You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Pleading Requirements for “Fraud” and “Aiding and Abetting Fraud” Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department, in affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss “fraud” and “aiding and abetting fraud” causes of action, explained the elements which must be alleged in the complaint:

To state a cause of action sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the defendant made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the defendant knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury” … . To plead a cause of action to recover damages for aiding and abetting fraud, the complaint “must allege the existence of [the] underlying fraud, knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud”. Moreover, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b), where a cause of action is based upon fraud or aiding and abetting fraud, the “circumstances constituting the wrong” must be “stated in detail.” Caravello v One Mgt. Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07000, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

, ,

Appropriate Statutes of Limitations and Accrual Dates Explained for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty,” Civil RICO,” and “Declaratory Judgment” Causes of Action

The Second Department described the analytical criteria for determining the statutes of limitations and accrual dates for (1) breach of fiduciary duty claims where allegations of fraud are essential; (2) civil RICO claims; (3) and declaratory judgment actions seeking a constructive trust:

“New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims. Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging injury to property’ within the meaning of CPLR 214(4), which has a three-year limitations period. Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies” … .

“[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” … . “An exception to this rule . . . is that courts will not apply the fraud Statute of Limitations if the fraud allegation is only incidental to the claim asserted; otherwise, fraud would be used as a means to litigate stale claims'” … . “Thus, where an allegation of fraud is not essential to the cause of action pleaded except as an answer to an anticipated defense of Statute of Limitations, courts look for the reality, and the essence of the action and not its mere name” … . …

CPLR 213(8) provides, in part, “the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” “The discovery accrual rule also applies to fraud-based breach of fiduciary duty claims. An inquiry as to the time that a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns upon whether a person of ordinary intelligence possessed knowledge of facts from which the fraud could be reasonably inferred” … . …

“The statute of limitations for civil RICO claims is four years” … . “A RICO claim is deemed to have accrued when the plaintiff knew or should have known of his or her injury, regardless of when he or she discovered the underlying fraud'” … . …

“Actions for declaratory judgments are not ascribed a certain limitations period. The nature of the relief sought in a declaratory judgment action dictates the applicable limitations period. Thus, if the action for a declaratory judgment could have been brought in a different form asserting a particular cause of action, the limitations period applicable to the particular cause of action will apply” … .

The … action for a declaratory judgment could have been brought … as a cause of action to impose a constructive trust … . A constructive trust is equitable in nature and governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . DiRaimondo v Calhoun, 2015 NY Slip Op 07002, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

, ,

Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Department of Health’s Finding that Property Transfers Rendered Petitioner Ineligible for Medicaid Benefits

The Second Department annulled the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) finding that petitioner was ineligible for Medicaid benefits based on transfers of property made well before she exhibited signs of dementia. The court explained the analytical criteria:

In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record as a whole to determine if the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor (see id. at 180), or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … . When determining Medicaid eligibility, an agency is required to “look back” for a period of 60 months immediately preceding the first date the applicant was both “institutionalized” and had applied for Medicaid benefits to determine if any asset transfers were uncompensated or made for less than fair market value (42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [B]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][1][vi]). If such a transfer was made during that period, the applicant may become ineligible for Medicaid benefits for a specified period of time (see 42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [E]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][3]), unless there is a “satisfactory showing” that, inter alia, the assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance (42 USC § 1396p[c][2][C][i], [iii]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][4][iii]). It is the petitioner’s burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … .

Here, the evidence at the fair hearing showed that the latest of the subject transfers was made approximately two years before the petitioner started to exhibit signs of dementia. At the time of the transfers and in the years preceding her need for nursing home care, the petitioner was in good health and living independently. She was driving, cooking, exercising, and paying her own bills. The transfers themselves constituted gifts to her relatives, and the petitioner still had more than $250,000, not including Social Security benefits, following the transfers. Under these circumstances, the petitioner met her burden of rebutting the presumption that the subject transfers were motivated by the anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … . Matter of Sandoval v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 07034, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

,

Town Board’s “Adverse Effects” Findings Annulled as Inconsistent with Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled the town board’s findings that a project would have adverse environmental effects because the board’s findings were not consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The court explained the board’s obligations and the courts’ review powers in this context:

Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look’ at them, and made a reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” … . “In a statutory scheme whose purpose is that the agency decision-makers focus attention on environmental concerns, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … .

“The purpose of an environmental impact statement is to provide detailed information about the effect which a proposed action is likely to have on the environment, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such an action might be minimized, and to suggest alternatives to such an action so as to form the basis for a decision whether or not to undertake or approve such action” (ECL 8-0109[2]). In a findings statement, the lead agency “considers the relevant environmental impacts presented in an EIS, weighs and balances them with social, economic and other essential considerations, provides a rationale for the agency’s decision and certifies that the SEQRA requirements have been met” (6 NYCRR 617.2[p]…). Agencies have considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects and choosing between alternatives … .

While an agency’s ultimate conclusion is within the discretion of the agency, it must be based upon factual evidence in the record and not generalized, speculative community objections … . “While an EIS does not require a public agency to act in any particular manner, it constitutes evidence which must be considered by the public agency along with other evidence which may be presented to such agency” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly annulled the Board’s findings statement as unsupported by the evidence. The Board was required to render its conclusions regarding the sufficiency of mitigation measures, the propriety of permit approvals, and a balancing of considerations, based on the evidence contained in the environmental review. The Board’s conclusions in the findings statement were based, at least in part, on factual findings which were contradicted by the scientific and technical analyses included in the FEIS and not otherwise supported by empirical evidence in the record … .

The findings statement also failed to give sufficient consideration to the various alternative plans reviewed in the FEIS … . Matter of Falcon Group Ltd. Liab. Co. v Town/Village of Harrison Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 07025, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

Zoning Change Prohibiting Subdivision Was Foreseeable, Developer Not Entitled to Rescind Contract for Land Purchase

The Second Department determined plaintiff-developer’s (RW’s) complaint seeking rescission of a contract for the purchase of land was properly denied and the cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. RW argued that the zoning changes enacted by the town, which prohibited the subdivision plan contemplated by the contract, was not foreseeable. The court found that defendants had demonstrated the zoning change was, in fact, foreseeable and rescission was therefore not an available remedy:

” [T]he law of impossibility provides that performance of a contract will be excused if such performance is rendered impossible by intervening governmental activities, but only if those activities are unforeseeable'” … . Contrary to RW’s contention, a party seeking to rescind a contract must show that the intervening act was unforeseeable, even if the intervening act consisted of the actions of a governmental entity or the passage of new legislation … .

Here, RW did not show that it was unforeseeable that a change in the Town’s Zoning Code would render it impossible to subdivide the property as initially planned, and did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to [defendants’]  showing that such a change was foreseeable … . RW Holdings, LLC v Mayer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07020, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Arbitrability of Dispute Involving Public Employees Succinctly Explained

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the dispute about compensation for police officers during Hurricane Sandy was arbitrable under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Public policy in New York favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes … . However, a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is only arbitrable if it satisfies a two-prong test … . “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” … . If there is no prohibition against the arbitration, the court must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement … .

Here, the Village does not assert on appeal that arbitration of this grievance was prohibited by statute or public policy, and we find no such prohibition. “In analyzing whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute, a court is merely to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA'” … . Here, the relevant arbitration provisions of the CBA are broad, as they provide for arbitration of any grievance, defined as “any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of this Agreement,” which remains unresolved following completion of step three of the grievance procedure. Moreover, there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, which involves compensation over a specific time period, and the general subject matter of the CBA … . Contrary to the Village’s contention, whether the evidence supports the grievance is a question for the arbitrator, and not the courts, to decide … .

Moreover, the Village’s contention that arbitration of the grievance was precluded because the PBA failed to comply with a condition precedent is without merit. The “threshold determination of whether a condition precedent to arbitration exists and whether it has been complied with, is for the court to determine” … . By contrast, “[q]uestions concerning compliance with a contractual step-by-step grievance process have been recognized as matters of procedural arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrators, particularly in the absence of a very narrow arbitration clause or a provision expressly making compliance with the time limitations a condition precedent to arbitration” … . Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park v Floral Park Police Benevolent Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 07026, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

, , ,

A Town’s Zoning Powers Include the Creation of a Zoning District for Senior Citizens—Residents of a Retirement Community Had the Power to Enforce the Zoning Ordinance Limiting the Use of the Community Portion of a Building to Community Residents—Agreement to Pay Social Membership Fees Re: a Community Golf Course Constituted a Covenant Which Ran with the Land

The Second Department, in a detailed decision dealing with many issues, resolved a dispute concerning the use of the community portion of a building within a retirement community, which included a golf course. The plaintiffs (residents) alleged the community portion of the building was to be used solely by the community residents and should not be used for special events involving non-residents. The Second Department determined (1) the plaintiffs had the power to enforce the zoning ordinance requiring that the community portion of the building be for the exclusive use of the retirement-community (over 55) residents, (2) the residents were benefitted by easements over the common areas held by the defendants and therefore were obligated to share in the cost of maintenance of those areas, and (3) the requirement that the residents pay social membership fees (re: the golf course) was a covenant which ran with the land, binding subsequent purchasers. The Second Department specifically held that zoning ordinances may properly create a zoning district for senior citizens:

… Town Law § 268(2) permits the individual plaintiffs to enforce the Town Code § 198-21.2(F)(1)(b) to the extent it gives them exclusive use of the community building portion of the combined building. The defendants contend, however, that even if the individual plaintiffs may use Town Law § 268(2) to seek enforcement of this portion of Town Code § 198-21.2(F)(1)(b), it, in fact, may not be enforced because the Town lacked the authority to regulate who owns or occupies land …  . A town does not act in excess of its authority when it creates a zoning district for senior citizens …, or when it limits the occupancy of dwelling units within a planned retirement community to persons aged 55 or over … . Since these are valid exercises of a town’s zoning power, it must follow that a town may also limit the use of a recreational facility within a senior residential community to those seniors living there.  * * *

The defendants were given an easement over the common areas and common elements, including roadways, walkways, and landscaped areas, for ingress, egress, and the retrieval of golf balls. … Generally, absent an express agreement, all persons benefitted by an easement must share ratably in the cost of its maintenance and repair … .  * * *

…[T]the defendants established that the covenant to pay social membership fees runs with the land, as the record demonstrates that the “grantor and grantee intended that the covenant should run with the land,” “the covenant is one touching or concerning the land with which it runs,” and “there is privity of estate between the . . . party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the right to enforce it, and the . . . party who rests under the burden of the covenant” … . Greens at Half Hollow Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Greens Golf Club, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06887, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

The Martin Rule, Which Prohibits Actions Against Unincorporated Associations Unless the Actions Complained of Were Authorized or Ratified, Does Not Prohibit Actions Against Individual Association Members

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that, although the Martin rule prohibited the “defamation/tortious interference with business relations” actions against the union, the actions against individual union members were not prohibited.  The Martin rule bars suit against unincorporated voluntary membership associations (here the union) unless the actions complained of were authorized or ratified by the union. But the Martin rule does not bar suit against union members in their individual capacities:

… [T]he Martin rule (see Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276…) … bars all actions against an unincorporated voluntary membership association, and bars claims against the officers of such an association in their representative capacities where there is no allegation that the members of the association authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct complained of.

However, neither the Martin rule nor any other authority precludes causes of action from being asserted against individual members of the union defendants in their individual capacities … . In Martin, only the claims asserted against union members in their representative capacities as officers of the union were dismissed. Notably, the Court of Appeals specifically allowed the libel claims in that action to proceed against the same defendant union members, in their individual capacities … . Cablevision Sys. Corp. v Communications Workers of Am. Dist. 1, 2015 NY Slip Op 06873, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to change venue in a wrongful death action should have been granted. Plaintiff is a retired Supreme Court justice in the county where the action was brought. Change of venue was appropriate to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

A court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county (see CPLR 510[2]). Generally, a motion for a change of venue is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court …, and the resolution of such an application will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … .

To succeed on a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), the movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently denied the defendants’ motion to change venue. Although he is now retired, the plaintiff’s tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, supports a change of venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County to “protect[ ] the court from even a possible appearance of impropriety” … . Lisa v Parikh, 2015 NY Slip Op 06897, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply to Causes of Action in Amended Complaint—Amendment Should Not Have Been Allowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have allowed the amendment of a medical malpractice complaint to add causes of action for negligent hiring and supervision. The negligent hiring and supervision allegations were time barred and were different from the medical malpractice allegations such that the relation back doctrine did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 203(f), claims asserted in an amended complaint are “deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203[f]). Thus, when the nature of a newly asserted cause of action is distinct from the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and requires different factual allegations as to the underlying conduct than were contained in the original complaint, the new claims will not “relate back” in time to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the allegations in the original complaint in support of the causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent gave [defendant] notice of the “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved” with respect to the claims of negligent hiring and supervision … . The causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent are distinct not only as to the conduct alleged, but also as to the dates on which the conduct occurred and who engaged in it … . The mere reference to “negligence” in the original complaint did not give [defendant] notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved with respect to the proposed causes of action alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision. Thus, those proposed causes of action could not be deemed to relate back to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Calamari v Panos, 2015 NY Slip Op 06875, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

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