You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Criteria for “Interest of Justice” Extension of Time to Effect Service Explained

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff an extension of time to effect service on defendant in the interest of justice.  An “interest of justice” analysis in this context does not require a showing of good cause for the extension:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, if service is not timely made, “the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.” Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension, we conclude that the court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion in the interest of justice. That standard “requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .  Swaggard v Dagonese, 2015 NY Slip Op 07398, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained

The Fourth Department concluded that defendant’s papers were not sufficient to warrant summary judgment invalidating a liquidated damages provision of an agreement, but noted that plaintiff may not be able to prove the validity of the provision at trial. Liquidated damages are valid only if they bear a reasonable relationship to the loss; otherwise they constitute an unenforceable penalty. Here plaintiff sold defendant a car with the condition that the car not be re-sold for one year. Defendant sold the car two weeks after purchase and plaintiff sued to enforce the $20,000 liquidated damages provision of the “agreement not to export.”  The court explained the relevant law:

Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they comprise ” an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … . As a general rule, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable only if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . If, however, the clause provides for damages that are ” plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .

Here, defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the amount of liquidated damages does not bear a reasonable relation to plaintiff’s actual damages. In support of his motion, defendant relied on affidavits from himself and his attorney, both of whom asserted, upon information and belief only, that plaintiff sustained no actual damages, and that the liquidated damages clause is therefore unenforceable. Defendant offered no evidence in support of those conclusory assertions, and therefore failed to meet his initial burden of proof … . Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Although defendant may be correct in contending that plaintiff cannot establish at trial that it sustained any actual damages as a result of defendant’s breach of the Agreement, it is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense “and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07394, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Termination for Insubordination Proper

The Fourth Department determined that petitioner, the former chief operator of a city water treatment plant, was properly terminated for insubordination. Petitioner complained directly to the NYS Department of Health about a supervisor’s decision, thereby allegedly violating directives concerning the chain of command. Matter of Gaffney v Addison, 2015 NY Slip Op 07372, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Criteria for Class Certification Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department determined that an action by about 1900 patients who received insulin injections at defendant hospital was properly denied class certification. The patients were notified they may have been administered insulin by insulin pens shared by more than one patient and all were offered free testing for possible blood borne disease. No one tested positive for disease. The court concluded that whether a particular patient was actually exposed and whether exposure resulted in damages would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore issues common to the class did not predominate:

“[A] class action may be maintained in New York only after the five prerequisites set forth in CPLR 901 (a) have been met, i.e., the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class as a whole, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy” … . The class representative “bears the burden of establishing compliance with [*2]the requirements of both CPLR 901 and 902” … .

Where, as here, no plaintiff has tested positive for the blood-borne disease to which he or she allegedly was exposed as a result of defendant’s negligence, a prerequisite to recovery is proof of actual exposure to the blood-borne disease … . The issue of actual exposure will require individualized determinations with respect to each plaintiff. Further, even if members of the proposed class could establish such actual exposure, “the extent of the damages resulting therefrom [is a] question[] requiring individual investigation and separate proof as to each individual claim” … . Thus, we conclude that, “even if there are common issues in this case, those issues do not predominate” …, and “[t]he predominance of individualized factual questions . . . renders this case unsuitable for class treatment” … . Westfall v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07396, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

,

Absence of Corroboration of Confession to Attempted Robbery Required Dismissal of Attempted Robbery Count—However Dismissal of the First Degree Murder and Felony Murder Counts, Both of Which Were Based Upon the Attempted Robbery, Was Not Required—The Death Itself Provided the Requisite Corroboration

The Fourth Department, in a detailed decision addressing several substantive issues not summarized here, found there was no proof of the attempted robbery count except defendant’s confession. The absence of corroboration required reversal of the attempted robbery count. However, with respect to the first degree murder and felony murder counts (for which attempted robbery was the underlying felony) the death itself provided sufficient corroboration:

“A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him [or her] without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed” (CPL 60.50…). With respect to the counts of murder in the first degree and felony murder, it is well settled that “CPL 60.50 does not require corroboration of defendant’s confession to the underlying predicate felony” to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree or felony murder, when the charge is based on a murder committed in the course of and in furtherance of one of many enumerated felonies … . “The effect of the confession corroboration statute is to require proof of the corpus delicti” … . With felony murder and murder in the first degree, the corpus delicti is a death resulting from someone’s criminality, i.e., a death that did not occur by suicide, disease or accident … . The fact that the victim was found dead as the result of a gunshot wound is sufficient corroboration … .

The same analysis does not apply to the underlying felony itself. Where, as here, there is no corroboration of a defendant’s confession with respect to the underlying felony, that count of the indictment charging the defendant with the underlying felony must be dismissed … . People v Harper, 2015 NY Slip Op 07064, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: Administrative Rulings Clearly Illustrated

The Fourth Department, in a dispute about whether fiber optic cables were taxable by the city and the school district under the Real Property Tax Law, determined Supreme Court was powerless to rule on the matter on grounds not used by the administrative agencies which initially heard it. The Fourth Department succinctly explained the relevant review powers:

We agree with petitioners that the court erred in dismissing the petition on grounds different from those on which respondents relied in denying the applications. It is well settled that “[a] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination . . . which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Thus, the court was without power to uphold the administrative determinations on a different basis, no matter how sound that basis may be.

Contrary to petitioners’ further contention, however, we may not grant the ultimate affirmative relief requested in the petition, i.e., removal of the subject properties from the tax rolls and a refund of the taxes paid. The Court of Appeals has noted that courts “regularly defer to the governmental agency charged with the responsibility for administration of [a] statute’ in those cases where interpretation or application involves knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or entails an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom,’ and the agency’s interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable’ ” … . We conclude that “this case involves a question concerning the specific application of a broad statutory term, . . . and therefore is one in which the agency which administers the statute must determine it initially” … , because in such a situation, ” the reviewing court’s function is limited’ ” … . Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Erie County, 2015 NY Slip Op 07104, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Conclusory Allegations Will Not Survive a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action—Punitive Damages Must Be Connected to a Substantive Cause of Action—Late Disclaimer in Property Damage Action Is Valid Absent Prejudice

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s cause of action alleging bad faith on the part of the insurer should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The court explained that conclusory, as opposed to fact-based, allegations will not survive a motion to dismiss. The court noted that a claim for punitive damages must be tied to a specific cause of action and cannot be based upon conclusory allegations.  The court further held that even an unreasonable delay in disclaiming a property damage claim is valid absent prejudice:

Our role is thus to “determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one’ ” … . Nevertheless, ” [w]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support’ ” … . Indeed, ” a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations’ ” … . …

… [W]e note that, “in order to establish a prima facie case of bad faith, the plaintiff must establish that the insurer’s conduct constituted a gross disregard’ of the insured’s interests” … . We conclude … the fourth and sixth causes of action “should have been dismissed because they do not allege [any] conduct by [Allstate] constituting the requisite gross disregard of the insured’s interests’ necessary to support such causes of action” … . Moreover, the “[a]llegations that [Allstate] had no good faith basis for denying coverage are redundant to [plaintiffs’] cause[s] of action for breach of contract based on the denial of coverage, and do not give rise to an independent tort cause of action, regardless of the insertion of tort language into the pleading” … .

… “A demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action” … . Here, the complaint fails to set forth “the pleading elements required to state a claim for punitive damages” … ; plaintiffs’ “conclusory allegation[s] as to [Allstate’s] motive for [its] refusal [to pay the claim are] an insufficient premise for a demand for punitive damages” … . …

Where, as here, the underlying claim does not arise out of an accident involving bodily injury or death, the notice of disclaimer provisions set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (d) are inapplicable and, [u]nder the common-law rule, delay in giving notice of disclaimer of coverage, even if unreasonable, will not estop the insurer to disclaim unless the insured has suffered prejudice from the delay’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, their conclusory allegation that they were “damaged and prejudiced” by the untimely disclaimer is insufficient to withstand this CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss … . Miller v Allstate Indem. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07134, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

, ,

State Claims Re: Alleged Release of Toxins During Love Canal Clean-Up Not Precluded (Preempted) by Federal CERCLA Remedy

The Fourth Department determined state claims for negligence, abnormally dangerous activity, private nuisance and trespass were not precluded by a federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remedy re: the Love Canal toxic contamination:

As the federal District Court explained, “it is uniformly recognized that, in enacting CERCLA, Congress expressly disclaimed an intent to preempt state tort liability for damages caused by the release of hazardous substances” … . District Court therefore granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking to remand the matter to Supreme Court, determining that “plaintiffs seek relief only under common law theories of negligence, . . . private nuisance, and trespass” … , “[and t]he claims . . . do not expressly challenge the effectiveness of the [CERCLA] remedy . . . Rather, plaintiffs seek only to be made whole for any harm proximately caused by defendants’ conduct, whether in performance of operation, maintenance, and monitoring obligations with respect to the remedy, or during the [sewer project]” … .

* * * The doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibits a party who has assumed a position in one legal proceeding, and prevailed on that position, from assuming a contrary position in another proceeding because the party’s interests have changed … . Here, however, we conclude that plaintiffs’ position was consistent in both the federal and state court matters inasmuch as they maintained that they did not challenge the CERCLA remedy, as the moving defendants alleged, but instead challenged defendants’ performance of their respective obligations in executing the CERCLA remedY. Abbo-Bradley v City of Niagara Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 07145, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

,

Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on its “goods sold and delivered” cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the pleading requirements:

… [P]laintiff’s complaint, with its attached invoices, satisfied the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (f) … . The invoices provided the requisite degree of specificity inasmuch as they permitted defendant ” to respond in a meaningful way on an item-by-item basis’ ” … . Each invoice set forth the date of the order, the specific items ordered and delivered, the quantity ordered and delivered, as well as the price per unit and the total price for the quantity ordered … . Defendant was thus required to indicate specifically in its verified answer “those items [it] dispute[d] and whether in respect of delivery or performance, reasonable value or agreed price” (CPLR 3016 [f]). Defendant failed to do so and, therefore, Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiff’s motion on the cause of action for goods sold and delivered … . Erie Materials, Inc. v Central City Roofing Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07137, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the indictment did not meet the “specificity” pleading-requirements for perjury, and the charge to the grand jury was similarly defective:

“An indictment for perjury must contain all of the essential elements of the offense . . . and must set forth the alleged false testimony so as to apprise the defendant of the particular offense with which he [or she] is charged” … . Here, “[n]othing in the record before us gives any indication what the [grand] jury thought was false” … . Because the indictment failed to identify the particular falsehoods alleged to have been made by defendant, the indictment failed to provide her with the requisite “fair notice of the accusations made against [her], so that [she would] be able to prepare a defense” … .

Moreover, despite numerous pretrial requests for particularization by defense counsel, the People never identified the particular falsehoods allegedly made by defendant … . Rather, the prosecutor identified particular subject “areas that [he] believe[d] [were] perjurious.” ” To allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jur[ors] at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him [or her]’ . . . The lack of specific allegations in the District Attorney’s charge to the [g]rand [j]ury on the perjury count renders it impossible to determine which specific statement or statements of [defendant] the [g]rand [j]ury found to be false. It is impossible to determine what the [g]rand [j]ury intended when it voted on the perjury charge . . . Since the [g]rand [j]ury presentation and legal instructions do not answer these questions, the perjury count [should have been] dismissed”… . People v Heatherly, 2015 NY Slip Op 07111, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

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