You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)

The underlying medical malpractice action is against Erie County Medical Center Corporation, a public benefit corporation.  Pursuant to Public Authorities Law 3641, a notice of claim must be filed prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. Plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim. The action was dismissed without prejudice, subject to the terms of CPLR 205(a), which allows six months to recommence an action that has not been dismissed on the merits.  When the suit was recommenced, the defendant argued that the one-year-and-ninety-day time limit for bringing suit under the Public Authorities Law was not a statute of limitations subject to the CPLR 205(a) six-month extension, rather it was a condition precedent to suit and the (second) complaint must therefore be dismissed as untimely.  The Fourth Department determined the one-year-and-ninety-day time limit for suit under the Public Authorities Law was a statute of limitations, not a condition precedent, and the six-month extension provided by CPLR 205(a) applied:

It is well settled that CPLR 205 (a) does not apply when an act has to be performed within a statutory time requirement and is a condition precedent to suit (see Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 93 NY2d 375, 378-379…). We recognize, by way of example, that the one-year statutory period for commencement of suit against the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation set forth in McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107 has been held to be a condition precedent to suit not entitled to the tolling benefit of CPLR 205 (a) (see Yonkers Contr. Co., 93 NY2d at 378-379). As emphasized by the Court of Appeals in Yonkers, “Unconsolidated Laws § 7107 unambiguously allows an action against the Port Authority only upon the condition that any suit, action or proceeding prosecuted or maintained under this act shall be commenced within one year’ ” (id., 93 NY2d at 379). Here, Public Authorities Law § 3641 (1) (c) contains no similar express conditional language.

We note that CPLR 205 (a) has been held to apply to proceedings commenced under General Municipal Law § 50-i …, the language of which is identical to that of Public Authorities Law § 3641 (1) (c) at issue herein. We thus conclude that the express language of section 3641 (1) (c) does not support defendant’s contention that the one-year and 90-day period is a condition precedent and not a statute of limitations … . Benedetti v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04964, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, , ,

CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System

Plaintiffs sought replacement-cost damages for a defective septic system, alleging the town negligently approved the system prior to plaintiffs’ purchase of the property. Although the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had passed, the plaintiffs argued that CPLR 214-c applied. CPLR 214-c applies to latent defects and the statute starts running upon discovery of the injury.  The Fourth Department determined CPLR 214-c did not apply, noting that the Court of Appeals has held the statute applies only to injury from “toxic torts:”

CPLR 214-c (1) provides that “the three-year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property must be commenced shall be computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” … .

Here, plaintiffs do not seek “damages for personal injury or injury to property” (CPLR 214-c [1]); rather, they seek to be compensated for the cost of replacing an allegedly defective septic system. Thus, section 214-c is inapplicable to this action … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in interpreting section 214-c, has made clear that it applies only to toxic torts …, and plaintiffs’ claims have nothing do to with toxic substances. Instead, plaintiffs merely allege that the septic system was defective and that defendants failed to identify the defects during their inspections. We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the causes of action against the moving defendants are time-barred. Clendenin v Town of Milo, 2015 NY Slip Op 04976, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, exercised its equitable power to set aside a foreclosure sale which, it determined, had been made an “instrument of injustice.” The facts of the case, which include an extensive appellate history, defy adequate summarization here.  The court explained its equitable power to set aside the foreclosure sale:

It is well settled that, even after a judicial sale to a good faith purchaser, “[a] court may exercise its inherent equitable power over a sale made pursuant to its judgment or decree to ensure that it is not made the instrument of injustice . . . Although this power should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, a court of equity may set aside its own judicial sale upon grounds otherwise insufficient to confer an absolute legal right to a resale in order to relieve [a party] of oppressive or unfair conduct” … . Generally, such discretion, “which is separate and distinct from any statutory authority” …, is exercised where fraud, mistake, exploitive overreaching, misconduct, irregularity or collusion “casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale” … . It may also be exercised where “the price is so inadequate as to shock the court’s conscience” … or where the judicial sale has been “made the instrument of injustice” … .

While we agree with defendants that there has been no showing of fraud, mistake, exploitive overreaching, misconduct, irregularity or collusion, and the price is not so inadequate as to shock the conscience, we agree with plaintiff that, under the circumstances of this case, the judicial sale has been made the instrument of injustice. Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04952, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed Despite Lack of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined the lesser inclusory counts of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree must be dismissed, despite lack of preservation:

… [C]ounts four, five and seven must be dismissed as lesser inclusory counts of count three, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree. Initially, we note that defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for our review is of no moment because preservation is not required … . With respect to the merits, “concurrent counts are inclusory when the offense charged in one is greater than that charged in the other and when the latter is a lesser offense included within the greater” … . Thus, where, as here, “it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, []other offense[s] of lesser grade or degree, the latter [are], with respect to the former, . . . lesser included offense[s]” … . Because it is impossible to commit the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (4), without concomitantly committing the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.12, or without concomitantly committing the crime of, inter alia, driving while ability impaired by drugs under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4), the latter two crimes are inclusory concurrent counts of the former crime. We therefore modify the judgment by dismissing the three counts of the indictment charging the latter two crimes. People v Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 04954, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined defendant had made sufficient evidentiary showings that (1) the People may have failed to inform the defense of a plea bargain made with the codefendant in return for testimony against the defendant, and (2) a juror may have been unqualified due to a mental disability.  Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing;

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment on two grounds, neither of which may be decided without a hearing. First, he contended that the People violated their Brady obligation because they failed to disclose that they made a specific plea agreement with the codefendant at the start of the proceedings, contingent upon the codefendant testifying against defendant. Defendant contended that the People effectuated that agreement by, among other things, obtaining an indictment charging the codefendant with a lower level crime than the class B violent felony that was lodged against defendant, to avoid the plea bargaining restrictions in CPL 220.10 (5) (d) (ii), and by agreeing that the codefendant could withdraw his plea to the lower level felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor if he cooperated against defendant. Defendant submitted evidence in support of his contentions, including transcripts of the prosecutor’s statements in the codefendant’s case regarding the agreement, and those transcripts also established that the prosecutor had discussed the agreement with the victim before it was implemented. * * *

The second ground advanced by defendant in support of his CPL article 440 motion was that a juror lacked the capacity to serve on the jury, and that the juror had misrepresented his employment status in response to questioning by the court. Defendant submitted some evidence establishing that the prospective juror may be developmentally disabled and that he may have misrepresented his prior and current employment, but defendant’s investigator was unable to obtain more information without judicial subpoenas that the court declined to provide. Inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence that called into question “whether this particular juror should have been entrusted with the responsibilities of fact finding [because the juror] did not understand the lawyers or the judge” …, the court further erred in denying the motion on the ground that the issue could be decided on direct appeal. People v Bailey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04987, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, , ,

Defendant’s Employee Had “Apparent Authority” to Act on Behalf of Defendant Insurance Agency—Plaintiff Justifiably Relied on the Apparent Authority When It Purchased a Fake Policy from Defendant’s Employee–Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Fraud Cause of Action

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its fraud cause of action against defendant insurance agency.  An employee of the insurance agency issued a fake workers’ compensation policy to the plaintiff. The Fourth Department found that the actions of the insurance agency provided the employee with “apparent authority” to issue the policy and the plaintiff justifiably relied on that apparent authority.  The relevant law was succinctly explained:

“In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the maker], made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” … . It is undisputed that the insurance policy purportedly issued by AIG was false, and thus plaintiff established that a false representation was made that was known to be false by defendant’s employee. Defendant contends, however, that the justifiable reliance element was not met because it cannot be liable for the acts of its employee, and plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged “apparent authority” of defendant’s employee was not reasonable.

It is axiomatic that “[t]he mere creation of an agency for some purpose does not automatically invest the agent with apparent authority’ to bind the principle without limitation . . . An agent’s power to bind his [or her] principal is coextensive with the principal’s grant of authority” … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to the third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his [or her] own acts imbue himself [or herself] with apparent authority. Rather, the existence of “apparent authority” depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentation of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal — not the agent’ . . . Morever, a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … . Here, plaintiff contacted defendant seeking workers’ compensation coverage, and defendant assigned its employee who specialized in plaintiff’s type of business to assist plaintiff. We therefore conclude that plaintiff established that it reasonably relied upon the authority of defendant’s employee to act for defendant. Regency Oaks Corp. v Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04959, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, ,

New Evidence Demonstrated the Declarant, Not the Defendant, Committed the Murders of Which Defendant Was Convicted—Motion to Vacate Defendants’ Convictions Properly Granted

The Fourth Department affirmed County Court’s vacation of defendant’s murder convictions, after a hearing, based upon newly discovered evidence. Although the “declarant” did not testify, witnesses testified declarant admitted killing the two persons defendant had been convicted of murdering. There was considerable evidence supporting the reliability of the declarant’s statements. The court noted that the declarant’s statements were admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule as “statements against penal interest” and it was reasonable to assume the declarant was “unavailable” (a requirement for admissibility) because he would assert his right to remain silent if called as a witness. The court further noted that the testimony of declarant’s ex-wife was not protected by spousal privilege. Declarant’s threat to kill his wife if she reported the murders to the police removed the “communications from the protection of privilege:”

Contrary to the People’s contention, County Court properly determined, following a hearing, that defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of [the] judgment . . . , which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10 [1] [g]; see CPL 440.40 [6]). People v Pierre, 2015 NY Slip Op 04985, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

The Private Right of Action Afforded to Patients in “Residential Health Care Facilities” Pursuant to Public Health Law 2801-d Does Not Apply to Residents of a Group Home for the Developmentally Disabled

Plaintiff’s brother, Brian, is developmentally disabled and resided in a group home operated by the defendant.  Plaintiff alleged her brother was injured as a result of the negligence of defendant’s employees and brought suit under Public Health Law 2801-d, which allows a private right of action by patients against “residential health care facilities.”  The Fourth Department determined the group home was not a “residential health care facility” within the meaning of the Public Health Law 2801-d and, therefore, the causes of action based on that statute should have been dismissed:

In contrast to a hospital or nursing home, the group home owned and operated by defendant is governed by the Mental Hygiene Law and regulated by the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), and operates pursuant to a certificate issued by the Commissioner of OPWDD (see Mental Hygiene Law article 16; 14 NYCRR part 686; see also Mental Hygiene Law § 13.07). The group home is classified as an “individualized residential alternative” community residence, defined as “a facility providing room, board, and individualized protective oversight” for “persons who are developmentally disabled and who, in addition to these basic requirements, need supportive interpersonal relationships, supervision, and training assistance in the activities of daily living” (14 NYCRR 686.99 [l] [2] [iii]). Under the plain language of the regulations governing it, the group home does not serve “principally” as a facility “for the rendering of health-related service” governed by Public Health Law article 28 (§ 2800). Burkhart v People, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04974, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

Sentence Vacated—Sentencing Judge Relied on Materially Untrue Assumptions and Misinformation About Defendant’s Criminal History

Although the error was not preserved, the Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s sentence should be vacated.  At sentencing, the judge made statements alleging past criminal acts by the defendant which were unsupported by the record:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in sentencing defendant on the basis of “materially untrue assumptions or misinformation” … . Here, the court characterized defendant as having been involved in “more than 40 residential burglaries” and “all the tens of burglaries,” but those statements are unsupported by the record and therefore constitute improper speculation… . People v Mcknight, 2015 NY Slip Op 04961, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

Prima Facie Case of Defamation Made Out in the Complaint

The Fourth Department determined the complaint made out a prima facie case of defamation. The statements were included in a newspaper article and were attributed to defendant. The court succinctly explained the applicable law:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are a false statement, published without privilege or authorization to a third party, constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se”…, and we conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleges those elements and, thus, states a viable cause of action. We further conclude, contrary to defendant’s contention, that the “particular words complained of” were sufficiently set forth in the complaint as required by CPLR 3016 (a) and, in any event, plaintiff attached to the complaint the full Niagara Falls Reporter article containing the alleged defamatory statements … . Defendant contends that, because he did not participate in the drafting of the Niagara Falls Reporter article, he cannot be held liable for defamation and, thus, the court properly granted his cross motion. That contention is without merit. It is well established that “[a]nyone giving a statement to a representative of a newspaper authorizing or intending its publication is responsible for any damage caused by the publication” … . Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v Skurka, 2015 NY Slip Op 04958, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

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