You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

An Unconditional Guaranty of Payment of a Another’s Obligations Is Enforceable by Summary Judgment In Lieu of a Complaint In New York, Even In the Face of an Allegation the Underlying Judgment Was the Result of Collusion and Fraud

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined an unconditional guaranty (re: payment of corporate debts) was a proper basis for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, notwithstanding defendant’s (unsupported) allegation the underlying judgment was the result of collusion and fraud.  An unconditional guaranty is enforceable in New York, even where it is alleged the guaranty itself was the product of fraud:

Guarantees that contain language obligating the guarantor to payment without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims, i.e., guarantees that are “absolute and unconditional,” have been consistently upheld by New York courts * * *.

This Court has acknowledged the application of these absolute guarantees even to claims of fraudulent inducement in the execution of the guaranty … .* * *

Here, defendant personally guaranteed the obligations owed by Agra Canada under the Purchase Agreement, as well as obligations owed by Agra USA. Moreover, defendant specifically agreed that his “liability under this Guaranty shall be absolute and unconditional irrespective of (1) any lack of validity or enforceability of the agreement; . . . or (iv) any other circumstance which might otherwise constitute a defense available to, or a discharge of, the Seller (Agra Canada) or a guarantor.” By its plain terms, in broad, sweeping and unequivocal language, the Guaranty forecloses any challenge to the enforceability and validity of the documents which establish defendant’s liability for payments arising under the Purchase Agreement, as well as to any other possible defense to his liability for the obligations of the Agra businesses. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v Navarro, 2015 NY Slip Op 04753, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

There Is No Cause of Action for “Negligent Handling” of a Dog in New York

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision addressing two dog-related personal injury cases, with two concurring opinions, and over three dissenting opinions, kept New York law as it was with respect to the available causes of action for injuries caused by dogs. Negligence theories are not available, and a strict liability theory requires proof the dog-owners were aware of the dog’s propensity to cause injury. In one case (Doerr v Goldsmith) the dog was called by one of its owners and ran across a bike path where plaintiff, a bicyclist, struck the dog and was injured.  In the other case (Dobinski v Lockhart), dogs were let out of the owners’ house and ran into the road where plaintiff-bicyclist struck one of the dogs and was injured. The court kept the existing distinction between domestic pets and farm animals.  The owner of a farm animal which wanders off the farm and causes injury may be liable for negligently allowing the farm animal to escape.  The same theory of owner-negligence was not extended to domestic animals (dogs here). The dog owners who allowed their dog to run across a bike path in response to a command could not be held liable for negligence in handling the dog.  And the dog owners whose dogs ran into the road after being let outside could not be liable for negligently handling the dogs and could not held strictly liable in the absence of proof they were aware of the dogs’ relevant propensity:

Under the circumstances of these cases and in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]) constrains us to reject plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action against defendants arising from injuries caused by defendants’ dogs … . We decline to overrule our recently reaffirmed precedent (see Bloomer, 21 NY3d at 918; Petrone, 12 NY3d at 547-555). Furthermore, our holding in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122 [2013]) does not allow plaintiffs to recover based on defendants’ purported negligence in the handling of their dogs, which were not domestic farm animals subject to an owner’s duty to prevent such animals from wandering unsupervised off the farm (see Hastings, 21 NY3d at 124-126).

[In Dobinski v Lockhart] the Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiff’s strict liability cause of action. Defendants carried their initial burden on summary judgment of establishing that they did not know of any vicious propensities on the part of their dogs. In response, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of the animals’ harmful proclivities, and consequently, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s strict liability claim … . Doerr v Goldsmith, 2015 NY Slip Op 04752, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, ,

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the “reckless disregard” standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103, not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the operator of a New York City street sweeper who was in the process of cleaning the street when the sweeper struck plaintiff’s car.  A question of fact had been raised whether the applicable standard of care was violated:

… [U]nder VTL § 1642, the City of New York is authorized to establish additional rules, including rules that supercede those of the State (see VTL § 1642 [a] [“the legislative body of any city having a population in excess of one million, may by local law . . . restrict or regulate traffic on or pedestrian use of any highway . . .]). At the time of the accident, 34 RCNY [Rules of the City of New York] § 4-02 (d) (1)(v) provided that VTL § 1103 applies “to any person or team or any operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” and that “such persons are not relieved from the duty to proceed at all times during all phases of such work with due regard for the safety of all persons nor shall the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph protect such persons or teams or such operators of motor vehicles or other equipment from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (34 RCNY § 4-02 [d] [1] [iv]).

In Riley [95 NY2d 455], this Court held that the unambiguous language of VTL § 1103 (b), as further supported by its legislative history, made clear that the statute exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including sanitation sweepers, which are “actually engaged in work on a highway” (95 NY2d at 460), and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care (see id. at 466). The Court further concluded that liability under that standard is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle’s operator “‘has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id. at 466… ). Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04788, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

Although the Right to Appeal Could Have Been Defined More Fully, Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal In Response to a Colloquy Conducted by the Prosecutor Deemed Sufficient

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was valid, noting the nature of the right to appeal could have been defined more fully.  “Regarding the waiver of the right to appeal, the following exchange … took place between the prosecutor and defendant: ‘Q Do you understand that as a condition of this plea you are waiving the right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division [2nd] Department? A Yes. Q Have you discussed this waiver of the right to appeal with your attorney? A Yes. Q In consideration of this negotiated plea[,] do you now voluntarily waive your right to appeal your conviction and sentence under this indictment? A Yes.’ ” The Court of Appeals noted “County Court adequately described the right to appeal without lumping it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea.” [The dissent pointed out that the responsibility for the colloquy re: the waiver of appeal was delegated to the prosecutor here:]

….[W]e conclude that the record before us sufficiently demonstrates that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. There is no meaningful distinction between the plea colloquy here and the colloquy upheld in Nicholson, in which defendant acknowledged his understanding that he was “giving up [his] right to appeal, that is, to take to a higher court than this one any of the legal issues connected with this case” (Nicholson, 6 NY3d at 254). As in Nicholson, the plea colloquy here was sufficient because County Court adequately described the right to appeal without lumping it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea. In fact, the People went even further in this case and obtained defendant’s confirmation that he had discussed the waiver of the right to appeal with his attorney and that he was waiving such right in consideration of his negotiated plea, as well as counsel’s confirmation that all motions pending or decided were being withdrawn. Thus, while the better practice would have been to define the nature of the right to appeal more fully — as the court did in Nicholson — the Appellate Division correctly determined that no further elaboration was necessary on the phrase “right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division [2nd] Department” in view of the whole colloquy, particularly given this defendant’s background, including his extensive experience with the criminal justice system and multiple prior guilty pleas that resulted in terms of imprisonment. People v Sanders, 2015 NY Slip Op 04755, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, ,

Where Proof of the Fair Market Value of Foreclosed Property (Offered in Support of a Motion for a Deficiency Judgment) Is Insufficient, Rather than Deny the Motion Outright, the Court Should Direct the Bank to Submit Additional Proof

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly failed to award a post-foreclosure-sale deficiency judgment to the bank because the bank’s proof of the fair market value of the foreclosed property, although uncontested, was insufficient.  However, Supreme Court should have allowed the bank to present additional proof establishing the fair market value:

RPAPL 1371 (2) directs that, when a lender makes a motion for a deficiency judgment,

“the court, whether or not the respondent appears, shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof and shall make an order directing the entry of a deficiency judgment” … .

This provision is a directive that a court must determine the mortgaged property’s “fair and reasonable market value” when a motion for a deficiency judgment is made. As such, when the court deems the lender’s proof insufficient in the first instance, it must give the lender an additional opportunity to submit sufficient proof, so as to enable the court to make a proper fair market value determination. * * *

It is, of course, within the court’s discretion to elucidate the type of proof it requires so it can render a proper determination as to fair market value. The court may also order a hearing if it deems one necessary. In proceedings that are governed by section 1371, the court is in the best position to determine the type of proof that will allow it to comply with the directives of that section. Lenders seeking deficiency judgments, however, must always strive to provide the court with all the necessary information in their first application.  Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Bitar, 2015 NY Slip Op 04678, CtApp 6-4-15

 

, , ,

Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division properly found that the “unwarned” statement made by 11-year-old Delroy should have been suppressed. The statement was made in Delroy’s apartment when a police officer asked him “what happened?”. Under the circumstances, “a reasonable 11 year old would not have felt free to leave” at the time the question was asked.  Therefore the question amounted to “custodial interrogation” in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the Appellate Division, ruled the error was not harmless because the statement undermined Delroy’s defense of justification. There was no question Delroy stabbed the 12-year-old complainant.  But questions were raised by the trial testimony whether the stabbing was in self-defense. With respect to proof burdens for “harmless error” and the justification defense, the Court of Appeals explained:

A trial court’s error involving a constitutionally protected right is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . “The People must show that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] [i]n deciding whether the People have met this burden, we consider both the overall strength of the case against defendant and the importance to that case of the improperly admitted evidence” … .

The record shows that while there was no doubt that Delroy had stabbed the complainant, there was evidence supporting Delroy’s justification defense. “The defense of justification . . . permits one to use deadly physical force on another when one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or imminently will be used by such other person” … . The People bear the burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

…[T]he People have not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongly admitted evidence might have contributed to the guilty finding. Matter of Delroy S., 2015 NY Slip Op 04676, CtApp 6-4-15

 

Questions Concerning the Presumption that a Will Not Found After a Thorough Search Had Been Revoked (by Destruction) Should Have Been Resolved Before the Will Was Admitted to Probate—Matter Remitted to Surrogate’s Court

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, with a cautionary concurrence (describing the majority’s factual discussion as dicta, not binding on remittal), determined that there was an open question whether a 1996 will had been revoked. No will was found upon decedent’s death in 2010 and letters of administration were issued to decedent’s parents. Petitioner sought to revoke the letters and admit to probate a 1996 will which was drawn up when decedent was married to petitioner’s son. Petitioner had been named executor in the 1996 will. The 1996 will left all of decedent’s property to her then husband (petitioner’s son). Decedent and petitioner’s son divorced in 2007. Based upon the testimony of decedent’s ex-husband (petitioner’s son), the majority concluded it was possible there were four “duplicate original” 1996 wills, one of which had been in the possession of the decedent at her Clayton, New York, residence. Because that will was not found after a thorough search, a presumption arose that the 1996 will had been destroyed by the decedent and thereby revoked. The open questions concerning whether decedent was in possession of a “duplicate original” 1996 will (as opposed to merely a copy), and whether that will was revoked by destruction, should have been resolved before admitting the 1996 will to probate.  The matter was remitted to Surrogate’s Court to settle the open questions:

A will may, of course, be revoked not only by means of a writing executed in the manner of a will, but by the testator’s act of destroying it with revocatory intent (EPTL 3-4.1 [a] [2] [A] [i]), which act achieves the revocatory purpose even if there remain will duplicates outstanding (Crossman v Crossman, 95 NY 145, 152 [1884]). That a testator has in fact revoked a will by destruction is strongly presumed where the will, although once possessed by the testator, cannot be found posthumously despite a thorough search … . The presumption, once raised, “stands in the place of positive proof” … and must be rebutted by the will’s proponent as a condition of probate

Here, the facts of record, adduced in critical part through the testimony of petitioner’s son, supported inferences that decedent executed her 1996 will in quadruplicate, with each document having been meant to possess the force of an original instrument; that one of the will duplicates was kept at the Clayton, New York home where decedent resided after her divorce; and that, after a thorough search, no will was found there. Plainly, these circumstances sufficed to raise the presumption that decedent revoked her 1996 will by destroying it. It is equally plain that that presumption was not rebutted. None of the other duplicate wills was produced or otherwise accounted for. And, although petitioner now urges that the unproduced duplicates were merely copies, the uncertain status of the will duplicates, although commented upon by the Surrogate, was never resolved. We are left then with a will admitted to probate upon a record sufficient only to disprove it.

It is precisely to avoid such an incongruous outcome that the governing rule of proceeding has long been that “[a]s soon as it is brought to the attention of the surrogate that there are duplicates of a will presented to him for probate, it is proper that he should require [the] duplicates to be presented, not for the purpose of admitting both as separate instruments to probate, but that he may be assured whether the will has been revoked, and whether each completely contains the will of the testator” (Crossman, 95 NY at 152…). Here, it is manifest that the Surrogate’s attention was drawn to the existence of will duplicates, but the consequently arising issues as to the will’s validity were not resolved as they should have been in accordance with Crossman’s instruction. Petitioner was required not merely to exclude the possibility, but to rebut the legal presumption of revocation, sufficiently raised by the ex-husband’s testimony as to the existence of will duplicates, one of which had been kept, but was not found after decedent’s passing, at her post-divorce residence.  Matter of Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04674, CtApp 6-4-15

 

,

For Purposes of CPLR 205 (a) (Allowing the Commencement of a New Action within Six Months of the Termination of a Prior Action) a Prior Action Terminates When a Nondiscretionary Appeal Is “Exhausted,” Even If the Appeal Is Dismissed As Abandoned

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the six-month period for commencing a new action after the termination of a prior action afforded by CPLR 205 (a) runs from the termination of an appeal, even if the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. Here the plaintiff started an action in federal court which was dismissed by District Court.  Plaintiff then appealed as of right to the Second Circuit.  The appeal was dismissed for failure to file the brief and appendix.  Plaintiff, before the federal appeal was dismissed, started an action in state court. The state court action was started more than six months after the District Court had dismissed the federal action and defendants moved to dismiss the state action under CPLR 205 (a).  The Court of Appeals held that the CPLR 205 (a) six-month period did not start running until the federal appeal was dismissed.  Therefore the state action was timely commenced:

In its current form, CPLR 205 (a) provides:

“If an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action and that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period.” * * *

… [T]his Court has not addressed the issue of when a prior action terminates for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) where, as here, an appeal is taken as of right but is dismissed by the intermediate appellate court due to the plaintiff’s failure to perfect. We resolve that question now by … holding that, where an appeal is taken as of right, the prior action terminates for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) when the nondiscretionary appeal is truly “exhausted,” either by a determination on the merits or by dismissal of the appeal, even if the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. Malay v City of Syracuse, 2015 NY Slip Op 04164, CtApp 5-14-15

 

,

In Extraordinary Circumstances, Testimony by Two-Way Video Conference Can Be Used In Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Proceedings

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that the judge in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding has the discretion, in extraordinary circumstances, to allow testimony by electronic appearance (live two-way video conference). Here, however, the respondent objected to the procedure and the State did not demonstrate the requisite extraordinary circumstances.  The error  was deemed harmless however:

…[W]e hold that permitting the two-way, live video testimony … was within the discretion of the court. As we have previously explained, “[l]ive televised testimony is certainly not the equivalent of in-person testimony, and the decision to excuse a witness's presence in the courtroom should be weighed carefully. Televised testimony requires a case-specific finding of necessity; it is an exceptional procedure to be used only in exceptional circumstances” … . … [Here} [p]ermitting [the witness] to deliver her testimony via video conference over respondent's objection without requiring a proper showing of exceptional circumstances was error. Matter of State of New York v Robert F., 2015 NY Slip Op 04162, CtApp 5-14-15

 

,

Intent to Rob Sufficiently Proven by Circumstantial Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the attempted robbery conviction.  Defendant, when the business was closed, was dressed in dark clothes, wearing a mask, and carrying a handgun (BB gun) while pounding on the door of the business asking to enter.  The defendant never was allowed inside and ran when the police arrived.  The defendant argued there was no evidence he intended to commit robbery, as opposed to some other crime.  The Court of Appeals found the circumstantial evidence of an intent to commit robbery sufficient:

…[H]ere there was evidence that defendant, who was unknown to any of the employees present that morning, and had no apparent business at Wendy’s, nevertheless showed up masked and armed, carrying a backpack, seeking entry at 6:30 am through a locked rear door not used by the public, with an escape vehicle conveniently parked nearby. This fit the pattern common to an early morning robbery of a commercial establishment and was sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal. People v Lamont, 2015 NY Slip Op 04165, CtApp 5-14-15

 

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