You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Court of Claims Must Determine the Interests of All Parties Named by the Attorney General as Potentially Entitled to Payment for a Taking by the State—Therefore a Claimant Must Join all the Parties Named by the Attorney General

The Second Department explained the procedure under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) for determining how to apportion payment for a taking when there is a dispute about which parties are entitled to payment. Under the EDPL and the Court of Claims Act, the Court of Claims must determine the interests of all parties named by the Attorney General as having a possible claim. Therefore a claimant must join all the named parties in any action seeking payment:

EDPL 304(E)(1) … provides that when the Attorney General determines that there is a conflict with regard to the person or persons legally entitled to receive payment for the value of property acquired by the State through the power of eminent domain, he or she shall request the Comptroller to deposit the funds in an interest-bearing account “to be distributed as ordered by the Court of Claims on application of any person claiming an interest in the amount” (EDPL 304[E][1]). The statute further provides that the procedure to be employed in connection with such an application “shall be the same as provided in [Court of Claims Act § 23],” and that “[n]o judgment of distribution shall be made unless the court shall first obtain personal jurisdiction over all persons certified by the Attorney General as having or claiming to have an interest in the fund” (EDPL 304[E][1]).

The claimant argues, in effect, that Mazur Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter MBI), an entity that the Attorney General has determined has a possible interest in the subject proceeds, does not in fact have any such interest and that, therefore, the claimant was under no obligation to join MBI as a party to this claim. In advancing this argument, however, the claimant essentially asked the Court of Claims to assume the very fact that is the ultimate fact that must be proven, namely, that MBI has no interest in the money deposited by the Comptroller. Without jurisdiction over MBI, it would have been improper for the Court of Claims to grant the relief requested by the claimant in connection with this claim. Indeed, as the claimant appears to have recognized, its remedy, under these circumstances, lies in a special distribution proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304 … . Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06119, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Service of an Unverified Petition in Violation of the Court of Claims Act Did Not Constitute a Jurisdictional Defect

Reversing the Court of Claims, the Second Department determined that service of a petition which was not verified was not a jurisdictional defect in a proceeding to recover money placed in escrow by the NYS Comptroller pending claims for the state’s appropriation and use of easements.

In accordance with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, after the Attorney General determined that there was or might be a conflict with regard to the money allegedly owed as a result of the extended use of these temporary easements, the funds were deposited by the New York State Comptroller into a special interest-bearing eminent domain account (see EDPL 304[E][1]). Upon receiving notice of this deposit, the petitioner commenced this special proceeding for the distribution of the money pursuant to EDPL 304(E)(1) and Court of Claims Act § 23. The State promptly rejected the petition, noting that it was served without a proper verification. Within days, the petitioner provided the missing verification. The Court of Claims, however, dismissed the petition, concluding, inter alia, that the failure to comply with the statutory provisions requiring verification constituted a jurisdictional defect that mandated dismissal, without consideration of the merits. The petitioner appeals, and we reverse.

While the time limitations and service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 have been referred to as “jurisdictional” … , the instant matter concerns a special proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304(E) for the distribution of money that had been deposited (see Court of Claims Act § 9[12]), and service of the petition without a verification did not constitute an incurable “jurisdictional” defect … . In this regard, the petitioner, upon notice from the State, cured the omission within a matter of days (see CPLR 3022, 3025[a]…). Moreover, considering that no substantive right of the State was prejudiced by the missing verification, even if the omitted material had not been supplied, the Court of Claims, under the circumstances presented to it, should have disregarded the technical infirmity pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 3026 … . Matter of Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06149, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Best Interest of the Incapacitated Person Justified Removal of Guardian of Person and Property

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its broad discretion in granting the cross-motion to remove the guardian of Helen S.’ person and property (pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 81.35). Helen S. testified that the guardian yelled and screamed at her, made her very nervous and upset causing her body to shake, and causing her to throw up. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when ” the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just'” … . “The trial court is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether a guardian should be replaced,” and the “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … .  Matter of Helen S. (Falero), 2015 NY Slip Op 06153, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)

In finding the constructive trust cause of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred, the Second Department explained that a cause of action for a constructive trust accrues (1) when the constructive trustee acquires the property wrongfully, or (2) when the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property which was lawfully acquired but was to be transferred:

A cause of action “for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(1), which starts to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution” … . “A determination of when the wrongful act triggering the running of the Statute of Limitations occurs depends upon whether the constructive trustee acquired the property wrongfully, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date of acquisition, or whether the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust is not … that the defendants wrongfully acquired the subject properties in or around 1995, or 1996, but rather that subsequent thereto, sometime in 2012, the defendant… breached her promise to the plaintiff that they would be equal partners with respect to those properties … . Barone v Barone, 2015 NY Slip Op 06102, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Electricity-Supplier (Con Edison) Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to a Shareholder in an Apartment Cooperative Who Fell in a Common Area During a Power Outage/Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge of the Cause of His Fall Was Fatal to the Lawsuit

The Second Department determined the electricity-supplier, Con Edison, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, a shareholder in an apartment cooperative, who fell in a common area of the building during a power outage. In addition, the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge re: the cause of his fall was fatal to the lawsuit:

The Court of Appeals has held that an electricity-supplying utility “is not answerable to the tenant of an apartment building injured in a common area as a result of [the utility’s] negligent failure to provide electric service as required by its agreement with the building owner” (Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399, 405; see Milliken & Co. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 469). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s status as a shareholder in the cooperative corporation that owned the building did not make him a party to the contract with Con Edison, such that Con Edison owed him a duty of care… . * * *

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Here, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not know why he fell, did not know whether he tripped or slipped, and had no memory of the fall. When he was asked if he knew why he fell, the injured plaintiff testified: “That’s speculation. I don’t know.” In addition, the building defendants submitted the deposition testimony of two witnesses who stated that the injured plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thus, the building defendants demonstrated that it was just as likely that the accident was caused by some factor other than poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, such as a misstep, a loss of balance, or intoxication, and thus “any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer conjecture” … . O’Connor v Metro Mgt. Dev., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05921, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted as a matter of law to the manufacturer of a table saw. Plaintiff alleged the absence of an interlock device which would not allow the saw to operate without a protective guard in place was a design defect.  However, it is settled that such an interlock device on a table saw renders the saw unusable for some cuts and, therefore, the absence of the device is not a design defect:

The definition of a design defect, for purposes of imposing products liability, is that “if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” … . “This standard demands an inquiry into such factors as (1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product’s potential danger that can reasonablely be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes” … . Liability attaches when an analysis of these factors leads one to conclude that “the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing” it … .

An interlock on a table saw, which would prevent the operation of the table saw without the guard in place, could make the table saw unusable for certain cuts, thereby impairing its functionality … . Therefore, a theory of liability based upon an allegation that a table saw should have been designed with an interlock has been “explicitly rejected as a matter of law” … . Chavez v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05903, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Agreement to Assist Spouse in Obtaining a Visa Did Not Render the Marriage a Sham and the Separation Agreement Unenforceable/Agreement to Pay for One-Half of a Jointly Held Business Could Be Severed from Any Arguably Unenforceable Portions of the Separation Agreement/Even Where a Marriage is Annulled as Void or Voidable, Equitable Distribution Rules Apply

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the provision in a separation agreement in which one spouse agreed to help the other obtain a visa did not render the marriage a sham and the separation agreement unenforceable. Therefore the provision of the separation agreement that one spouse pay the other one-half of the value of a jointly-owned business was enforceable. The Second Department noted that even if a portion of the agreement was not enforceable, the valid provisions could remain enforceable. The Second Department further noted that equitable distribution rules apply even when a marriage is annulled as void or voidable:

Although parties are usually free to chart their own contractual course, that is not the case in certain situations where public policy would be offended … . Further, as a general rule, illegal contracts are unenforceable … , and this includes marital agreements for visa sponsorship that unlawfully circumvent United States immigration laws … .

Here, the terms and conditions of the separation agreement ostensibly required the plaintiff to assist the defendant in obtaining a visa. Further, in an affidavit submitted in support of her motion, the plaintiff admitted that she stayed in the marriage longer than she wished so that the defendant could obtain an E-2 dependent visa. However, there is no proof that the marriage was a sham, or that any other tribunal or government agency had made such a determination.

More importantly, even if the Supreme Court was correct in determining that certain terms of the separation agreement are illegal and unenforceable, the terms directing the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for transferring her interest in the business to him would nevertheless be severable and enforceable … . Where an agreement consists of an unlawful objective in part and a lawful objective in part, the court may sever the illegal aspect and enforce the legal one, so long as the “illegal aspects are incidental to the legal aspects and are not the main objective of the agreement” … . Whether a contract is to be enforced in its entirety or is severable is generally a question of intent, “to be determined from the language employed by the parties, viewed in the light of the circumstances surrounding them at the time they contracted” … . Moreover, “[c]ourts will be particularly ready to sever the illegal components and enforce the other components of a contract where the injured party is less culpable and the other party would otherwise be unjustly enriched by using his own misconduct as a shield against otherwise legitimate claims” … . Here, the separation agreement contained an express provision that the doctrine of severability shall apply should any particular term of the agreement be deemed invalid or unenforceable.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we do not find that the main objective of the parties’ separation agreement was to compensate the plaintiff for remaining in the marriage and thereby helping the defendant obtain a visa (cf. Donnell v Stogel, 161 AD2d at 97). The separation agreement addressed various aspects of the parties’ marriage, including distribution of their marital assets. According to the plain language of the separation agreement, the $30,000 payment to the plaintiff constitutes compensation for the transfer of her 50% interest in the business that the parties co-owned at the time of the marriage. Notably, the parties agreed that, even if the visa sponsorship did not come to fruition, the defendant would still be obligated to pay the distribution of the value of the business.

It should be noted that, even if the marriage were proven to be a sham marriage, either party could have sought a divorce, a judgment declaring the nullity of a void marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 140), or an annulment of a voidable marriage (see id.), all of which mandate the equitable distribution of assets acquired during the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][a], [c]…). Absent a judicial finding, after a hearing, that the money to be transferred to the plaintiff was payment for spousal sponsorship of a visa and nothing more, which would be against public policy and thus unenforceable in court, the terms of the separation agreement dealing with the distribution of assets acquired during the marriage are enforceable, separate and apart from any unenforceable terms. Thus, the terms of the separation agreement governing the transfer of the previously co-owned business in exchange for $30,000 are severable from any terms of the separation agreement which may be unenforceable … . Lanza v Carbone, 2015 NY Slip Op 05917, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

Court Cannot Condition Future Visitation On Parent’s Participation in Counseling or Treatment

The Second Department noted that a court may not condition future visitation upon a parent’s participation in counseling or treatment because such a condition effectively removes control over visitation from the court:

A court hearing a pending proceeding or action involving issues of custody or visitation may properly order a mental health evaluation of a parent, if warranted, prior to making a custody or visitation determination (see Family Ct Act § 251[a]…). In addition, a court may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order … .

However, “a court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights” … . The rationale underlying this rule is that “a court may not properly delegate to mental health professionals the ultimate determination of whether a parent will be awarded visitation rights,” a determination that is properly made by the court … . Lajqi v Lajqi, 2015 NY Slip Op 05916, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

Late Submission of QDRO (Re: Spouse’s Pension) Did Not Affect Submitting Spouse’s Right to Arrears to the Date of Retirement—One Spouse’s Taking Out a Loan Against His/Her Pension Will Not Reduce the Other Spouse’s Share of the Pension

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, resolving at least two issues of first impression, and noting differences among the Appellate Divisions, discussed: (1) the effect of a delay in submitting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for a share of the other spouse’s pension (despite the delay the submitting spouse is entitled to arrears to the date of retirement); (2) the requirement that any QDRO be in accordance with a stipulation of settlement which has not merged (court can not expand or contract what was agreed to); (3) whether a loan taken against a pension should reduce the other spouse’s portion of the pension (no, it should not); and (4) whether a spouse’s portion of the other spouse’s pension should be reduced because of the election of a survivorship benefit in favor of a the other spouse’s new spouse (yes, it should).  In a nutshell, the court held that the late submission of a QDRO did not deprive the submitting spouse of the right to arrears, and a spouse’s share if the other spouse’s pension should not be reduced because of the other spouse’s taking out a loan against the pension:

A stipulation of settlement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation … . If an agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, “the intent of the parties must be gleaned from the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” … . “When the distribution of pension benefits between former spouses is accomplished through a QDRO obtained pursuant to a stipulation, such QDRO can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment'” … . If a QDRO is inconsistent with the provisions of a stipulation or judgment of divorce, courts possess the authority to amend the QDRO “to accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation pertaining to the pension benefits” … . Thus, a court cannot issue a QDRO “encompassing rights not provided in the underlying stipulation” …, or one that is more expansive than the stipulation.  * * *

Despite the plaintiff’s delay in submitting a proposed QDRO to the Supreme Court, we reject the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to the arrears in pension benefits that accumulated between March 1, 2008, the date that the defendant retired from the FDNY, to March 26, 2013, the date that the Supreme Court signed the plaintiff’s proposed QDRO. An action to enforce a distributive award in a matrimonial action is governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . However, this Court … made clear that since a QDRO is derived from the bargain struck by the parties, there is no need to commence a separate, plenary action to formalize the agreement, and that “an application or motion for the issuance of a QDRO is not barred by the statute of limitations” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the plaintiff’s Majauskas share must be calculated with reference to the reduction in benefits resulting from the defendant’s provision of survivorship benefits to his second wife, we agree with the plaintiff that her share should be calculated without reference to the reduction in benefits resulting from the loan made to the defendant. Kraus v Kraus, 2015 NY Slip Op 05915, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly converted a mandamus proceeding to a declaratory judgment proceeding and properly found that the town was obligated, under the Highway Law, to repair an unsafe bridge. However, Supreme Court did not have the power to direct the town to make the repairs “as expeditiously as possible.”  The Second Department explained the relevant law:

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated” …, whereas declaratory relief “is not an extraordinary remedy,” as it “only provides a declaration of rights between parties” and “cannot be executed upon so as to compel a party to perform an act” … . Here, the appellants correctly concede that the Town is obligated to repair and maintain the Dock Street Bridge, since it is part of a highway by use within the meaning of Highway Law § 189 by virtue of the Town’s maintenance of Dock Street for the requisite statutory time period … . However, as the Supreme Court correctly observed, “[t]he many factors involved in a determination as to when and how bridges should be constructed, reconstructed and repaired militate that such judgments must be left to the [Town], with due regard to fiscal appropriations, and should not be the subject of judicial fiat” … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 103(c) and, thereupon, declared that the Town “is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of the Dock Street Bridge”… .

However, the Supreme Court erred by declaring that the Town “shall take all measures necessary to fulfill its legal obligation to repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge, as expeditiously as possible in consideration of . . . fiscal and other concerns.” It is beyond cavil that ” questions of judgment, discretion, allocation of resources and priorities [are] inappropriate for resolution in the judicial arena'” … . As the Supreme Court recognized, it is within the discretion of the Town to “investigat[e] . . . the most appropriate method of repairing or replacing the bridge, and the potential availability of grants and funding sources other than the [T]own’s tax base” to address its “present financial inability to replace the Dock Street Bridge,” and courts cannot interfere with this function … . Consequently, the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Town must “take all measures necessary to . . . repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge[ ] as expeditiously as possible” was purely advisory and does not create any binding obligation on the Town. Thus, this declaration was improper … . Matter of Hyde Park Landing, Ltd. v Town of Hyde Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 05945, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

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