You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, ,

Underwater Land Is Appurtenant to Adjacent Upland

The Fourth Department determined defendant had no ownership rights in underwater land appurtenant to plaintiffs’ upland property:

…[T]he court properly considered the deeds submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion. All of those deeds, with the exception of defendant’s own quitclaim deed, are more than 10 years old and therefore are “prima facie evidence of their contents” (CPLR 4522…). With respect to defendant’s quitclaim deed, plaintiffs’ attorney swore to its authenticity …, and defendant herself relies on that deed in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion.

…[E]ven with navigable waterways, “when land under water has been conveyed by the state to the owner of the adjacent uplands, the lands under water so conveyed become appurtenant to the uplands, and will pass by a conveyance of the latter without specific description” … . Here, regardless of whether title to the underwater land merges and passes with title to adjacent uplands, or is conveyed separately, plaintiffs met their initial burden. Although the State initially conveyed uplands and underwater land to Charles Smyth by separate deeds, the underwater land thereafter passed appurtenant to Smyth’s uplands, including by deeds to plaintiffs and several other landowners on North Bay, but not to defendant. Even if the underwater land could be conveyed only separately, it would have passed to Smyth’s heirs and devisees, not directly to defendant. Kernan v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 01122, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

“Falling Objects” Protection Afforded by Labor Law 240 (1) Explained

In affirming the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the law relating to “falling objects:”

Labor Law § 240 (1) “applies to both falling worker' and falling object' cases” …, and that section 240 (1) guards “workers against the special hazards' that arise when the work site either is itself elevated or is positioned below the level where materials or load [are] hoisted or secured' ” … . To recover under section 240 (1), a worker injured by a falling object must thus establish both (1) that the object was being hoisted or secured, or that it ” required securing for the purposes of the undertaking,' ” and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential … . Floyd v New York State Thruway Auth, 2015 NY Slip Op 01131, 4th Dept 2-6-15


 

Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done

The Fourth Department noted that no liability attaches to the non-supervising property owner under Labor Law 200 or common law negligence when the worker's injury stems from the manner in which the work was performed and not from the condition of the work site:

“It is settled law that where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor's methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under section 200 of the Labor Law” … . Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that plaintiff's accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, not from any dangerous condition on the premises, and defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work… . Zimmer v Town of Lancaster Indus Dev Agency, 2015 NY Slip Op 01023, 4th Dept 2-6-15


In Proceedings Seeking the Reduction of Tax Assessments, Court Should Not Have Ordered the Inspection of the Interior of the Homes—The Assessor Did Not Demonstrate Interior Inspections Were Necessary for the Defense and Did Not Demonstrate the Need for the Inspections Outweighed the Homeowners’ Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have ordered inspections of the interior of homes in proceedings where homeowners challenged the tax assessments of their properties:

“Because discovery tends to prolong a case, and is therefore inconsistent with the summary nature of a special proceeding, discovery is granted only where it is demonstrated that there is need for such relief” … . Here, in order for “respondents to establish their entitlement to conduct . . . interior inspection[s] of the petitioner[s'] home[s] for purposes of appraisal, in the absence of the petitioner[s'] consent, . . . respondents bore the burden of demonstrating that [each] particular inspection [was] reasonable' ” …, and ” that interior inspections were necessary to prepare their defense' ” … . We agree with petitioners that respondents failed to make the required showing that interior inspections were reasonable and necessary to prepare their defense … . * * *

In addition to establishing that their request for interior inspections was reasonable and necessary to prepare their defense, respondents were also required to show that their interest in conducting them outweighed petitioners' Fourth Amendment privacy rights … . In determining whether respondents made such a showing, the court was required to “balanc[e] respondents' need for interior inspections [of the homes] against the invasion of petitioners' privacy interests that such inspections would entail” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that respondents failed to establish that their interest in interior inspections outweighed petitioners' Fourth Amendment privacy rights … . Matter of Aylward v Assessor, City of Buffalo…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01065, 4th Dept 2-6-15


“Case Management Fee” Imposed Upon Property Owners Who Do Not Correct a Code Violation Within One Year Is an Unconstitutional Penalty Which Requires Due Process Protections

The Fourth Department determined a so-called “case management fee” (CMF) authorized by City of Rochester Municipal Code 90-21 is an unconstitutional penalty imposed without adequate due process.  The code provisions allows the assessment of $100 against a property owner who fails to correct a code violation within one year:

Although “[t]he exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality applies . . . to ordinances of municipalities[,] . . . [that] presumption is rebuttable” …, and we conclude that petitioners have rebutted the presumption of constitutionality.

A determination whether the CMF is a fee or a fine imposed as a penalty is critical to our analysis because “[p]rocedural due process rights do not apply to legislation of general applicability,” and thus the imposition of fees such as licensing fees are “not subject to attack on grounds of procedural due process. Fines [that are imposed as a penalty], however, can implicate procedural due process rights” … . * * *

Having concluded that the CMF is a fine imposed as a penalty on the property owner, we must determine whether the ordinance provides property owners with due process of law. As the Court of Appeals wrote in Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc. (68 NY2d 211), “[w]e have long recognized that due process is a flexible constitutional concept calling for such procedural protections as a particular situation may demand' . . . [,] and in determining whether [f]ederal due process standards have been met, we look to the three distinct factors that form the balancing test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v Eldridge (424 US 319, 335): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail' ” (id. at 221).

While we agree with the court that the private interest at stake, i.e., $100, “is relatively insubstantial,” we conclude that there is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures established by the ordinance. * * *

Although ” [d]ue process does not, of course, require that the defendant in every civil case actually have a hearing on the merits' ” …, we conclude that due process requires some type of hearing at which the City should be required to establish that property owners did not abate the violation within the one-year period. Matter of D'Alessandro v Kirkmire, 2015 NY Slip Op 01018, 4th Dept 2-6-15


Question of Fact Whether Fight Which Broke Out at a Youth Hockey Game Was Foreseeable

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined there was question of fact whether a fight at a youth hockey game, in which plaintiffs were injured, was foreseeable from the perspective of the Rome Youth Hockey Association (RYHA) which leased part of the facility where the fight broke out:

…[T]here is an issue of fact whether the duty of RYHA to plaintiffs included the duty to protect plaintiffs from Ricci's conduct … . “Foreseeability . . . determines the scope of [a] duty once it is determined to exist” … and, given the hostile environment in the arena before the fight, there is an issue of fact whether RYHA knew or should have known of the likelihood of the fight … . Here, the tensions in the stands built throughout the game such that we conclude that a trier of fact should determine whether RYHA had a duty to intercede and protect plaintiff … . Pink v Ricci, 2015 NY Slip Op 01077, 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

 

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