You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, determined there was a question of fact whether the insurers failed to settle a multi-million dollar medical malpractice claim in bad faith. The facts are interesting but too detailed to fairly summarize here:

To establish bad faith in failing to settle a liability claim, the insured must show that “the insurer’s conduct constituted a ‘gross disregard’ of the insured’s interests — that is, a deliberate or reckless failure to place on equal footing the interests of its insured with its own interests when considering a settlement offer”… . Stated otherwise, the “plaintiff must establish that the defendant insurer engaged in a pattern of behavior evincing a conscious or knowing indifference to the probability than an insured would be held personally accountable for a large judgment if a settlement offer within the policy limits were not accepted” … . It must be shown that “the insured lost an actual opportunity to settle the claim at a time when all serious doubts about the insured’s liability were removed” … . …[I]t is necessary to consider all the facts and circumstances in gauging whether an insurer acted in bad faith in addressing settlement. Key factors include the plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the potential magnitude of a verdict and the corresponding financial burden on the insured and the information available to the insurer at the time the settlement demand was made … . In reviewing these factors in the procedural context of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party … . * * *

It was clear from the inception of this case that if a jury held [the doctor] accountable, the verdict would exceed the total coverage — and that, indeed, was the [plaintiffs’] settlement position throughout. As such, it was incumbent upon [the insurers] to be fully engaged and attentive to the case, particularly after the jury highlighted question No. 6 (re: cost of future care) on the verdict sheet. To suggest that there was not enough time to respond is unpersuasive. This was crunch time, the stakes were unquestionably high and [the insurers] had a contractual responsibility to fulfill.  Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v Parentis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07224, Third Dept 10-25-18

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/BAD FAITH (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SETTLEMENTS (INSURANCE LAW, BAD FAITH, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURERS FAILED TO SETTLE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IN BAD FAITH, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff had defaulted on an installment land sale contract (re: the payment of school taxes), defendant was not entitled to specific performance and was not entitled to cancellation of the contract and retention of the installment payments:

“[T]he execution of a[n installment] contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a part payment gives a contract vendee equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of the payment” … . The contract vendor, in turn, “holds the legal title in trust for the vendee, subject to the vendor’s equitable lien for the payment of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of the contract” … . “Accordingly, the vendee under a land sale contract has acquired an interest in the property that must be extinguished before the vendor can resume possession, notwithstanding whether a provision in the contract provides that in the event of the vendee’s uncured default . . ., the vendor has the right to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises. A vendor may not enforce his [or her] rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee’s equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price” … .

Plaintiff, having made substantial payments to defendant pursuant to the installment land sale contract at issue, acquired equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of all payments made pursuant to the contract. Thus, despite plaintiff’s default under the contract, defendant cannot obtain relief under the provision of the rider that provides for cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of all monies paid by plaintiff as liquidated damages… . Accordingly, to the extent that defendant’s motion sought a declaration to that effect, it must be denied. Defendant’s remedies are, instead, limited to foreclosing plaintiff’s equitable title or bringing an action at law for the purchase price of the property, neither of which defendant has sought … . Further, because defendant could not summarily cancel the contract and resume possession, plaintiff is entitled to continued possession of the premises during such time. Cloke v Findlan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07220. Third Dept 10-25-18

REAL ESTATE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (REAL ESTATE, INSTALLMENT CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT  (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner sex offender was entitled to a Frye hearing to determine the efficacy of an “other specified paraphilic disorder” (OSPD) diagnosis:

… OSPD (nonconsent) is the primary diagnosis upon which respondent relied to demonstrate that petitioner suffered from a mental abnormality under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Citing the lack of specific diagnostic criteria, petitioner contends that this diagnosis is “junk science” that has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community and, therefore, cannot support a finding of mental abnormality. In support of his application for a Frye hearing, petitioner submitted, among other things, Singer’s affidavit, scientific literature in the form of professional articles discussing the controversial nature of PNOS (nonconsent) — the predecessor diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) — and questioning its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, as well as various trial court decisions that, following Frye hearings, have concluded that OSPD (nonconsent) is not a generally accepted diagnosis within the relevant psychiatric and psychological communities. In opposition, respondent tendered an attorney’s affidavit and three trial court decisions — two of which concluded that no Frye hearing was necessary — but no scientific literature or professional affidavits. Although we recognize that OSPD is a defined and recognized diagnosis in the Fifth Edition of the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM) and that the Court of Appeals has recognized that PNOS — OSPD’s predecessor diagnosis — is sufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality (see State of New York v Shannon S., 20 NY3d 99, 107 [2012], cert denied 568 US 1216 [2013]), we note that Shannon S. did not determine the issue presently before us, i.e., whether the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis has received general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . * * *

… [G]iven the controversial nature of the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis, on the record before us, we conclude that Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a Frye hearing was improper. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Supreme Court to conduct a Frye hearing, addressing the question of whether the diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) has achieved general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . Matter of Miguel II. v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07210, Third Dept 10-25-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

,

WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction which stemmed from a violation of an order of protection, determined that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and her motion to suppress should have been granted. The order of protection directed defendant to stay away from Thomas Collins. The police officer, Carmichael, after entering defendant’s apartment without permission, found Collins hiding there:

We conclude that Carmichael’s testimony established that there was not an objectively reasonable basis for him to believe that there was an ongoing emergency in defendant’s apartment that required immediate assistance to protect life or property. Carmichael was aware that defendant was no longer incarcerated. There was no evidence that defendant’s apartment had been forcibly entered, nor was there any other indication of an ongoing crime or emergency. The low, muffled sound that he heard and the faint light that was seen through the window were consistent with an occupant watching television, a reasonable activity at that hour of night. Moreover, Carmichael’s testimony further established that the police may have been motivated to search defendant’s apartment by the possibility of locating Collins there and arresting him. Carmichael confirmed that he was aware that there was an outstanding warrant for Collins’ arrest. The police had been advised that Collins had been seen in the vicinity of defendant’s apartment during the evening in question, and they considered the possibility that he was at her apartment in violation of the order of protection. After Carmichael handcuffed defendant, he reported by radio to the other officers on the scene that he had detained the “female subject,” and, when he located Collins, he stated that he had detained “that other subject.”

Further, even had Carmichael’s initial entry been lawful, his subsequent search of defendant’s apartment was not. A protective sweep is justified only when the police “have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene” … . Upon entry, Carmichael found that the apartment was occupied by defendant — known by him to be the tenant entitled to occupy the apartment — who told him that she was watching television, denied that anyone else was present and made no request for assistance. Thus, the facts known to Carmichael did not reasonably support the belief that there was any danger to himself or to defendant. People v Sears, 2018 NY Slip Op 07197, Third Dept 10-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO, (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS NONJURY ASSAULT TRIAL, EXERCISING ITS FACTUAL REVIEW POWER THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s assault and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined that the People did not disprove the justification defense in this nonjury trial:

At sentencing, County Court stated that it rejected defendant’s justification defense because it found that defense to be inconsistent with the multiple wounds on the victim’s face, neck and body. However, “independently assess[ing] all of the proof” and considering the correctness of the court’s factual determinations in the role of a second factfinder, as we must, we do not agree that these injuries are inconsistent with defendant’s assertion that he had to swing the knife repeatedly to defend himself, as the victim continued to attack and punch him … . More significantly, the severity of the victim’s injuries does not provide the missing proof that defendant could have retreated with complete safety before he used deadly physical force or even during the knife fight, when he and the victim both testified that the victim continued to throw punches. It was the People’s burden to prove “to the same degree as any element of the crime charged” that defendant’s actions were not justified … . Exercising our factual review power and viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we find that the People did not do so … . People v Hernandez, 2018 NY Slip Op 07196, Second Dept 10-24-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS NONJURY ASSAULT TRIAL, EXERCISING ITS FACTUAL REVIEW POWER THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION, PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS NONJURY ASSAULT TRIAL, EXERCISING ITS FACTUAL REVIEW POWER THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, EOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS NONJURY ASSAULT TRIAL, EXERCISING ITS FACTUAL REVIEW POWER THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, NONJURY TRIAL, PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS NONJURY ASSAULT TRIAL, EXERCISING ITS FACTUAL REVIEW POWER THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had the right of first refusal on the sale of a car wash. Defendant sellers’ attempt to put a restriction on the deed to prohibit the operation of a car wash on the property was deemed a deliberate, bad faith effort to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights:

The inclusion of the deed restriction within the purchase agreement was precisely targeted to prevent plaintiff — which defendants knew was in the car wash business and had entered into the right of first refusal as a means of preserving its opportunity to operate a car wash on the property — from exercising its first refusal rights. We find that [the] documentation conclusively demonstrates that defendants improperly structured their agreement to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights …. As defendants did not disavow these submissions, or the intent contained therein, they failed to meet their burden to raise an issue of fact in this regard. Under the circumstances presented here, the purchase agreement was thus entered into in bad faith as a matter of law … .

Accordingly, as plaintiff demonstrated a right to enforcement of the contract, its cross motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted, and the complaint and cross claims should not have been dismissed. Clifton Land Co. LLC v Magic Car Wash, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07027, Third Dept. 10-18-18

CONTRACT LAW (SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (CONTRACT LAW, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/BAD FAITH (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the Commissioner of Health’s determination, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, sent the matter back with instruction to consider whether there was a conflict between the Medicaid (Department of Social Services, DSS) regulations and the Department of Heath’s (DOH’s) guidelines. If there is a conflict, the regulations prevail. Petitioner’s request for osseous surgery to reconstruct her jaw after damage caused by cancer treatments was denied. The Commissioner had determined the surgery was not covered:

Medicaid does not cover every medically necessary procedure; “medical necessity and coverage are distinct concepts” … . A “medical necessity” analysis is only required and relevant when the requested procedure is covered in the first place. Thus, the initial question is whether osseous surgery is covered by New York’s Medicaid program. * * *

The Commissioner committed an error of law when he determined, based on the Medicaid dental manual and without recognizing a potential conflict between the manual and the regulations, that osseous surgery cannot be a covered service under Medicaid. Due to this error, respondents did not reach other issues. Specifically, there was no determination as to whether petitioner established that her request for prior approval of that surgery should be granted pursuant to the regulation as a “dental service[] required for . . . the relief of pain” (18 NYCRR 506.2 [b] [1]). If she did not meet her burden, there is no conflict between the regulation and guidelines, so the Medicaid dental manual would prevent approval of the surgery. If petitioner did establish that the surgery is required to relieve her pain (which would, perforce, mean that the surgery was medically necessary), the regulations would prevail and the Commissioner must approve the surgery as covered by Medicaid. Because this issue requires factual findings and falls within DOH’s expertise, it should be decided by the agency in the first instance … . Matter of Rovinsky v Zucker, 2018 NY Slip Op 07026, Third Dept 10-18-18

MEDICAID (MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID COVERAGE, MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurance  policy was properly authenticated and the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the property damage at issue and dismissed the complaint:

The insurance policy submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficiently authenticated by the sworn affidavit of defendant’s president, who stated that, based upon his review of defendant’s files, defendant’s proffer was a “full and complete copy” of the insurance policy issued to plaintiffs … .

… [W]e find that the terms of the policy conclusively refute plaintiffs’ claim that defendant is obligated to cover the structural damage caused to their barn by Calhoun’s operation of their tractor and hay baler. By its unambiguous terms, the policy insured plaintiffs only against direct physical loss caused to the barn by 11 specifically delineated perils. Accepting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true and affording them the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the alleged cause of the structural damage here — the tractor and hay baler “br[ea]k[ing] through the barn floor” — does not fall under one of the covered perils. The section of the policy cited by plaintiffs as providing coverage is inapplicable, as that section applies solely to liability insurance coverage arising out of third-party claims made against plaintiffs. Accordingly, as the insurance policy conclusively disposes of plaintiffs’ claim, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) should have been granted and the complaint dismissed … . Calhoun v Midrox Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07024, Third Dept 10-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

, , , ,

REVERSING SUPREME COURT THE THIRD DEPT NOTED THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION AND DID SO IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN IN THIS ZONING AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this zoning and building code violation case should not have been dismissed by the court sua sponte, and the court should not have awarded summary judgment to the defendant property owner. The Third Department noted that summary judgment may be awarded on an upleaded cause of action in the absence of prejudice and awarded summary judgment in favor of the town (plaintiff):

… [P]laintiff established the material facts through an affidavit by its Code and Zoning Enforcement Officer, who detailed the zoning and building code violations found on defendant’s property and averred that defendant had not remedied them after being served with orders to do so. The statements in the affidavit were corroborated by documentary and photographic evidence, and defendant submitted no opposition that might have raised material questions of fact. Supreme Court correctly observed that the complaint did not name a cause of action or identify the legal basis for the relief requested, and plaintiff’s motion papers suffered from the same problem. Plaintiff now points to authority for the relief sought by it (see Executive Law § 382 [3]; Village Law § 7-714 …), however, and summary judgment may be granted on an unpleaded cause of action “where the proof supports such a cause of action and the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice” … . The evidence substantiates plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought — relief that plaintiff has consistently sought and was narrowed in its notice of motion for summary judgment — and there is no indication that defendant was prejudiced by the failure to identify the statutes authorizing it sooner. Thus, we grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remit so that Supreme Court may fashion an appropriate remedial order. Village of Sharon Springs v Barr, 2018 NY Slip Op 07022, Third Dept 10-18-19

 

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS WERE PROPERLY REDUCED BY OVER $20 MILLION BUT THE COURT CANNOT REDUCE THE ASSESSMENTS BELOW THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld the reduction in the assessed value of petitioner’s property by over $20 million, but noted the court cannot reduce the assessment to an amount lower than that requested in the petition:

Supreme Court erred when it valued the property below the amount that petitioner requested in the petitions. As relevant here, “an assessment may not be ordered reduced to an amount less than that requested by the petitioner in a petition or any amended petition” (RPTL 720 [1] [b]…). In its RPTL article 7 petitions, petitioner sought to reduce the 2015 assessed value of the property to only $28 million and the 2016 assessed value to only $25 million. As Supreme Court assessed the property for the 2015 tax year at $27,912,000 and for the 2016 tax year at $24,483,000, the orders and judgments must be modified, accordingly.  Matter of Champlain Ctr. N. LLC v Town of Plattsburgh, 2018 NY Slip Op 07021, Third Dept 10-18-18

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS WERE PROPERLY REDUCED BY OVER $20 MILLION BUT THE COURT CANNOT REDUCE THE ASSESSMENTS BELOW THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION (THIRD 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