception, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment in favor of the trust beneficiaries:

It is a well-settled rule that “'fraud vitiates all contracts, but as a general thing it is not presumed but must be proved by the party seeking to [be] relieve[d] . . . from an obligation on that ground'” … . However, an exception to that general rule provides that where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, the law of constructive fraud will operate to shift the burden to the party seeking to uphold the transaction to demonstrate the absence of fraud … . * * *

[The attorneys who drafted the Releases] were clearly Rocky's fiduciaries. But that is only one part of the equation. The critical inquiry is whether they were either parties to the Releases or stood to directly benefit from their execution, such that the burden shifted to [trust beneficiaries] to demonstrate that the Releases were not procured by fraud.

Here, the only individuals who stood to benefit from Rocky's execution of the Releases were his descendants. [The attorneys] were [not] parties to the Releases [and did not] to directly benefit from their execution … . If anything, the execution of the Releases all but ensured that [the attorneys] would have no interest in, nor would receive any benefit from, the trust assets. Therefore, the Appellate Division correctly determined that, because the fiduciary exception does not apply in this case, the Surrogate had improperly shifted the burden of proof to [the trust beneficiaries] to demonstrate that the Releases were not procured by fraud. Matter of Aoki v Aoki, 2016 NY Slip Op 02474, CtApp 3-31-16

FRAUD (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS)/ATTORNEYS (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PARTIES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES  (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED RELEASES OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEASES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE RELEASES)/POWERS OF APPOINTMENT  (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED RELEASES OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEASES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE RELEASES)

, ,

TOWN’S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the town board's issuing a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and imposing a DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) requirement on a landowner seeking a nonconforming use did not raise a justiciable controversy.   Although the creation of a DEIS imposes a financial cost on the landowner, it is only the initial step in the SEQRA review process and is not, therefore, ripe for review. The landowner relied on Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, to argue review was appropriate. The court explained why Gordon did not apply:

This Court [in Gordon] concluded that the Board's administrative action was ripe for judicial review because the Board's SEQRA declaration imposed an obligation on the petitioners to prepare and submit a DEIS, after they “had already been through the coordinated review process and a negative declaration had been issued by the DEC as lead agency,” and where no apparent further proceedings would remedy the injury caused by the unnecessary and unauthorized expenditures associated with conducting a DEIS … . Thus, Gordon's analysis and its import must be considered in light of the Court's recognition that the administrative action in that case was potentially unauthorized because “the Board may not have had jurisdiction to conduct its own SEQRA review,” given the existence of a prior negative declaration by a facially appropriate lead agency … . Matter of Ranco Sand & Stone Corp. v Vecchio, 2016 NY Slip Op 02477, CtApp 3-31-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/LAND USE (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)

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