You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST OF DEFENDANT’S BROTHER WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the misdemeanor complaint charging resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration was jurisdictionally defective. The complaint alleged defendant interfered in the arrest of her brother and then herself resisted arrest. But the complaint did not allege the basis for the arrest of defendant’s brother and therefore did not demonstrate the brother’s arrest was “authorized,” an essential element of the offense:

​

The factual part of the complaint merely states that the officer was “attempting to effectuate the arrest of [defendant’s brother].” However, the complaint contains no factual allegations that would establish, if true, that the underlying arrest of defendant’s brother was authorized. Thus, the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish all the essential elements of the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. Because the information fails to allege sufficient facts supporting the underlying obstructing governmental administration charge, it is also insufficient to allege that defendant’s arrest on that charge was “authorized,” as required by Penal Law § 205.30. Therefore, defendant is also entitled to dismissal of the resisting arrest charge … .

The dissent acknowledges that an element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration is that the underlying arrest was authorized, but nevertheless concludes that this essential element need not be alleged in the factual part of an information. This position, however, cannot be reconciled with the statutory requirement that an information contain “nonhearsay allegations [that] establish, if true, every element of the offense charged”… . People v Sumter, 2017 NY Slip Op 04897, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT  (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/RESISTING ARREST (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION  (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)

, , ,

INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff’s insurer (RLI), which opted not to defend this construction accident case, was required to indemnify the insurers who paid the $2.5 million settlement, both for the damages and the excess attorney’s fees. The plaintiff opted to hire a law firm other that the firm used by the workers’ compensation carrier (SLI). The workers’ compensation carrier paid $150/hour toward the other attorneys’ fees. The firm hired by plaintiff (Greenberg Traurig) charged $795/hr. The dissent argued the fees should have been capped at $150/hr. The other issue addressed by the court was the late notification of plaintiff’s insurer. The late notice was excused because of a good faith belief recovery was limited to workers’ compensation (and therefore subject to a policy exclusion):

​

RLI’s argument that the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of amounts paid to Greenberg Traurig in defense of the underlying claim is without merit. Having chosen to deny coverage and not participate in the defense, RLI “excluded itself from any aspect of the [p]laintiff’s defense in the Vasquez estate’s action,” including the negotiation of attorneys’ fees and the selection of attorneys, as so found by the motion court, and cannot now be heard to complain. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the underlying action as “damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” by RLI of the contract of insurance … .

We reject defendant’s argument that the $150 per hour contributed by SIF acts as a ceiling on fees … . Any agreement between SIF and plaintiff as to fees has no bearing on RLI’s responsibility to provide a defense, save as it pertains to any eventual allocation of defense costs as between the two carriers … . The record does not contain a copy of the SIF policy, so we are unable to make any determination as to whether the carriers share the costs of defense in equal parts as primary carriers, or whether defendant RLI is solely responsible. It may be noted that under RLI’s policy, competing primary insurers are to contribute on an equal basis. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v RLI Ins. Co., 20 17 NY Slip Op 04776, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))

, ,

ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.

The First Department, over a detailed dissent which lays out the complicated facts, affirming Supreme Court (Reed, J.), determined the action by insurer’s subrogee (Nationwide) against the insured’s subrogee (US Underwriters) in this Labor Law (construction accident) action was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. The underlying action had settled for about $1.55 million.

FROM THE DISSENT (THE FACTS):

On or about July 9, 2001, Kerwin Park, an employee of Armadillo Construction Corp., a demolition contractor, sustained personal injuries while working on a construction site. Park commenced the underlying Labor Law action against the general contractor (Artimus) and others. Nationwide, Artimus’s insurer, tendered the defense of the action to Armadillo and Armadillo’s insurer, U.S. Underwriters; Artimus was an additional insured on the U.S. Underwriters policy. By letter dated August 31, 2001, U.S. Underwriters denied coverage to Artimus, copying the broker and Armadillo on the letter, based on late notice of occurrence and various exclusions in the policy. …[T]he underlying action settled for approximately $1.55 million. Nationwide contributed to the settlement on Artimus’s behalf. Artimus also obtained a default judgment on its third-party indemnification claim against Armadillo. … Artimus moved to restore its claims against Armadillo to the active calendar in the declaratory judgment action. In granting the motion, the court (Ramos, J.) cited to Justice Cahn’s earlier decision in the action and observed that no decision had been made concerning Armadillo’s entitlement to coverage. * * * Justice Reed granted U.S. Underwriters’ motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that Artimus, as Armadillo’s subrogee, was collaterally estopped from bringing the instant action, because it was in privity with Armadillo, and whatever rules of collateral estoppel applied to Armadillo would also apply to Artimus (and its subrogee, Nationwide). The court found that as a consequence, Artimus was bound by Justice Cahn’s order. The court also found that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

​

FROM THE MAJORITY:

… [T]he parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the insurance coverage issues in the prior action. Nationwide is therefore collaterally estopped from litigating the same issues already decided against its subrogor, Artimus, who in turn is estopped from litigating the same issues decided against its subrogor, Armadillo, as a subrogee of the insured.

Moreover, the principles of res judicata favor defendants herein. Nationwide and Artimus seek to enforce the judgment that they were awarded against Armadillo in the third-party personal injury action. However … in the prior action the court found that the coverage exclusion with respect to the personal injury action in U.S. Underwriters policy was applicable. By bringing this action as subrogees of Artimus and Armadillo under Insurance Law § 3420, Nationwide and Artimus are essentially seeking to relitigate Artimus’s claims for coverage. “Res judicata is designed to provide finality in the resolution of disputes, recognizing that [c]onsiderations of judicial economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation” … . Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04774, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

 

INSURANCE LAW (ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/RES JUDICATA (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/PRIVITY (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender discrimination suit should not have been dismissed:

As ostensibly nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff, defendants pointed to plaintiff’s alleged management deficiencies; her alleged insubordination, by, among other things, refusing a directive to extend her vacation; and her alleged concealment of her romantic relationship with a subordinate.

In response, plaintiff raised issues of fact as to pretext … . Among other things, plaintiff points out that her termination on June 30, 2011, represented a drastic shift from the favorable performance review which she received only three weeks earlier. Indeed, plaintiff was on vacation for nearly a week of that three-week time period. Nothing in the record explains why any defects in plaintiff’s management style, identified in her otherwise favorable performance review, suddenly warranted her termination. Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff was insubordinate and hostile is belied by the record, which shows nothing more than innocuous e-mail exchanges between plaintiff and her superior … during the several days prior to the termination. Finally, defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s concealing of her relationship with her subordinate was a ground for termination is belied by, among other things, emails exchanged only a week earlier, demonstrating that the subordinate would be reporting to another manager, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Plaintiff has also pointed to evidence of gender bias, in the form of [her superior’s] holding women, including plaintiff, to a different standard than men in the workplace. Nor were these mere “stray remarks.” To the contrary, [her superior] told plaintiff that she lacked “emotional intelligence and empathy toward others,” which were perceived as shortcomings in her ability to manage her subordinates, and which were “amplified because [she was] in a high profile seat and female.” Barone v Emmis Communications Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04787, 1st Dept 6-13-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, GENDER DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/GENDER DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, GENDER DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A-BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN. 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the trial court properly dismissed the count of the indictment which charged possession of a BB gun. Defendant was charged with possession of the BB gun as well as possession of a 9 mm handgun. It was alleged defendant threw both under a car as the police approached. Defendant produced a declaration (against penal interest) by a non-testifying witness (Ramsanany) who claimed (in the declaration) the handgun was his. In rebuttal the People presented a detective (DeLoren) who testified Ramsanany, when confronted, admitted his declaration about owning the handgun was a lie. The dissent argued the BB gun count should have gone to the jury, as it was an integral part of the defense and would not have caused jury confusion. The trial court ruled that the BB gun count could confuse the jury and lead to a compromise verdict:

​

FROM THE DISSENT:

I disagree with the majority’s position that submission of the air pistol count “could only confuse” the jury. Indeed, in allowing testimony about Ramsanany’s declaration that he, and not defendant, possessed the 9 millimeter Taurus pistol, the court necessarily found that it did not confuse the issues or mislead the jury  … .

In any event, under the circumstances, submission of the air pistol charge would not have distracted the jury or merely allowed it to reach a verdict based on mercy or compromise; rather, submission of the charge would have helped the jury arrive at a fair verdict if it had credited the defense, a defense supported by defendant’s and Gil’s testimony and Ramsanany’s declaration, as well as the lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence indicating which pistols were in defendant’s possession. Instead, because the court dismissed the air pistol count, the jury had no basis on which to convict defendant of possession of only the air pistol, and not the 9 millimeter Taurus pistol, even if it credited the defense, leaving the jury to convict defendant of a more serious offense or acquit him altogether. This was particularly troubling, given that Ramsanany did not testify at trial. Any claims by the prosecution that Ramsanany was coerced by defendant into assuming criminal responsibility for the air pistol could only have been explored through Detective DeLoren. It seems to me patently unfair to provide Ramsanany’s declaration and DeLoren’s rebuttal to the jury and then essentially tell the jury to forget about that testimony and focus only on the 9 millimeter Taurus pistol. People v Boyd, 2017 NY Slip Op 04809, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN)/JURY CONFUSION (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN)/COMPROMISE VERDICT (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN)

REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she choked on a fish bone at defendant’s restaurant:

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained when she choked on a fish bone while eating a fillet of flounder at defendants-appellants’ restaurant. Plaintiff’s negligence claim should have been dismissed pursuant to the “reasonable expectation” doctrine, as the nearly one-inch bone on which plaintiff choked was not a “harmful substance[]” that a consumer “would not ordinarily anticipate” … . Amiano v Greenwich Vil. Fish Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04544, 1st Dept 6-8-17

NEGLIGENCE (REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE)/REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE (NEGLIGENCE, REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE)

​

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY ON A HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE TOP OF HIS TRUCK STRUCK AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this rear-end collision case. The top of defendant’s truck struck an overhead bridge and came to a sudden stop on a highway. There was evidence the truck driver was negligent for attempting to pass under the bridge in a lane which he had not used before:

​

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle, or a vehicle slowing down, establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear-ending vehicle, which may be rebutted if that driver can provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident … . The … defendants argue that plaintiff’s contention that a sudden, unforeseeable stop by a lead vehicle can provide such a non-negligent explanation “is contrary to this Court’s consistent holding that an allegation that the lead vehicle suddenly stopped is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the rear-ending vehicle.” However, this is simply not accurate … . * * *

​

… [T]he evidence suggests that plaintiff could have “reasonably expect[ed] that traffic would continue unimpeded” … , since traffic was flowing smoothly and he had no reason to foresee that [defendant’s] truck would not clear the overpass. Baez-Pena v MM Truck & Body Repair, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04538, 1st Dept 6-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY ON A HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE TOP OF HIS TRUCK STRUCK AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY ON A HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE TOP OF HIS TRUCK STRUCK AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY ON A HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE TOP OF HIS TRUCK STRUCK AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE)

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) was properly granted. Plaintiff was struck by a plank which fell from a scaffold that was being dismantled:

​

Whether or not the scaffold provided workers at the site with adequate protection for working at an elevation, the unsecured plank falling from the scaffold and striking plaintiff as the scaffold was being moved constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard requiring the securing of the plank for the purpose of moving the scaffold … . Gonzalez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04555, 1st Dept 6-8-17

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) PROPERLY GRANTED)/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this breach of contract action concerning the issuance of warrants to purchase shares in defendant GeoResources. The facts of the dispute are too complex to summarize here. The First Department explained the requirements for reformation of a contract, the doctrines of mutual mistake and novation, and the liabilities of assignees:

​

A claim for reformation of a written agreement must be grounded upon either mutual mistake or fraudulently induced unilateral mistake,'” and to succeed, the party seeking relief “must establish by clear, positive and convincing evidence’ that the agreement does not accurately express the parties’ intentions” … . “Reformation based upon a scrivener’s error requires proof of a prior agreement between [the] parties, which when subsequently reduced to writing fails to accurately reflect the prior agreement”… . The parties’ course of performance under the contract, or their practical interpretation of a contract for any considerable period of time, is the most persuasive evidence of the agreed intention of the parties … .

Given the need for “clear, positive and convincing evidence” of mutual mistake … , we find that issues of fact are present that should have prevented summary judgment … . …

​

Based on the plain language of the purchase agreements … , any reformation claim that the original purchasers held was assigned … since it qualifies as one of the “rights and benefits incident to the ownership” of the warrants. …

​

The elements of a novation are a previously valid obligation, agreement of the parties to the new obligation, extinguishment of the old contract, and a valid new contract … . “A novation will not discharge obligations created under a prior agreement unless it was so intended, and this question may be determined from the writings and conduct of the parties or, in certain cases, from the documents exclusively” … . The party claiming a novation has the burden of proof of establishing that it was the intent of the parties to effect a novation … .

We find that defendant presented no evidence that it and its counterparties intended to effectuate a novation before issuing [the] warrants … .Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund L.P. v GeoResources, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04537, 1st Dept 6-8-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/REFORMATION (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/MUTUAL MISTAKE (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/NOVATION (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/ASSIGNEES (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/SECURITES  (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/WARRANTS (SECURITIES, CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)

,

CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined two chimpanzees. Tommy and Kiko, were not entitled to orders transferring them from cages to a sanctuary, using the rationale behind habeas corpus. The main reason underlying the decision is the fact that similar requests for relief had been denied by other courts and nothing new was presented in support of the instant requests for relief. The court, however, did run through the arguments in support of the applicability of habeas corpus criteria in this context (not all of which are summarized here):

​

“The common law writ of habeas corpus, as codified by CPLR article 70, provides a summary procedure by which a person’ who has been illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his or her liberty can challenge the legality of the detention” … . While the word “person” is not defined in the statute, there is no support for the conclusion that the definition includes nonhumans, i.e., chimpanzees. While petitioner’s cited studies attest to the intelligence and social capabilities of chimpanzees, petitioner does not cite any sources indicating that the United States or New York Constitutions were intended to protect nonhuman animals’ rights to liberty, or that the Legislature intended the term “person” in CPLR article 70 to expand the availability of habeas protection beyond humans. No precedent exists, under New York law, or English common law, for a finding that a chimpanzee could be considered a “person” and entitled to habeas relief. In fact, habeas relief has never been found applicable to any animal… .

The asserted cognitive and linguistic capabilities of chimpanzees do not translate to a chimpanzee’s capacity or ability, like humans, to bear legal duties, or to be held legally accountable for their actions. Petitioner does not suggest that any chimpanzee charged with a crime in New York could be deemed fit to proceed, i.e., to have the “capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense” (CPL 730.10[1]). While in an amicus brief filed by Professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, it is suggested that it is possible to impose legal duties on nonhuman animals, noting the “long history, mainly from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking human beings and eating crops,” none of the cases cited took place in modern times or in New York. Moreover, as noted in an amicus brief submitted by Professor Richard Cupp, nonhumans lack sufficient responsibility to have any legal standing, which, according to Cupp is why even chimpanzees who have caused death or serious injury to human beings have not been prosecuted. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2017 NY Slip Op 04574, 1st Dept  6-8-17

 

ANIMAL LAW (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ANIMAL LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/ANIMAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/HABEAS CORPUS (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CHIMPANZEES (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)

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