You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did have standing to move to vacate a default judgment on the ground that the court which issued the judgment did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The judgment had been satisfied by a property execution on the defendant’s bank account:

​

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a default judgment on the ground that the court that rendered the judgment lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant … a finding in favor of the defendant would mean that the judgment was “a nullity” . It necessarily follows that, “if a judgment is a nullity, it never legally existed so as to become extinguished by payment” … . …

​

In addition, inasmuch as plaintiff levied the judgment amount with interest by a property execution on defendant’s bank account, we conclude that defendant did not voluntarily pay and satisfy the judgment … . Thus, it cannot be said that she waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Cach, LLC v Ryan, 2018 NY Slip Op 00755, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department annulled the determination and ordered a new disciplinary hearing because petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses:

​

“An inmate has a right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing so long as the testimony is not immaterial or redundant and poses no threat to institutional safety or correctional goals” … . Respondent correctly concedes that the Hearing Officer violated petitioner’s right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations … . Inasmuch as a good faith reason for denying the witnesses appears in the record, only petitioner’s regulatory right, not his constitutional right, to call those witnesses was violated, and thus the proper remedy is a new hearing … . Matter of Adams v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00695, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court correctly found, after a bench trial, that a non-solicitation agreement between defendant Johnson and her employers (plaintiffs) should not be enforced because the agreement was the product of overreaching:

​

Plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that, in imposing the terms of the non-solicitation covenant, they did not engage in “overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, but ha[d] in good faith sought to protect a legitimate interest” … , and they did not meet that burden. The evidence established that the non-solicitation covenant was imposed as a condition of Johnson’s employment, after she had left her former employer and her position there had been filled, which belies plaintiffs’ contention that Johnson’s bargaining position was equal or superior to theirs… . In addition, plaintiffs required all employees, regardless of position, to sign an agreement containing a non-solicitation covenant as a condition of employment, which undercuts plaintiffs’ contention that the covenant was necessary to protect their legitimate business interests … . Finally, the fact that the agreement provides for partial enforcement of the non-solicitation covenant, which is clearly over-broad under New York law, casts doubt on plaintiffs’ good faith in imposing the covenant on Johnson … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00728, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Defendants sold used gas pumps to a scrap yard, stating that the pumps had been drained of gasoline. When one of the pumps was sent to the shredder it exploded, injuring plaintiff. The other pumps were found to have one to two gallons of gasoline in them. The Fourth Department held there was a question of fact whether defendants were casual sellers of gas pumps and therefore did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. The Fourth Department further held that, even if defendants were casual sellers of gas pumps, there was a question of fact whether they owed a duty of care to plaintiff because the hazard was not open and obvious:

Although it is well settled that casual or occasional sellers of products do “not undertake the special responsibility for public safety assumed by those in the business of regularly supplying those products”… , the evidence submitted by defendants in support of their motion failed to establish that their sale of gas pumps was “wholly incidental” to their business of installing and servicing petroleum distribution systems … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants were merely casual sellers of used gas pumps, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff. Even casual sellers owe a duty to warn of dangers that are not open and obvious or readily discernable … . Rosario v Monroe Mech. Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00732, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/CASUAL SELLERS (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (NEGLIGENCE, DUTY TO WARN, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/WARN, DUTY TO (NEGLIGENCE, OPEN AND OBVIOUS, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/PRODUCTS LIABILITY  (QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))

RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that a release drawn up by the initial executor, who died, was not valid because the objectant, a beneficiary of the will who signed the release, was not informed that the value of the securities in the estate had declined significantly and was not informed of the ramifications of the executor’s decision to leave a trust unfunded. Surrogate’s Court had erroneously placed the burden of demonstrating the release was invalid on the objectant:

​

… [T]he Surrogate improperly shifted the burden from petitioners to objectant to prove that the release was fraudulently obtained and erred in determining that the release is valid. With releases, “as in other instances of dealing between a fiduciary and the person for whom he [or she] is acting, there must be proof of full disclosure by the [executor] of the facts of the situation and the legal rights of the beneficiary” … . A release should be subject to careful scrutiny, and the executor must affirmatively demonstrate full disclosure of “material facts which he [or she] knew or should have known” … . “The mere absence of misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence in the obtaining of a release is not sufficient to insulate the release from a subsequent attack by the beneficiaries; the fiduciary must affirmatively demonstrate that the beneficiaries were made aware of the nature and legal effect of the transaction in all its particulars” … . Here, petitioners’ burden of proving that full disclosure was provided was improperly shifted to objectant, i.e., the beneficiary who challenged the validity of the release.

​

Decedent’s will contemplated equal bequests to objectant and his sister (decedent’s children). There was a substantial discrepancy in the value of the properties decedent left to each child, however, and most of objectant’s inheritance was to come from the liquidation of the estate’s securities. The will also directed that the trust be funded in the maximum sum allowable to benefit decedent’s children and their descendants. Objectant and the executor were named as co-trustees of the trust. Accurate information concerning the current value of the estate’s securities and the propriety of defunding the trust in contravention of the will was therefore highly material to objectant. Matter of Alford, 2018 NY Slip Op 00752, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASES (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))/EXECUTORS (RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice well-reasoned dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the A-frame ladder. Plaintiff testified that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). “In order to establish his entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law, plaintiff was required to show that the statute was violated and the violation proximately caused his injury’ “… . Plaintiff did not know why the ladder wobbled or shifted, and he acknowledged that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism, despite having been aware of the need to do so. We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on the motion. “[T]here is a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident” … .

​

From the dissent: The fact that plaintiff could not identify why the ladder shifted does not undermine his entitlement to partial summary judgment because a plaintiff who falls from a ladder that “malfunction[s] for no apparent reason” is entitled to “a presumption that the ladder . . . was not good enough to afford proper protection” … . Although plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not recall whether he checked the positioning of the ladder or checked that it was “locked into place,” he also testified that the ladder was upright and “fully open” near the middle of a small room, and we conclude that it would be unduly speculative for a jury to infer from plaintiff’s testimony that the sole proximate cause of the accident was his alleged failure to check its positioning or its locking mechanism … . Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a funeral director, was inspecting a grave which had been covered with plywood when he stepped on the plywood and fell into the grave. The Labor Law causes of action did not apply because plaintiff was not engaged in any relevant work at the time of the fall. However there were questions of fact whether defendants created or had notice of a dangerous condition:

​

With respect to Labor Law § 240 (1), defendants met their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff “was neither among the class of workers . . . nor performing the type of work . . . that Labor Law § 240 (1) is intended to protect” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . Defendants further established that plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as his inspection of the grave site in his capacity as a funeral director had no direct connection with the alteration or excavation work … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Finally, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim because, while that statute is not limited to construction work … , it does not apply where, as here, the plaintiff was “not permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure at the accident site” … .

​

… [D]efendants “were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises”… . Defendants’ own submissions establish that each had some level of supervisory control over the premises. Moreover, it is undisputed that [defendant] Wolcott dug the grave and placed plywood over it, thus creating and having actual notice of the condition that plaintiffs allege was dangerous. Further, while [defendant] Oakwood established that it did not create the dangerous condition, it “failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition was not visible and apparent or that it had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Oakwood] or [its] employees to discover and remedy it,” and it thereby failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice of it … . Solecki v Oakwood Cemetery Assn., 2018 NY Slip Op 00692, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court should not have directed the petitioner, Upstate University Hospital, to pay the court-appointed attorney’s fees and the court evaluator’s fees in this proceeding to appoint a guardian for an alleged incapacitated person (AIP). The petition to appoint a guardian was successful and the AIP did not die during the proceedings. The court-appointed attorney should be paid pursuant to the County Law article 18-B, and the court did not have the authority to require petitioner to pay the court evaluator’s fee. The Fourth Department further determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint Mental Hygiene Legal Services to represent the AIP:

Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law provides that the court may appoint an attorney to represent the AIP, and that petitioner may be directed to pay for such services where the petition is dismissed or the AIP dies before the proceeding is concluded … . In all cases, “[t]he court shall determine the reasonable compensation for the mental hygiene legal service or any attorney appointed pursuant to” that statute … . Nevertheless, “the statute is silent as to the source of funds for payment of counsel [where, as here,] the AIP is indigent”… . Despite that silence, it is well settled that “the Legislature, by providing for the assignment of counsel for indigents in the Mental Hygiene Law, intended, by necessary implication, to authorize the court to compensate counsel” … , and it is likewise well settled that the court should direct that requests for such compensation should be determined “in accordance with the procedures set forth in County Law article 18-B” … . Thus, the court erred in directing petitioner to pay those fees.

We also agree with the contention of petitioner in appeal No. 3 that the court erred in directing it to pay the fees requested by the court evaluator. Where, as here, a court appoints a court evaluator pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09 (a) and then “grants a petition, the court may award a reasonable compensation to a court evaluator, including the mental hygiene legal service, payable by the estate of the allegedly incapacitated person” … . The statute further provides that a court may direct petitioner to pay for the services of a court evaluator only where the court “denies or dismisses a petition,” or the AIP “dies before the determination is made in the petition” … . Therefore, “notwithstanding Supreme Court’s broad discretion to award reasonable fees in Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceedings . . . , [inasmuch as] petitioner was successful [and the AIP is alive], the court was without authority to ascribe responsibility to petitioner for payment of the court evaluator’s fees” … . Matter of Buttiglieri (Ferrel J.B.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00738, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT EVALUATORS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, FEES, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged that work done on the area (between the curb and the sidewalk) where she fell created a dangerous condition. The work was done a year before the fall. The city would be liable only if the dangerous condition was immediately created by the work, not if the condition developed over time:

Although plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant may have created the sinkhole by improperly excavating and backfilling the excavated area, we agree with defendant that plaintiff failed to proffer evidence that the depression “was present immediately after completion of the work” … . Indeed, it is well settled that the affirmative negligence exception ” does not apply to conditions that develop over time’ ” … . Burke v City of Rochester, 2018 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SIDEWALKS  (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this drainage-system maintenance case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the city’s failure to maintain a storm drainage system caused flooding. The city argued the flooding was caused by an “act of God.” The Fourth Department noted that city’s own papers raised a question of fact whether the failure to clean the system regularly caused the flooding:

​

Defendant submitted the affidavits of its commissioner of public works and its senior engineer, who averred that there is a “trash rack” located in the rear of plaintiff’s property that is used to filter debris from the water entering the underground drainage system from a nearby ravine. If too much debris builds up in the trash rack, it will block the flow of water into the drainage system and flood plaintiff’s premises. According to the deposition testimony of a member of plaintiff limited liability company, which testimony defendant also submitted, such flooding occurred previously in 2006 and caused severe property damage. The senior engineer averred that, to prevent flooding on plaintiff’s property, defendant’s employees periodically inspect and maintain the ravine. Plaintiff’s member, however, testified that defendant’s employees rarely came to the property to clear debris from the trash rack. 2305 Genesee St., LLC v City of Utica, 2018 NY Slip Op 00745, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

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