You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

JUDGES NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES BASED UPON INADEQUATE COMPENSATION.

The Court of Appeals determined present and retired judges were not entitled to damages based on inadequate compensation during the years legislation considering judicial compensation was improperly linked to unrelated policy initiatives. Although the Court of Appeals struck down the practice, called linkage, as a violation of the separation of powers, the court did not make the finding that judicial compensation was in fact too low during those years. To do so and award damages would intrude on the legislature's budgetary powers:

…[W]e suggested that money damages would be an inappropriate form of relief from the State's unconstitutional linkage practice because any mandate that the State pay money damages would, as a practical matter, be tantamount to a directive to increase judicial compensation in a manner that would arrogate the legislative branch's budgetary powers to the judiciary. Thus, we observed that, in fashioning a remedy, “deference to the Legislature — which possesses the constitutional authority to budget and appropriate — is necessary” … and that “whether judicial compensation should be adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature” … . Larabee v Governor of the State of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 03646, CtApp 5-10-16

JUDGES (JUDGES NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES BASED UPON INADEQUATE COMPENSATION)

,

WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Court of Appeals held questions of fact precluded summary judgment in an action to determine whether a two-mile system of ponds and streams in a remote area of the Adirondack Mountains is navigable-in-fact.  If it is, it is subject to a public right of navigation (by canoe). If it isn't the adjacent private property owners can prohibit public use:

As a general principle, if a waterway is not navigable-in-fact, “it is the private property of the adjacent landowner” … . A waterway that is navigable-in-fact, however, “is considered a public highway, notwithstanding the fact that its banks and bed are in private hands” … . To be subject to this public easement, a waterway must provide practical utility to the public as a means for transportation, whether for trade or travel (Adirondack League Club, 92 NY2d at 603). In Adirondack League Club, though we did “not broaden the standard for navigability-in-fact,” we held that recreational use may properly be “part of the navigability analysis” … . Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v Brown, 2016 NY Slip Op 03647, CtApp 5-10-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (WATER LAW, WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/WATER LAW (WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/ADIRONDACKS (WATER LAW, WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW)

PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined petitioner need not challenge the real property tax assessment every year to be entitled to business-investment-exemption refunds for the years following the year the assessment and exemption were challenged. Real Property Tax Law 485-b provides a partial ten-year exemption for certain improvements made to real property:

… [T]he business investment exemption is of ten years' duration and the amount of the exemption in each of the ten years is calculated using a single assessment roll … . * * *

… [W]hen a computational error based on a single assessment roll results in the miscalculation of the RPTL 485-b exemption, we hold that this error may be challenged by a single petition at the time the error is discernible. It is a waste of resources for all involved, including the courts, to require a property owner to bring a challenge addressing the same error in each and every year the exemption applies. Matter of Highbridge Broadway, LLC v Assessor of the City of Schenectady, 2016 NY Slip Op 03544, CtApp 5-5-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS)/BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS)

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, determined claimant's slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because defendant demonstrated the storm in progress rule applied. There had been an ice storm the night before, a wintry mix was falling at 6:50 am and a light rain was falling when claimant slipped and fell on ice at 8:15 am. The dissent argued the weather conditions were contested raising questions of fact about when the storm ended, if at all, and, if it did end, how much time elapsed before the fall. Sherman v New York State Thruway Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 03546, CtApp 5-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/STORM IN PROGRESS RULE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW)

,

ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, re: claims stemming from lead paint exposure, determined the antisubrogation rule did not apply to a party, ANP, which was not covered by the relevant policy:

… [T]he antisubrogation rule is an exception to the right of subrogation … . Under that rule, “an 'insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered . . . even where the insured has expressly agreed to indemnify the party from whom the insurer's rights are derived'” … . In effect, “an insurer may not step into the shoes of its insured to sue a third-party tortfeasor . . . for damages arising from the same risk covered by the policy” … , even where there is an express subrogation agreement … . The two primary purposes of the antisubrogation rule are to avoid “a conflict of interest that would undercut the insurer's incentive to provide an insured with a vigorous defense” and “to prohibit an insurer from passing its loss to its own insured” … .  * * *

The antisubrogation rule … requires a showing that the party the insurer is seeking to enforce its right of subrogation against is its insured, an additional insured, or a party who is intended to be covered by the insurance policy in some other way … . Here, as recognized by the courts below, ANP and its predecessor were not insured under the relevant insurance policies. … Thus, the principal element for application of the antisubrogation rule — that the insurer seeks to enforce its right of subrogation against its own insured, additional insured, or a party intended to be covered by the insurance policy — is absent. Millennium Holdings LLC v Glidden Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 03543, CtApp 5-5-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/SUBROGATION (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/ANITSUBROGATION RULE  (INSURANCE LAW,  ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)

, ,

APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial dissent, determined appeals as of right, irrespective of the issues raised, should not be dismissed because the appellant has been deported. Permissive appeals, such as an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction, are, however, subject to discretionary dismissal because the appellant has been deported:

… [W]e conclude that this Court’s holding in Ventura [17 NY3d 675] prohibits an intermediate appellate court from exercising its discretion to dismiss a pending direct appeal on the ground that the defendant has been involuntarily deported, regardless of the appellate contentions raised by the defendant. …

We reach a different conclusion with respect to [a] pending permissive appeal. Our holding in Ventura was based upon a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to a direct appeal granted by CPL 450.10. That statute has no application, however, in the context of permissive appeals. Rather, CPL 450.15 governs an appeal from an order denying a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment, and provides that a certificate granting leave to appeal must be obtained pursuant to CPL 460.15 (see CPL 450.15 [1]). In Ventura, this Court spoke of a criminal defendant’s “absolute right,” “statutory right,” “fundamental right,” and “basic entitlement” to appellate consideration of a direct appeal … . A defendant has no such fundamental right or basic entitlement to appeal where the defendant must seek permission to appeal to the intermediate appellate court pursuant to CPL 450.15. …

Where an intermediate appellate court has permissive jurisdiction over a pending appeal, the intermediate appellate court retains its discretion to dismiss the pending permissive appeal due to the defendant’s involuntary deportation. People v Harrison, 2016 NY Slip Op 03547, CtApp 5-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)

STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined a shareholder class action complaint challenging a going-private merger was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The court adopted a Delaware standard of review for going-private mergers, i.e., where the controlling shareholder seeks to buy out all the outstanding shares and, in effect, take the publicly-traded company private. Plaintiff argued the “entire fairness” review standard should be applied. Defendants argued the “business judgment” review standard should be applied. The Court of Appeals chose a middle ground (the Delaware standard) which is essentially the business judgment standard with added protections for minority shareholders:

Plaintiff urges that we apply the entire fairness standard, which places the burden on the corporation's directors to demonstrate that they engaged in a fair process and obtained a fair price. Defendants seek application of the business judgment rule, with or without certain conditions. We are persuaded to adopt a middle ground. Specifically, the business judgment rule should be applied as long as the corporation's directors establish that certain shareholder-protective conditions are met; however, if those conditions are not met, the entire fairness standard should be applied.

[The adopted Delaware standard has been summarized as follows:] … “[I]n controller buyouts, the business judgment standard of review will be applied if and only if: (i) the controller conditions the procession of the transaction on the approval of both a Special Committee and a majority of the minority stockholders; (ii) the Special Committee is independent; (iii) the Special Committee is empowered to freely select its own advisors and to say no definitively; (iv) the Special Committee meets its duty of care in negotiating a fair price; (v) the vote of the minority is informed; and (vi) there is no coercion of the minority” … . Matter of Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc, 2016 NY Slip Op 03545, CtApp 5-5-16

CORPORATION LAW (STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED)/SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS (STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED)/GOING PRIVATE MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED)

,

COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly refused to approve a settlement in a class action challenging a corporate merger because there was no opt-out provision for out-of-state shareholders. Because the suit included claims for damages, effectively prohibiting out-of-state shareholders from bringing actions in other jurisdictions would deprive them of a property right:

While the complaint seeks predominately equitable relief, the settlement would also release any damage claims relating to the merger by out-of-state class members. The broad release encompassed in the agreement bars the right of those class members to pursue claims not equitable in nature, which … are constitutionally protected property rights. Jiannaras v Alfant, 2016 NY Slip Op 03548, CtApp 5-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CLASS ACTIONS (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)

,

PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the products liability complaint against Ford USA, based upon asbestos brake linings manufactured and distributed by Ford UK, should have been dismissed. The Court of Appeals concluded Ford USA could only be held liable for a product manufactured and distributed by a wholly owned subsidiary by piercing the corporate veil, a theory unsupported by the facts alleged:

Ford USA was not a party within the distribution chain, nor can it be said that it actually placed the parts into the stream of commerce. Although plaintiff submitted evidence tending to show that Ford USA provided guidance to Ford UK in the design of certain tractor components, absent any evidence that Ford USA was in fact a manufacturer or seller of those components, Ford USA may not be held liable under a strict products liability theory … . * * *

Ford USA, as the parent corporation of Ford UK, may not be held derivatively liable to plaintiff under a theory of strict products liability unless Ford USA disregarded the separate identity of Ford UK and involved itself directly in that entity's affairs such that the corporate veil could be pieced … a conclusion that neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division reached in this instance. Finerty v Abex Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03411, CtApp 5-3-16

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)/CORPORATION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)

,

BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined, pursuant to the language and provisions of the relevant excess insurance policies, (1) an “all sums,” as opposed to a “pro-rata,” allocation applies, and (2) vertical, as opposed to horizontal, exhaustion of available policies applies. The underlying claims relate to asbestos exposure over a period of years in the manufacture of pumps:

[The “all sums”] theory of allocation “permits the insured to ‘collect its total liability . . . under any policy in effect during’ the periods that the damage occurred,” up to the policy limits … . The burden is then on the insurer against whom the insured recovers to seek contribution from the insurers that issued the other triggered policies … . * * *

… [V]ertical exhaustion is more consistent than horizontal exhaustion with … language tying attachment of the excess policies specifically to identified policies that span the same policy period. Further, vertical exhaustion is conceptually consistent with an all sums allocation, permitting the Insured to seek coverage through the layers of insurance available for a specific year … . Matter of Viking Pump, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03413, CtApp 5-3-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICIES, BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION)/ALL SUMS ALLOCATION (INSURANCE POLICIES, BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION)/VERTICAL EXHAUSTION  (INSURANCE POLICIES, BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION)/EXCESS INSURANCE (ASBESTOS INJURY, BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION)

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