You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to defendant insurer. A fire damaged school dormitories. The insurer paid for the repair but paid only $10,000 toward the more than $200,000 the school paid to relocate the students. The court determined that the policy was unambiguous and the $10,000 limit was properly applied to the relocation costs. The court explained the relevant analytical principles:

In construing policy provisions defining the scope of coverage pursuant to a policy of insurance, courts ” first look to the language of the policy'” …, reading it ” in light of common speech and the reasonable expectations of a businessperson'” …, and in a manner that ” leaves no provision without force and effect'” … . The unambiguous terms of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such terms is a question of law for the court … . Where an ” agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, a court is not free to alter the contract to reflect its personal notions of fairness and equity'” … . However, if the terms of the policy are ambiguous, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The $10,000 limitation was at the end of the pertinent “Additional Coverage” section 5 titled “Institutional Income and Extra Expense.” The limitation stated that the most the defendant “will pay under this Additional Coverage for Institutional Income and Extra Expense is $10,000, unless a higher limit is shown on the Declarations Page.” There was no such higher limit shown on that page. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, there was no ambiguity in this additional coverage. Viznitz v Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

Complaint Did Not Sufficiently Allege Demand for Board’s Action Would Be Futile, Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint did not sufficiently allege efforts to have the board initiate the action or the reasons for not making that demand:

Such “[d]emand is futile, and excused, when the directors are incapable of making an impartial decision as to whether to bring suit” … . Demand is excused because of futility when a complaint alleges with particularity (1) “that a majority of the board of directors is interested in the challenged transaction,” which may be based on self-interest in the transaction or a loss of independence because a director with no direct interest in the transaction is “controlled” by a self-interested director, (2) “that the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances,” or (3) “that the challenged transaction was so egregious on its face that it could not have been the product of sound business judgment of the directors” … . However, “[t]o justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that they made a sufficient demand, or that any demand would have been futile … . Taylor v Wynkoop, 2015 NY Slip Op 07643, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Former Parking Enforcement Officer Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether Town Abolished Her Civil Service Position in Bad Faith

The Second Department determined petitioner was entitled to a hearing re: whether the town acted in bad faith in abolishing her position as a parking enforcement officer. Just prior to her termination, the town hired four parking enforcement officers who were not required to take the civil service examination:

In light of NY Constitution, article V, § 6, a public employer may abolish a civil service position when the “discontinuance of the position would promote efficiency and economy,” provided that the employer acts in good faith … . The Court of Appeals has stated that “[a] public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purpose of economy or efficiency, as long as the position is not abolished as a subterfuge to avoid statutory protection afforded civil servants before they are discharged'” … . Where a public employer has abolished a civil service position, an employee challenging that determination has the burden of proving that the employer engaged in a bad faith effort to circumvent the Civil Service Law … .

Here, it is undisputed that four new part-time parking enforcement officers were hired in 2011; one of those employees was hired in October 2011, only a month before the petitioner was informed that her position would likely be abolished. Further, the Town and Town Board submitted no evidence as to whether the decision to abolish the petitioner’s position was made by Town Board resolution, or by some other means. Pursuant to the doctrine of legislative equivalency, a civil service position “created by a legislative act can only be abolished by a correlative legislative act” … . Here, the record does not indicate the specific mechanism by which the petitioner’s position was abolished. Additionally, although the Town submitted some evidence showing that it undertook various cost-cutting measures in connection with its 2012 budget, the record contains no evidence as to any legislative or other deliberations underlying the determination at issue here. Matter of Colabella v Town of Eastchester, 2015 NY Slip Op 07656, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the zoning board of appeals (ZBA’s) determination was not supported by the evidence and lacked a rational basis. The petitioners were denied permission to operate a concrete aggregate recycling business in an area where the processing of raw materials was prohibited. The zoning board denied the application on the ground that petitioners were going to process raw materials. However petitioners denied that they would process raw materials and there was no evidence, other than rumor, to the contrary. The court explained the criteria for review of a zoning determination:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”… . Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4] …).

* * * The key determination made by the ZBA … was that the petitioners intended to engage in activities that included the processing of raw materials on the site, despite the petitioners’ repeated statements and assurances otherwise. The record is replete with instances where the petitioners disputed, as nothing more than baseless rumor and suspicion, the claim that they intended to engage in activities other than concrete aggregate recycling on the site. The record is also devoid of any evidence supporting the ZBA’s conclusion that the petitioners would engage in activities other than those which were explicitly approved or permitted as of right under the zoning and planning ordinance in force prior … . Matter of Green Materials of Westchester v Town of Cortlandt, 2015 NY Slip Op 07659, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

School District Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of Student’s Potential to Harm Other Students

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The district failed to demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of a student’s potential for harming other students:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “An injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … .

* * * [The school district’s] submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the School District had actual or constructive notice of the fellow student’s potential for causing harm, and whether, under the circumstances, the School District provided adequate supervision during the field trip … . Lennon v Cornwall Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 07628,, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute the Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment Required for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined the motion for a finding that reunification with one or both of petitioner’s parents was not viable (re: an application for special juvenile immigrant status) was properly denied. The relationship with the juvenile’s parents in Guatemala had never broken down due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The fact that the juvenile’s parents could not afford to pay for the juvenile’s education did not constitute abuse, neglect or abandonment:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile immigrant to qualify for special juvenile immigrant status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]…).

Here, the record reflects that Jeison was living with both of his parents in Guatemala until March 2012, when, with their consent, he traveled to the United States to escape gang violence and pursue his studies. After his arrival in the United States, Jeison began to reside with the petitioner, who provided him with food, clothing, and shelter, and Jesion remained in frequent contact with his parents. The inability of Jeison’s parents, who live in poverty, to provide him with a college education, or with financial assistance, does not support a finding that his reunification with his parents was not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law … . Matter of Jeison P.-C. (Conception P.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07665, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, , ,

No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student

The Second Department determined the absence of a special relationship between the city/school district and a teacher injured by a student required dismissal of the teacher’s action. Although a special relationship exists between a school district and the minor students, a special relationship exists between a school district and a teacher only in limited circumstances:

A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured … . Although a school district owes a special duty to its minor students, that duty does not extend to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises … .

With regard to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises, a special relationship with a municipal defendant can be formed in three ways: ” (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … .

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the school defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty… . Brumer v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07611, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should Have Been Vacated Upon Compliance with the Conditions of the Suspended Judgment

The Second Department determined, under the unique circumstances of this case, Family Court should have vacated its neglect adjudication after the parent complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment. The neglect was apparently based upon lead levels:

Although facts sufficient to sustain the petitions were established, neglect petitions may nevertheless be dismissed if “the court concludes that its aid is not required on the record before it” (Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). Under the discrete circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed dismissal of the petitions after the expiration of the six-month suspended judgment period, as the aid of the court was no longer required. However, the court should have also exercised its discretion by directing that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated (see Family Ct Act § 1061). As a general rule, a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment does not eradicate the prior neglect finding (see Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1053 at 57). Here, however, there are a number of factors warranting the vacatur of the neglect findings. The parents’ underlying conduct was aberrational in nature, the lead condition at the family home has been abated, the children’s blood lead levels after the six-month suspended judgment period were within acceptable ranges, the parents fully complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment, there is no risk that the circumstances of lead exposure will recur, and there is no likelihood that these circumstances will warrant further judicial proceedings (see Family Ct Act § 1051[c]…). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have directed that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated. Matter of Anoushka G. (Cyntra M.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07658, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Negligent Supervision and Retention and Respondeat Superior Causes of Action Against City Department of Education (DOE) Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Complaint Alleged Sexual Abuse of Student By Teacher

The Second Department determined the causes of action against the City of New York Department of Education (DOE) alleging negligent supervision and retention of a teacher, as well as liability based upon respondeat superior, should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the sexual abuse of a student by a teacher, Watts, over the course of two years. The DOE failed to demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of the teacher’s propensity for sexual abuse. Although the respondeat superior theory did not apply to the teacher (who acted outside the scope of employment) other employees, who were acting within the scope of employment, may have been negligent:

“Schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the school knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required” … . Similarly, in order to establish a cause of action based on negligent retention of an employee, “it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the moving defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the DOE had no specific knowledge or notice of Watts’ propensity to engage in the misconduct alleged in the complaint … . * * *

The Supreme Court also should have denied that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging liability based upon a theory of respondeat superior insofar as asserted against the DOE. “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … . Here, the DOE may not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior for the alleged misconduct committed by Watts, as it is undisputed that those acts were not committed in furtherance of the DOE’s business and within the scope of Watts’ employment … . However, as the plaintiffs correctly contend, the complaint adequately alleged that other employees of the DOE were negligent in the performance of their respective duties, and that such negligence constituted a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the moving defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that these other employees were not acting within the scope of their employment …, that they were not negligent, or that any such negligence was not a proximate cause of the alleged injuries … . Nevaeh T. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07642, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Appellant of Right to Counsel In Contempt Proceedings Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, which found appellant, Patricia Howlett, to be in civil and criminal contempt for the alleged failure to comply with a court order, because appellant was not informed of her right to counsel in the contempt proceedings:

The Supreme Court erred in holding Patricia Howlett in criminal and civil contempt. There is no evidence in the record which would establish that the court informed Howlett of her right to the assistance of counsel in connection with the contempt proceedings (see Judiciary Law § 770…). Howlett must be fully advised of her right to counsel, and her right to appointed counsel must be adequately explored, with counsel to be provided if appropriate … . Accordingly, we must reverse the order dated January 7, 2015, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination of the motion to hold Howlett in contempt. Matter of Anthie B. (Howlett), 2015 NY Slip Op 07496, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

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