You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Commercial Property Overvalued—Evidentiary Criteria Explained In Some Depth

The Fourth Department determined three commercial properties had been overvalued for real property tax purposes.  The court discussed the relevant evidentiary criteria in considerable depth:

…[P]etitioners met their initial burden of presenting “substantial evidence that the propert[ies were] overvalued” …, thereby rebutting the “presumption of validity [that] attaches to the valuation of property made by the taxing authority” … . “In the context of tax assessment cases, the substantial evidence' standard merely requires that petitioner demonstrate the existence of a valid and credible dispute regarding valuation” … . “The ultimate strength, credibility or persuasiveness of petitioner's arguments are not germane during this threshold inquiry” … . Here, petitioners submitted appraisals by a qualified expert who valued the subject properties utilizing the income capitalization approach to valuation, which is “generally regarded as the preferred method for determining the value of income-producing propert[ies]” such as those at issue in this case …. Further, the appraisals “contained documentation and calculations to support the underlying methodolog[y] and the ultimate valuation” … . “The fact that some aspects of [the expert]'s valuation methodology may be subject to question goes to the weight to be accorded the appraisal[s] and not to the threshold issue of whether petitioner[s] produced substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of validity' … .

… It is well established that “valuation [is] largely a question of fact, and the [trial] courts have considerable discretion in reviewing the relevant evidence as to the specific propert[ies] before them” … . “As a general rule, actual rental income is often the best indicator of value” … , although actual income ” may be disregarded where it does not reflect full value' ” … . Here, there is no evidence that the rents petitioners charged were arbitrary or the result of collusion or self-dealing …, and respondents “failed to establish that the actual income was not reflective of the market for the years under review” … . * * *

“The ultimate purpose of valuation . . . is to arrive at a fair and realistic value of the property involved” … . The income capitalization approach to valuation “rests on the proposition that the value of income-producing property is the amount a willing buyer, desiring but not compelled to purchase it as an investment, would be prepared to pay for it under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires, but is not compelled, to sell . . . That amount will depend on the net income the property will likely produce inasmuch as the purchase price represents the present worth of anticipated future benefits” … . Here, the ” net income the property will likely produce' ” …, at least for the next 30 years, is the amount of the ground lease. Matter of Techniplex III v Town & Vil of E Rochester, 2015 NY Slip Op 01101, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Criteria for Deceptive Business Practices Explained

The Fourth Department determined that the defendant's (One Source's) violation of General Business Law 349 had been proven. Defendant had misled car-purchasers by informing them they were required to purchase an extended service contract or warranty as a condition of a loan.  Only at the closing of loan were the purchasers informed they could waive the warranty.  The court explained the elements of a section 349 violation:

Pursuant to section 349, deceptive business acts or practices are unlawful, and a ” [petitioner] under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the [consumer] suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act' ” … . With respect to the second element, an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way is defined as a representation or omission “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … . Contrary to respondents' contention, we conclude that petitioner established that second element, i.e., that One Source's actions were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. One Source's actions were misleading in a material way in light of the fact that the consumers at issue were dependent on One Source to find them the financing to purchase their vehicles, and they were willing to pay for a warranty in order to obtain their loans. People v One Source Networking Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01068, 4th Dept 2-4-15


,

Regulation Mandating a 25-Year Look-Back for Relicensing (Driver’s License) Is a Valid Exercise of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Authority/Regulation Was Correctly Applied to Deny Petitioner’s Application for Relicensing

The Fourth Department determined the 25-year look-back for relicensing in the Department of Motor Vehicles regulations was a valid exercise of the department’s authority.  Under the regulation, the department was required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing based upon his record:

We conclude that 15 NYCRR 136.5 [the 25-year look-back] is not legislative in nature, inasmuch as the Legislature delegated its authority to administer the relicensing process to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 215 [a]; 510 [5], [6]…). Therefore, in promulgating 15 NYCRR part 136, the Commissioner has not “act[ed] inconsistently with the Legislature, or usurp[ed] its prerogatives” … . * * *

Here, within the 25 years preceding petitioner’s most recent revocable offense (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [4]), i.e., driving while intoxicated, petitioner has two other alcohol-related driving convictions, i.e., driving while intoxicated and driving while ability impaired, both under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [1] [i]). Furthermore, respondent properly concluded that petitioner committed a serious driving offense within the meaning of the regulation because the regulation defines a serious driving offense as occurring where a driver has accumulated “20 or more points from any violations” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [2] [iv]), and petitioner had accumulated 21 points from other traffic violations. Respondent was therefore required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. Matter of Shearer v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 00051, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

 

, ,

Constructive Trust Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed on the Merits, Criteria Explained (Some Constructive Trust Causes of Action Were Properly Dismissed as Time-Barred, However)/Procedure Re: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Described/Application of Statute of Limitations to Constructive Trusts Explained/”Dead Man’s” Statute Not Applicable to Certain Evidence, at Least at this Stage of the Proceedings

The Fourth Department determined causes of action alleging the existence of constructive trusts on behalf of petitioners re: real property and stock owned by decedent should not have been dismissed on the merits.  (However, in a second related appeal addressed in the same decision, the Fourth Department determined the real-property constructive trust actions were time-barred). Re: the company stock, respondent, the executor, alleged he was the sole owner but could not support the allegation with documentary evidence. Petitioners alleged the stock should be distributed as one of the assets of decedent’s estate.  The Fourth Department held that the petitioners had stated a valid constructive-trust cause of action. The court discussed in some depth the consideration of evidence submitted re: a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the nature of a constructive trust, the inapplicability of the “dead-man’s” statute (CPLR 4519) to certain evidence, and the application of the six-year statute of limitations to constructive trusts.  With respect to the nature of constructive trusts, the court wrote:

We agree with petitioners that the petition sufficiently states a cause of action for a constructive trust with respect to the NGR property, the Manitou Road property and NYSFC stock. “On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction . . . We accept the facts as alleged in the [petition] as true, accord [the petitioners] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), . . . a court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the [petitioner] to remedy any defects in the [petition] . . . and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one’ ” … .

“[I]t is well settled that [a] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest . . . In order to invoke the court’s equity powers, [a petitioner] must show a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, a breach of the promise, and [the respondent’s] unjust enrichment . . . Inasmuch as a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, however, courts do not rigidly apply the elements but use them as flexible guidelines . . . In this flexible spirit, the promise need not be express, but may be implied based on the circumstances of the relationship and the nature of the transaction” … .

The facts as alleged in the petition and set forth in the corresponding affidavits establish the existence of a confidential and fiduciary relationship between respondent and decedents. The facts with respect to the NGR and Manitou Road properties establish that respondent promised to pay decedents for the NGR property and to reconvey the Manitou Road property to decedents after it was subdivided by respondent. The petition further alleges that the properties were transferred to respondent as a result of those promises, and that respondent breached those promises and was thereby unjustly enriched.

With respect to the NYSFC stock, the petition and corresponding affidavits allege that Anthony believed, until the day that he died, that he still owned the company and that respondent had made promises to “allow all of [decedents’] children to share in NYSFC.” While the allegations of an express promise are lacking, “[e]ven without an express promise, . . . courts of equity have imposed a constructive trust upon property transferred in reliance upon a confidential relationship. In such a situation, a promise may be implied or inferred from the very transaction itself. As Judge Cardozo so eloquently observed: Though a promise in words was lacking, the whole transaction, it might be found, was “instinct with an obligation” imperfectly expressed’ ” (Sharp, 40 NY2d at 122). Based on the circumstances of the relationship between respondent and decedents and the nature of their multiple transactions, we conclude that there are sufficient facts from which we can conclude that there was an implied promise made by respondent to decedents; that the transfer of stock, if indeed there was a transfer, was made in reliance upon that promise; and that the promise was thereafter broken, resulting in an unjust enrichment to respondent. Matter of Thomas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00017, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Biogas Facility Which Is Located on a Farm and Which Produces Electricity from Manure Is Not Entitled to a Tax Exemption Pursuant to the Former Version of RPTL 483-a

Petitioners use manure produced on petitioners’ dairy farm to generate electricity in a biogas facility.  The electricity is used to operate the farm and is sold to the grid. The Fourth Department determined petitioners were not entitled to a tax exemption for the biogas facility because it was not a “manure storage and handling” facility within the meaning of the former statute (Real Property Tax Law [RPTL] 483-a).  The court further determined that new version of the statute, by its explicit terms, cannot be applied retroactively:

…[P]etitioners contend that the facility is entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because it is a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by that statute. We reject that contention. Inasmuch as petitioners’ contention involves “a question of statutory interpretation, we turn first to the plain language of the statute[] as the best evidence of legislative intent” … . The former version of the statute provided that “[s]tructures permanently affixed to agricultural land for the purpose of preserving and storing forage in edible condition, farm feed grain storage bins, commodity sheds, manure storage and handling facilities, and bulk milk tanks and coolers used to hold milk awaiting shipment to market shall be exempt from taxation, special ad valorem levies and special assessments” (RPTL 483-a [former (1)]). We conclude that the anaerobic digester facility is not a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because the facility is not used simply to store and handle manure. Petitioners’ facility uses an anaerobic digester to produce biogas from the manure, which is then used to generate electricity, and the statute does not provide a tax exemption for an anaerobic digester or an electrical generator. Notably, another provision of RPTL article 4 defines the term “farm waste generating equipment” as “equipment that generates electric energy from biogas produced by the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste” (RPTL 487 [1] [e]), but such equipment was not included among the enumerated structures in RPTL 483-a (former [1]). Furthermore, “words employed in a statute are construed in connection with, and their meaning ascertained by reference to the words and phrases with which they are associated” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 239 [a]), and the plain language of RPTL 483-a (former [1]) establishes that the tax exemption is applicable to structures used for the storage of agricultural materials, and not to structures used for the generation of energy. Matter of Synergy LLC v KIbler, 2015 NY Slip Op 00038, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, , ,

Tenant’s Filing for Bankruptcy Precluded County from Proceeding with Efforts to Collect on a Property Tax Lien

The Fourth Department determined the county properly concluded it could not proceed to collect on a tax lien after the tenant in the relevant property filed for bankruptcy:

The Village contends that the County used an improper basis for its determination to withdraw the properties from the in rem foreclosure proceeding and to cancel the tax liens, i.e., the bankruptcy proceeding filed by plaintiff’s tenant. Although the County does not explicitly respond to the Village’s contention that the bankruptcy petition of plaintiff’s tenant did not operate to stay the in rem proceeding because plaintiff is the property owner, we nevertheless reject that contention. “[A] leasehold, like all other interests of the debtor, immediately becomes property of the [debtor’s] estate whenever bankruptcy relief is sought” … . Thus, the tenant’s petition operated as a stay to “enforce any lien against property of the estate” (11 USC § 362 [a] [4]). We therefore conclude that the County properly determined that the in rem foreclosure proceeding with respect to the subject parcels was stayed pursuant to RPTL 1140 (1), and properly withdrew those parcels from the proceeding. Herkimer County Indus Dev Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2015 NY Slip Op 00053, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Sellers’ Representations on the Condition Disclosure Statement Claiming No Water-Related Problems on the Property Violated Real Property Law 462, 465, Constituted Fraud, and Constituted Breach of Contract

The Fourth Department determined the sellers’ representations on the condition disclosure statement created questions of fact about whether sellers violated Real Property Law 462 and 465, whether the sellers committed fraud, and whether the sellers breached the sales contract.  The sellers indicated on the condition disclosure statement that they had experienced no problems with standing water and water seeping into the basement.  There was evidence the sellers were aware of the existence of such water problems when they indicated on the form there had been none:

Real Property Law § 462 (1) requires sellers of residential real property to “complete and sign a property condition disclosure statement” and to provide such statement to a prospective buyer “prior to the signing by the buyer of a binding contract of sale.” Real Property Law § 462 sets forth the disclosure form, which instructs the seller to complete the form based upon his or her “ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE,” and contains the seller’s certification that “THE INFORMATION IN THIS PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE SELLER’S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE SIGNED BY THE SELLER.” Where a seller provides a property condition disclosure statement and “willful[ly] fail[s] to perform the requirements” set forth in article 14 of the Real Property Law “[such] seller shall be liable for the actual damages suffered by the buyer in addition to any other existing equitable or statutory remedy” (Real Property Law § 465 [2]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether defendants knowingly misrepresented a material fact, i.e., the property’s history of flooding and standing water, on the property condition disclosure statement … . We likewise conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether he justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the provisions of a contract for the sale of real property are generally merged in the deed and therefore extinguished upon the closing of title …, that rule does not apply ” where the parties have expressed their intention that [a] provision shall survive delivery of the deed’ ” … . Here, the contract provides that “[a]ny claim arising from failure to comply with Paragraph[] 5 [of the contract],” which encompasses defendants’ representations in the property condition disclosure statement, “shall survive for 2 years after the Closing or cancellation of this Contract” … . In any event, we note that “the merger doctrine [is] inapplicable where, as here, there exists a cause of action based upon fraud” … . Sicignano v Dixey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00054, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Criteria for Implied Easement, Express Easement, Easement by Necessity and Prescriptive Easement Explained

In considering whether a turnaround area was the subject of an easement, the Fourth Department found that the criteria for an implied easement, express easement, and easement by necessity were not met, but a question of fact about the existence of an easement by prescription had been raised.  The court described the criteria for each:

…”[A] grantee claiming an easement implied by existing use must establish: (1) a unity and subsequent severance of title with respect to the relevant parcels; (2) that during the period of unity of title, the owner established a use in which one part of the land was subordinated to another; (3) that such use established by the owner was so continuous, obvious, and manifest that it indicated that it was meant to be permanent; and (4) that such use affects the value of the estate conveyed and that its continuation is necessary to the reasonable beneficial enjoyment of the estate conveyed” … . “Stated another way, [a]n implied easement will arise “upon severance of ownership when, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude at the time of severance is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate” ‘ ” … . “Implied easements are not favored by the law and the burden of proof rests with [plaintiffs] to prove such entitlement by clear and convincing evidence”… . …

With respect to the … cause of action… for an express easement… we note that Real Property Law § 240 (3) provides in relevant part that “[e]very instrument creating [or] transferring . . . an estate or interest in real property must be construed according to the intent of the parties, so far as such intent can be gathered from the whole instrument, and is consistent with the rules of law.” “The intent’ to which the statute refers is the objective intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the deed; unless the deed is ambiguous, evidence of unexpressed, subjective intentions of the parties is irrelevant” … . We conclude that defendants met their burden of establishing that the access easement in the deed to defendants from the owner of what was formerly the common properties did not grant to that owner express permission to use the turnaround … . …

With respect to the … cause of action, seeking an order determining that plaintiffs have an easement by necessity with respect to the turnaround, we note that “[t]he party asserting an easement by necessity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence . . . that there was a unity and subsequent separation of title, and [ ] that at the time of severance an easement over [the servient estate’s] property was absolutely necessary’ . . . Significantly, the necessity must exist in fact and not as a mere convenience’ . . . and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property”… . * * *

To establish a prescriptive easement, plaintiffs must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the turnaround was” adverse, open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period’ ” of 10 years … . The elements of a claim for an easement by prescription are similar to those of a claim for adverse possession, except that demonstration of exclusivity is not essential to a claim for easement by prescription … . Thus, to establish an easement by prescription, plaintiffs must establish by clear and convincing evidence possession that was hostile and under a claim of right; actual; open and notorious; and continuous for the required period … . Mau v Schusler, 2015 NY Slip Op 00052, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Forklift Manufacturer Properly Dismissed Due to Owner’s Disabling Safety Switch/Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was a Special Employee of the Owner of the Forklift (Which Would Limit Plaintiff’s Recovery to Workers’ Compensation)

Plaintiff was injured by a forklift which continued running when he was out of the driver’s seat because the safety switch (which would have automatically shut the forklift off when the driver left the seat) had been disabled by the owner of the forklift.  The Fourth Department determined the strict products liablity cause of action against the manufacturer of the forklift was properly dismissed because the safety switch had been disabled. But the negligence cause of action against the owner of the forklift, Nuttall Gear, should not have been dismissed.  Nuttal Gear argued plaintiff was its special employee and therefore Workers’ Compensation was the exclusive remedy.  The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff was a special employee. It was not clear that Nuttal Gear supervised plaintiff’s work:

We conclude that the court properly granted the motions of the products liability defendants. As the Court of Appeals has recently made clear, ” a manufacturer, who has designed and produced a safe product, will not be liable for injuries resulting from substantial alterations or modifications of the product by a third party which render the product defective or otherwise unsafe’ ” … . Here, the products liability defendants established as a matter of law that the forklift was not defectively designed by establishing that, when it was manufactured and delivered to Nuttall Gear, it had a safety switch that would have prevented plaintiff’s accident, and a third party thereafter made a substantial modification to the forklift by disabling the safety switch. The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact, and they failed to meet that burden … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the affidavit of their expert, a professional engineer, does not raise a triable issue of fact.

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that the court erred in granting the motion of the Nuttall Gear defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. It is well settled that “a general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another . . . General employment is presumed to continue, but this presumption is overcome upon clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … . Although the determination of special employment status is “usually a question of fact,” such a determination “may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . * * *

It appears from the record that the only person who had contact with plaintiff at Nuttall Gear was Mark Moscato, who himself was a general employee of SPS [plaintiff’s employer]. The Nuttall Gear defendants have not identified a single person, other than Moscato, who told plaintiff what to do or how to do it.  Verost v Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 0008, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability cause of action against a “finance lessor” of a garbage truck, H Leasing Company.  The lawsuit stemmed from an accident involving the truck.  The court explained that a strict products liability action will not lie against a “finance lessor” which is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, which never had possession of the leased equipment, which was not a financial arm of the manufacturer, and which neither marketed the product nor placed it in the stream of commerce.  Here H Leasing Company was a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck:

“It appears universally accepted as New York law that strict products liability will not apply to finance lessors which merely offer the use of money to acquire goods but otherwise neither market a product nor place it in the stream of commerce” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that H Leasing is the owner and lessor of the truck, and it is therefore subject to strict products liability because it is in the business of leasing equipment. The cases permitting strict products liability actions against lessors involve leasing entities that either actually take possession of the equipment at issue and lease it to the public …, or are financing arms of the manufacturer … . In those situations, the principles of strict products liability may properly be applied to such lenders in order to further the policy goals of such liability, i.e., ensuring that products are safe by permitting an action to go forward “when imposing liability would provide injured consumers with a greater opportunity to commence an action against the party responsible, fix liability on one who is in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to improve the safety of the product, or ensure that the burden of accidental injuries occasioned by products would be treated as a cost of production by placing liability upon those who market them” … . Such goals would not be served by allowing a strict products liability cause of action against H Leasing, however, because it did not take possession of the truck, it is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, and it is a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck, not the manufacturer … . Consequently, we agree with H Leasing “that strict products liability should not be imposed upon [it], a finance lessor which merely offered the use of money and neither marketed the machine nor placed it in the stream of commerce” … . Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015NY Slip Op 00001, 4th Dept 1-2-15

In a separate decision in the same case, again over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined that a cause of action against H Leasing alleging negligent failure to inspect the truck properly survived a summary judgment motion.  The allegation that H Leasing designated the company which leased the truck as its agent for the inspection of the truck raised a triable question of fact:

Here, the lease for the garbage truck, which was submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion for summary judgment, stated in relevant part that H Leasing appointed decedent’s employer as its agent for purposes of inspection and acceptance of the garbage truck from the supplier. Moreover, a vice-president of H Leasing, who was decedent’s employer, acknowledged at his deposition, that the lessees inspected the equipment upon delivery in their capacities as H Leasing’s agents as “laid out in the lease agreement,” and that deposition testimony was also submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion. Viewing those submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference, we conclude that H Leasing’s own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether it was liable in negligence for the failure of one of its agents, decedent’s employer, to inspect and warn of a dangerous condition. Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00002, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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