You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home’s motion to vacate a default judgment, made more than a year after the default judgment, should not have been granted. The nursing home did not offer a reasonable excuse:

A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . “Such motion must be made within one year after service of a copy of the . . . order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party'” . “[A]lthough the Supreme Court has the inherent authority to vacate an order in the interest of justice even where the statutory one-year period under CPLR 5015(a)(1) has expired”… , here, the nursing home failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order … . In any event, the nursing home’s claim that its failure to appear or answer the complaint was caused by an internal mishandling of the pleadings was unsubstantiated and insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for its default … . Hairston v Marcus Garvey Residential Rehab Pavilion, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 7-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT)).DEFAULT JUDGMENT ( MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid:

The Supreme Court did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving that right. In addition, nothing in the record shows that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty… . While the defendant was represented by counsel during the plea proceedings, counsel did not participate during the proceedings other than to acknowledge to the court that he was the defendant’s attorney, and counsel did not sign the defendant’s written appeal waiver form. Furthermore, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant signed the written appeal waiver form, a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . The court’s colloquy amounted to nothing more than a simple confirmation that the defendant signed the waiver and a conclusory statement that the defendant understood the waiver or was executing it knowingly and voluntarily … . Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal … . People v Latham, 2018 NY Slip Op 04753, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s grand larceny conviction in the interest of justice because the licenses from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the grand larceny statute:

The defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35[1]) was based on the alleged theft of licenses from the TLC. “A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he or she steals property and . . . when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars” … .. The licenses from the TLC are not considered “property” within the meaning of the statute … . Accordingly, although the defendant’s legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review, we vacate his conviction of grand larceny in the third degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Ishtiaq, 2018 NY Slip Op 04752,, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/TAXI LICENSES (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to comply with the strict requirements surrounding providing notice to counsel of the contents of notes sent out by the jury:

Here, on the morning of the first day of deliberations, the Supreme Court received three notes from the jury requesting, among other things, “Judge’s reading of charges of 1st degree & the 4 things we must prove to reach a guilty [verdict] . . . Same thing for 2nd Degree . . . Definition of unreasonable doubt.” The jury also requested the transcript of the testifying accomplice’s testimony. The court did not read the contents of these notes into the record, and there is no indication in the record that the entire contents of the notes otherwise were shared with counsel. Rather, after receiving the notes, the court explained its intended responses to defense counsel and the prosecutor, and then, in the presence of the jury, provided a readback of the requested charges. * * *

Meaningful notice of the content of a jury note “means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request” (People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277…). Where the record fails to establish that the trial court provided counsel with “meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection” … . Because the record here fails to establish that the Supreme Court provided counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of the subject jury notes, we must reverse the defendant’s convictions and order a new trial. People v Gedeon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/O’RAMA (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPL 310.30   (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the court attorney referee was not authorized to determine a contested family offense petition or custody and visitation issues:

A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311, 4317…). Here, as correctly asserted by the mother, the order of reference did not authorize the Court Attorney Referee to hear and report or to hear and determine a contested family offense petition. The Court Attorney Referee therefore lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the mother’s family offense petition in this instance… . Accordingly, the family offense matter must be remitted to a judge of the Family Court for a new determination.

With respect to the determination of custody, the order of reference recited that, upon the parties’ stipulation, a court attorney referee is authorized to hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody of and visitation with the child, including the determination of motions and temporary orders of custody. Upon our review of the record, however, we find no indication that the parties stipulated to the reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104, and, absent such stipulation, the Court Attorney Referee had the power only to hear and report her findings … . We further find that the mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge … . The order of reference must therefore be deemed an order to hear and report. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective rights of custody and visitation … . Matter of Rose v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04736, Second Dept 6-27-18

​FAMILY LAW (COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4311, 4317, 2104 (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/REFEREES  (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ (truck owner’s and driver’s) motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured by the rear portion of a tractor trailer which had completed 85% of a right turn:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly was walking on a sidewalk … . After she stepped off the sidewalk onto the street, her right foot came into contact with the rear of a tractor-trailer that was making a right turn. … The plaintiff allegedly did not see the tractor-trailer prior to the impact. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . The evidence … established that the plaintiff failed to see what was there to be seen and walked into the path of the rear of the tractor-trailer. Faulknor v Gina’s Trucking, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01045, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (PEDESTRIANS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the Westchester County Solid Waste Commission properly found that petitioner had not obtained a permit to allow the transport of waste within Westchester County and imposed a $15,000 fine. Petitioner had obtained a permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and argued that the Westchester County law was preempted by the state law and violated the Commerce Clause. The Second Department rejected those arguments:

“The constitutional home rule provision confers broad police power upon local government relating to the welfare of its citizens”… . In instances where the State has demonstrated its intent to preempt an entire field and preclude any further local regulation, a local law that regulates the same subject matter is considered inconsistent and will not be given effect. “It is . . . well settled that, if a town or other local government is otherwise authorized to legislate, it is not forbidden to do so unless the State, expressly or impliedly, has evinced an unmistakable desire to avoid the possibility that the local legislation will not be on all fours with that of the State” … . The legislature’s intent to preempt a particular area can be inferred from a declaration of policy or from a comprehensive and detailed scheme in a particular area … . However, the fact that State and local laws touch upon the same area is insufficient to support a determination that the State law has preempted the entire field of regulation in a given area … .

In Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia (51 NY2d 679, 683-684), the Court of Appeals held that the State had not preempted the field of waste management through the solid waste disposal provisions that then existed in the Environmental Conservation Law. Eight years after the decision in Monroe-Livingston, the Legislature added the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 (hereinafter the Act) to the Environmental Conservation Law. Had the Legislature intended to preempt the local regulation of solid waste management, it could have expressly said so in the Act. Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 6-27-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/WASTE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))

WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary discontinuance without prejudice should have been granted:

CPLR 3217(b) permits a voluntary discontinuance of a claim by court order “upon terms and conditions, as the court deems proper” (CPLR 3217[b]…). In general, absent a showing of special circumstances, including prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted without prejudice … .

Here, there was no evidence that the defendant would be prejudiced by a discontinuance without prejudice … . Kondaur Capital Corp. v Reilly, 2018 NY Slip Op 04707, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCONTINUANCE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE (WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3217 (DISCONTINUANCE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the utility box recessed into a city sidewalk was open and obvious and was not inherently dangerous. Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

There is ” no duty to protect against an open and obvious condition provided that, as a matter of law, the condition is not inherently dangerous'” … . “While the issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question, a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion, and may do so on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence” … . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … .Similarly, the determination of whether “a condition is not inherently dangerous . . . depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case”… .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, each of the defendants established, prima facie, that the complained-of condition “was open and obvious, as it was not only readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, but was known to [the decedent] prior to the accident and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous” … . Graffino v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04702, Second Dept 6-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, (UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the arbitration clause of the contract between plaintiffs and defendant was enforceable, despite the plaintiffs’ allegation of fraud in connection with the contract:

A party may not be compelled to arbitrate a dispute unless there is evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate the dispute… . Under both federal and New York law, unless it can be established that there was a grand scheme to defraud which permeated the entire agreement, including the arbitration provision, a broadly worded arbitration provision will be deemed separate from the substantive contractual provisions, and the agreement to arbitrate may be valid despite the underlying allegation of fraud … .

The broad arbitration clause in the 2014 agreement, together with the other provisions of the 2014 agreement, demonstrate that the plaintiffs explicitly and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate the matters that are the subject of this action. In addition, the plaintiffs’ bare conclusory assertions of fraud failed to establish that any alleged fraud was part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire agreement, including the arbitration clause … . Zafar v Fast Track Leasing, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04774, Second Dept 6-27-18

ARBITRATION (CONTRACT LAW, FRAUD, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (ARBITRATION, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy