You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE TOWN NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED A SEWER MAIN CAUSING SEWAGE TO BACKFLOW INTO PLAINTIFFS’ HOME; AN INTENTIONAL ENTRY IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS; THEREFORE THE TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint which alleged the town negligently failed to maintain a sewer main causing sewage to backflow into plaintiffs’ home did not state a cause of action for trespass, which requires an intentional act:

Among other elements, a claim for trespass requires “an intentional entry” … . Intent, in this context, “is defined as intending the act which produces the unlawful intrusion, where the intrusion is an immediate or inevitable consequence of that act” … . Here, accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true … , we conclude that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action for trespass inasmuch as it failed to allege an intentional entry onto plaintiffs’ property … .  Drake v Village of Lima, 2023 NY Slip Op 05833, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the trespass cause of action was based upon the backflow of sewage into plaintiffs’ home allegedly caused by the negligent maintenance of a sewer main. Trespass requires an “Intentional entry” which was not alleged here.

 

,

HERE PETITIONERS’ HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE COURT-ORDERED APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS SET ASIDE THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS; THE PETITIONERS WERE THEN ENTITLED TO SUE TO SEEK FULL RECOVERY UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED FURTHER APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that once the appraisal award was set aside through no fault of the petitioner-insureds further appraisal proceedings should not have been ordered by the judge. Petitioners’ home was destroyed by fire and the insurer valued the loss at $370,000. The petitioners then demanded an appraisal which was ordered by the court. Once the appraisal was set aside through no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners were free to bring a plenary action to sue on the insurance policy:

… [T]he court erred in remitting the appraisal to the umpire and appraisers for further deliberations. It is well settled that “after an appraisal proceeding has terminated in an award and the award has been set aside, without any fault on the part of the insured[s], [they] need not submit to any further appraisement but may sue on the policy” … . Here, it is undisputed that the court set aside the appraisal award due to errors made by the court-appointed umpire—i.e., not due to any fault of petitioners. Consequently, the court could not properly compel petitioners to participate in further appraisal proceedings … . Indeed, we note that petitioners are now entitled to pursue a plenary action in Supreme Court seeking full recovery on their insurance claim under the policy … . Matter of Stanz v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 05832, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here there was a court-ordered appraisal to determine the amount of the loss from the destruction of the insureds’ home by fire. The judge set aside the appraisal because of errors made by the umpire. At that point the insureds were entitled to bring a plenary action for full recovery under the fire insurance policy. The judge should not have ordered further appraisal proceedings.

 

,

HERE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT AND FENCE FOR $2500; THE MEMORANDUM WAS NOT AN “INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY” AND THEREFORE “SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT” WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined summary judgment in lieu of complaint was not available because the underlying document was not “an instrument for the payment of money only:”

By motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see CPLR 3213), plaintiff moved for judgment in the amount of $2,500.00, plus interest, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the parties regarding the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout, and fence between their adjoining properties.  * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as the parties’ memorandum of understanding is not “an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213 …). Where, as here, an agreement ” ‘requires something in addition to [an] explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable’ ”  Ellicottville Inn Condominium Assn. v Kempisty, 2023 NY Slip Op 05826, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: When a document requires something in addition to the payment of money (here the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout and a fence) it is not an “instrument for the payment of money only” and cannot be enforced by summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

 

THE BREACH OF CONTRACT SUIT STEMMED FROM CONSTRUCTION DELAYS; THE LOST PROFITS CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SPECULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for lost profits in this breach of contract action should have been granted. The suit was premised on construction delays which postponed the start-date for the operation of the business. The underlying business was a start-up. Damages for lost profits therefore were not contemplated when the contract was entered. In addition, because no comparable businesses were identified, lost profits would necessarily be speculative:

To recover damages for lost profits, “it must be shown that: (1) the damages were caused by the breach; (2) the alleged loss must be capable of proof with reasonable certainty[;] and (3) the particular damages were within the contemplation of the parties to the contract at the time it was made” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that “[i]t would be highly speculative and unreasonable to infer an intent to assume the risk of lost profits in what was to be a start-up venture” … . …

The lay assumption by plaintiff that it would have earned the same net profit during the months in which completion of the project was delayed as it did during the same months of the following year is too speculative to support a calculation of damages … . Buffalo Riverworks LLC v Schenne, 2023 NY Slip Op 05823, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: To recover lost profits under a breach of contract theory, the profits must have been within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered and there must be some benchmark by which the amount of lost profits can be measured (comparable businesses for example). Here the business was a start-up and the court determined the amount of profits could not have been within the contemplation of the parties when the construction contract was entered.

 

,

DEFENDANT DROVE ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO GO AROUND A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING AND THEN SUDDENLY CROSSED THE DOUBLE LINE AND STRUCK A MOTORCYCLIST IN THE ONCOMING LANE; THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE “RECKLESS” CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANSLAUGHTER STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of how defendant was driving before his vehicle crossed into the oncoming lane and struck the victim’s motorcycle did not rise to the level of recklessness:

The People introduced eyewitness testimony at trial that, before the accident, defendant was tailgating a sport utility vehicle (SUV), “hitting his fist on the steering wheel[,] and looking a little agitated.” The driver and front passenger of the SUV testified that, as they made a left-hand turn, defendant passed their vehicle by driving onto the right shoulder of the two-lane roadway, yelling out that he was “going to get [them].” After defendant passed the SUV, his vehicle sharply turned left, crossed into the opposite lane, and struck the motorcycle.

… A defendant’s conduct is reckless with respect to the death of another person when the defendant “is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will result from it … . “The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

Here … the only risk-creating conduct by defendant supporting his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree was his briefly driving on the shoulder of the road to pass a vehicle in front of him that was turning and his subsequently making a sharp left turn and crossing over the double yellow line into the opposite lane. … [T]hat conduct, standing alone, did not exhibit “the kind of seriously blameworthy carelessness whose seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” necessary to establish recklessness with respect to the death of another … . People v Lavelle, 2023 NY Slip Op 05920, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The facts of this case, defendant’s suddenly crossing a double yellow line and striking a motorcyclist in the oncoming lane, do not rise to the level of “recklessness” within the meaning of the reckless manslaughter statute.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; THE MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling, noted that the failure to rule on motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial which can be raised on appeal.  People v Keane, 2023 NY Slip Op 05915, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY FILING BEFORE OR AFTER THE COVID TOLL-PERIOD, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT; THE TOLL EFFECTIVELY ADDED 228 DAYS, THE LENGTH OF THE TOLL-PERIOD, TO THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID tolls of the statute of limitations rendered the plaintiffs action timely:

472 days of the 1,095-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 623 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on July 20, 2022 … . Thus, the action was timely commenced on May 18, 2022 … .

Defendants contend that the toll is inapplicable here because plaintiffs could have timely commenced the action at any point between December 4, 2018 [when the cause action accrued], and March 20, 2020 [when the toll began], or between November 3, 2020 [when the toll expired], and December 4, 2021 [three years from accual]. We reject that contention. “[A] toll operates to compensate a claimant for the shortening of the statutory period in which it must commence . . . an action, irrespective of whether the stay has actually deprived the claimant of any opportunity to do so” …  Thus, plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of tolling for the entire 228-day duration of the COVID-19 Executive Orders. Harden v Weinraub, 2023 NY Slip Op 05822, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ action accrued before the COVID toll-period which began on March 20, 2020, and there was still time left on the three-year statute of limitations when the toll was lifted on November 3, 2020. The fact that plaintiffs could have commenced the suit within three years of accrual was not relevant. The three-year statute was extended by the the length of the toll-period, 228 days.

 

, , ,

THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS” SUCH THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE TRANSIENT TENANTS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF “FAMILY” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and annulling the zoning board’s (ZBA’s) ruling, determined the term “single family dwellings” should not have been interpreted to prohibit short-term rentals. The ZBA reasoned that short-term, transient tenants do not meet the definition of “family:”

“[L]ocal zoning boards have broad discretion, and [a] determination of a zoning board should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” … . So long as a zoning board’s interpretation of its governing code “is neither ‘irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with the governing [code],’ it will be upheld” … . However, where, as here, the issue presented “is one of pure legal interpretation of [the code’s] terms, deference to the zoning board is not required” … . * * *

… [U]nder the Zoning Ordinance, the transient or temporary nature of a group is but one factor that “may” be considered to determine whether four or more persons who are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption are the “functional equivalent” of a “traditional family.” … [I]f petitioner rented her property to three or fewer persons, or to four or more persons who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, those groups would meet the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of a “[f]amily” without regard to whether their tenancy was transient or temporary in nature. The ZBA’s determination to the contrary lacked a rational basis … , and the court erred in sustaining the determination. Matter of Friedman v Town of Dunkirk, 2023 NY Slip Op 05912, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Where a zoning board purports to make a pure legal interpretation of terms used in the zoning code, a court’s deference to the zoning board is not required.

Practice Point: Here the zoning board’s interpretation of the term “family” within the phrase “single family residences” to exclude short-term rentals to transient tenants was irrational.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. Plaintiff was driving defendant’s truck when everything on the dashboard turned red and plaintiff pulled over to check out the problem. When plaintiff opened the water reservoir cap the reservoir “exploded” injuring him. Plaintiff was told by the police officer who stopped to help that the position of the snow plow on the front of the truck was blocking air flow to the engine (apparently causing the engine to overheat). The Fourth Department determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff, a permissive user of defendant’s truck, a duty of care:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the truck’s mechanical issues … . * * *

… [D]efendant failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s conduct, in investigating the cause of the malfunction and checking the water level in the reservoir, was of an unreasonable character, was done in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow, or was done with conscious indifference to the outcome. * * *

The owner of a vehicle can be liable to permissive guests, users, or occupants if the owner knew or should have known of defects in the vehicle … . Bialecki v HBO Bldrs. W., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05907, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a permissive driver of defendant’s truck, was injured when he checked the engine water reservoir and it “exploded.” Apparently the engine overheated because the snow plow blocked air flow to the engine. There were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO SHOW HER HUSBAND HAD REQUESTED COVERAGE ON HER BEHALF AND, BECAUSE THE INSURER (ALLEGEDLY) NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO COVER HER LOSS, DESPITE HER STATUS AS A NONCLIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the injured plaintiff might be able to show her husband (the insured) requested supplemental spousal liability (SSL) coverage on her behalf and that she was harmed by the insurer’s failure to provide it, despite her status as a nonclient. Plaintiff’s husband was driving and plaintiff was a passenger when she was seriously injured in a traffic accident:

“An insurance agent ordinarily does not owe a duty of care to a nonclient; however, where an agent’s negligence results in an insured being without coverage, the agent may be liable for damages sustained by an injured third party if the third party was the intended beneficiary of the insurance contract and ‘the bond between [the agent and the third party is] so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity’ . . . The functional equivalent of privity may be found . . . where the defendants are aware that their representations are ‘to be used for a particular purpose,’ there was ‘reliance by a known party or parties in furtherance of that purpose’ and there is ‘some conduct by the defendants linking them to the party or parties and evincing [the] defendant[s’] understanding of their reliance’ ” … .

“[A] third party may sue as a beneficiary on a contract made for [its] benefit. However, an intent to benefit the third party must be shown, and, absent such intent, the third party is merely an incidental beneficiary with no right to enforce the particular contracts” … . Thus, “[p]arties asserting third-party beneficiary rights under a contract must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [their] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [them] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [them] if the benefit is lost” … . Smith v NGM Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 05815, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: An insurer may be liable for negligently failing to provide requested coverage for a nonclient. Here, the insured, plaintiff’s husband, allegedly requested supplemental spousal liability (SSL) coverage on behalf of his wife, the injured plaintiff. The insurer, which allegedly failed to provide the requested coverage, may be liable for her loss.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy