You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Plaintiff Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate Fire Was Not Intentionally Set by Merely Challenging the Insurer’s Arson Investigation—Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Proof Burdens at Summary Judgment Stage Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in its breach of contract action against the insurer. Plaintiff’s restaurant was destroyed by fire. The insurer disclaimed coverage on the ground that the fire had been intentionally set. Plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking the dismissal of the insurer’s affirmative defense (arson) and judgment in its favor on liability. The court explained the relevant proof burdens re: the affirmative defense of arson at the summary judgment stage:

As the movant, plaintiff was required to initially demonstrate “the absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses” … . Upon the affirmative defense of arson, if plaintiff, as the insured, met its initial burden, the burden would then shift to defendant, as the insurer. Although defendant’s ultimate burden of proving the affirmative defense at trial would be by the standard of clear and convincing evidence …, this strict standard is not applied at this juncture. Assuming that plaintiff met its initial burden to demonstrate that the fire was not intentionally set and that plaintiff had no motive to commit arson, to defeat the summary judgment motion defendant was merely required to demonstrate “that plaintiff’s premises may have been damaged by arson and that plaintiff may have had a motive to see the property destroyed by fire” … . Importantly, “[e]vidence of motive and incendiary origin without more is sufficient to defeat an insured’s motion for summary judgment in an action on its fire insurance policy” … .

Plaintiff failed to offer evidence to establish that the fire had not been intentionally set and, instead, merely challenged the validity of defendant’s investigation, arguing that the evidence failed to affirmatively establish that the fire had been deliberately set. Morley Maples, Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06395, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract

In affirming the judgment awarded plaintiff in this breach of contract action, the Third Department noted that a “non time of the essence” real estate purchase contract can be converted to a “time of the essence” contract by giving the buyer clear, unequivocal notice and a reasonable time to perform, as was done by the seller here. 12 Baker Hill Rd., Inc. v Miranti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06400, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract complaint, finding that the exceptions to the enforceability of a “no damages for delay” clause did not apply, and the “mandatory notice” clause precluded suit for “extra work.” Plaintiff was engaged by defendant to install heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment:

As a general rule, “contract clauses exculpating the contractee from liability to the contractor for damages resulting from delays in performance of the contract work” are valid and enforceable … . However, even where the contract contains such a clause, there are several recognized exceptions. As relevant here, a contractor may still recover for “delays caused by the contractee’s bad faith or its willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct” … . A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay damages “bears the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie that none of the exceptions to the ‘damages for delay’ clause are present” … .  * * *

… [P]laintiff attempts to claim compensation for tasks that allegedly constituted “extra work” beyond the scope of the parties’ contract. However, a provision in the contract required plaintiff to notify defendant that it considered a task to constitute extra work within 15 working days after being ordered to undertake the task or beginning to perform it. Here, plaintiff concedes that it did not notify defendant of this claim until five months after it began performance of the disputed task. Thus, “[d]efendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that [plaintiff] did not comply with the condition precedent” by providing timely notice … . Tougher Indus., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06388, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

, ,

Improper Evidence of Uncharged Offenses, a Police Officer’s Vouching for the Reliability and Credibility of the People’s Central Witness, and the Court’s Failure to Give Limiting Instructions to the Jurors after Sustaining Objections to Improper Testimony Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction based upon several errors including the improper presentation of evidence of uncharged crimes attributed to the defendant and a police officer’s vouching for the reliability and credibility of the confidential informant (CI), upon whose testimony the People’s case depended. The jury heard evidence of defendant’s participation in a drug offense identical to that for which he was on trial. Even though objection to the testimony was sustained and the testimony struck, no limiting instructions were given to the jury. Evidence of defendant’s sitting at a table on which were large amounts of heroin and crack cocaine was also improperly presented. Objection to that testimony was overruled. With respect to the police officer’s vouching for the credibility and reliability of the CI, the defense objection to that testimony was sustained, but no curative instructions were given to the jury:

At trial … the CI testified that defendant was not only present during [a] controlled purchase of crack cocaine, but that he had also participated in the transaction by providing the actual drugs. County Court denied defendant’s prompt motion for a mistrial, but otherwise sustained his objection and struck this portion of the CI’s testimony, without further limiting instructions to the jury. In our view, this revelation was highly prejudicial, as it related to a recent uncharged crime that was nearly identical to the sale for which defendant was on trial … . Shortly thereafter, the CI recounted that, upon entering the apartment on October 9, 2012, he had observed defendant sitting at a table “with large amounts of heroin and crack cocaine in front of him.” Although no reference to “heroin” was included in the People’s Molineux proffer, or otherwise previously disclosed, the court overruled defendant’s objection, permitting further testimony from the CI about the presence of heroin. Because defendant was not charged with possession or sale of heroin, it cannot be said that this evidence was directly related to or in any way necessary to explain his alleged possession and sale of crack cocaine such that it was inextricably interwoven into the CI’s narrative … . Significantly, the court did not attempt to cure the prejudice arising from the CI’s improper testimony by issuing an instruction either at the time of defendant’s objection or during the jury charge … . * * *

Further prejudice resulted from the People’s redirect examination of [officer] Gillis, who stated that the CI was “very reliable and very trustworthy.” After County Court overruled defendant’s objection, and characterized the testimony as “opinion,” Gillis elaborated that the CI had “never given [him a] reason to not believe anything that [the CI] is telling [him].” Allowing Gillis to vouch for the CI’s credibility was clearly improper … . The effect was compounded by the People’s summation, wherein the prosecutor surmised that law enforcement had used the CI for several years because of his reliability … . While we recognize that County Court sustained defendant’s objection, no curative instruction was issued, and we remain concerned that the prosecutor’s remark amplified the effect of Gillis’ improper vouching … . People v Nicholas, 2015 NY Slip Op 06269, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole

The Third Department determined the maintenance and construction of a culvert, around which the road repeatedly washed out, was a highway design issue, for which the state was protected by qualified immunity, not a highway maintenance issue, for which a negligence standard applies. Claimant was injured when his vehicle went into a sinkhole near the culvert.

Municipalities unquestionably have a duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition … . With respect to highway safety and design, however, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Here, the gravamen of the claim is that the 9-foot-high, 15-foot-wide oval culvert that carried the Spuytenduiveil Creek underneath Route 8 was too small and should have been replaced. Plaintiff maintains that this condition presented a maintenance and repair issue that defendant was required to address in its proprietary capacity for which basic negligence and not sovereign immunity principles apply … . * * *

In order to successfully invoke the qualified immunity defense, defendant had the burden of demonstrating that its decision with regard to the replacement of the culvert “‘was the product of a deliberative decision-making process'” … . Even with design planning issues, liability may exist where the municipality does not adequately analyze the condition or if there is no reasonable basis for its plan … . If a remedial plan is developed, “liability may result from a failure to effectuate the plan within a reasonable period of time,” but “a reasonable delay justified by design considerations [or] a legitimate claim of funding priorities would not be actionable” … .

Based upon our review of the probative evidence, we agree with the Court of Claims that the replacement of the culvert presented a design and not a maintenance issue and that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Evans v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06288, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

Preventing a Party from Carrying Out Its Agreement Constitutes a Material Breach

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly held that defendants breached the contract. Plaintiff owned a business which produced and sold aggregate stone. Plaintiff entered a lease agreement with defendants which allowed plaintiff to remove stone from a quarry on defendants’ property and required that defendants pay “rent” based upon the amount of stone removed. No stone was removed for some time. Defendants sent a letter indicating they would consider the lease null and void unless plaintiff started up the business within 90 days. The parties then entered discussions, some stone was removed and rent was paid. Thereafter, the defendants unilaterally declared the lease null and void, ordered plaintiff to remove its equipment, and prevented plaintiff from entering the property. Supreme Court found plaintiff had done enough to comply with defendants’ initial demand that plaintiff start up its business and, therefore, defendants’ actions, which prevented plaintiff from carrying out its agreement, constituted a material breach. The Third Department agreed:

“In the case of every contract there is an implied undertaking on the part of each party that he [or she] will not intentionally and purposely do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement on his [or her] part” … . In the April 1996 letter, [defendant] advised [plaintiff]  that the lease was null and void, threatened legal action if plaintiff did not “promptly” remove its equipment from the quarry, and stated that [defendant] did not consider himself bound by the lease because it was void. Two months later, defendants’ counsel advised plaintiff’s counsel that it was defendants’ position that the lease had been rescinded and that plaintiff “ha[d] no right to enter upon the property.” … “[R]efusing to permit the other party to perform is a breach of contract” … . Here, defendants’ unilateral declaration that the lease was null and void, and their threat of legal action if plaintiff did not promptly remove its equipment, followed shortly thereafter by the statement of defendants’ counsel that plaintiff had no right to enter the property, constituted a refusal to permit plaintiff to perform. Galusha & Sons, LLC v Champlain Stone, Ltd, 2015 NY Slip Op 06286, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

,

Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met

The Third Department determined that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly granted. A cotenant who had resided at the property, maintained the property, and paid the taxes for over two decades, brought an action seeking exclusive ownership based upon ouster of defendant cotenant and/or adverse possession. Neither the complaint nor plaintiff’s submissions established the statutory criteria for ouster or adverse possession (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law [RPAPL] 541) . There was no unequivocal expression by the possessory cotenant that the property was being adversely possessed, and the inclusion of the defendant cotenant’s name on a property insurance policy belied adverse possession. The court noted that exclusive possession and payment of maintenance expenses by a cotenant, standing alone, do not establish adverse possession:

The law that would have provided … plaintiff a valid legal claim with regard to the underlying property dispute is RPAPL 541, which provides that, “[w]here the relation of tenants in common has existed, the occupancy of one tenant . . . is deemed to have been the possession of the other, notwithstanding that the tenant so occupying the premises . . . has claimed to hold adversely to the other. But this presumption shall cease after the expiration of ten years of continuous exclusive occupancy by such tenant, . . . or immediately upon an ouster by one tenant of the other and such occupying tenant may then commence to hold adversely to his [or her] cotenant.” It is well settled that, “absent ouster, the period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may be said to acquire full title by adverse possession” … .

We reject plaintiff’s contention that she and Lindine ever ousted defendant or defendant’s parents from the property. An ouster will not be deemed to have occurred unless the possessory cotenant, either through words or actions, unequivocally expresses to the nonpossessory cotenant that the property is being adversely possessed … . * * *

Plaintiff alternatively contends that, even if no ouster has been established, she and Lindine adversely possessed the property, given their exclusive use of it for more than two decades (see RPAPL 541). In support of this argument, plaintiff emphasizes that she and Lindine paid all taxes and expenses for the property, and made all necessary repairs to its structural improvements. Defendant never visited the property during the years that plaintiff and Lindine lived there permanently and defendant’s parents, it is claimed, only did so twice. Even accepting these allegations as true, “exclusive possession and the payment of maintenance expenses by a [possessory] cotenant are[, standing alone,] insufficient to establish a claim of right for purposes of adverse possession as against a cotenant” … . Lindine v Iasenza, 2015 NY Slip Op 06275, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

Criteria for Common Law or Implied Indemnification Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendants in a construction-accident case, the Third Department clearly explained the criteria for common law or implied indemnification.  In a nutshell, any negligence by the party seeking indemnification for payments made to the injured party on behalf of a negligent tortfeasor will preclude recovery. Common law or implied indemnification applies only to parties who are liable vicariously without fault:

“The principle of common-law, or implied indemnification, permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party. Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine” … . Accordingly, in order “[t]o establish a claim for common-law indemnification, the party seeking indemnity must prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability, but must also prove that the proposed indemnitor was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the cause of the accident” … . Hackert v Emmanuel Cong. United Church of Christ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06192, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

,

Landlord With Notice of a Tenant’s Dog’s Vicious Propensities May Be Liable to the Injured Plaintiff

In finding that there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in a dog-bite case, the Third Department noted that a landlord with notice of a dog’s vicious propensities can be liable to the injured plaintiff:

“A landlord may be liable for the attack by a dog kept by a tenant if the landlord has actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities and maintains sufficient control over the premises to require the animal to be removed or confined” … . Defendant was empowered to require the [tenants] to remove the animal and, indeed, its site manager testified that he took steps to do so once he learned of the dog’s existence in September 2012. Rodgers v Horizons At Monticello, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06189, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant

The Third Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant high school in a negligent supervision case. Plaintiff’s son, LaValley, was assaulted by another student, Breyette, after plaintiff had alerted school officials about threats of violence made by Breyette against her son. Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior for which he was suspended in middle school. LaValley was punched 37 times in the school cafeteria in close proximity to a teacher who did not intervene and who was not aware of the conflict between the two students. The Third Department noted that, in determining a summary judgment motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant:

“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” … . Where a fellow student intentionally injures another, the duty is breached if the school had actual or constructive notice of the conduct that caused the injury such that the acts of the fellow student could have been reasonably anticipated … . The adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for the jury … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmovant …, we note that Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior, including a previous assault against LaValley in middle school that resulted in Breyette’s out-of-school suspension. There is also evidence that, within the month prior to the assault, Breyette specifically threatened violence against LaValley, and plaintiff testified that she immediately informed the high school principal about this threat. Plaintiff also testified that she brought up the conflict between LaValley and Breyette during a meeting with the principal and her son’s teachers. Although the principal acknowledged that plaintiff had informed him about the conflict and he testified that he spoke to Breyette about it, Breyette denied that the principal had spoken to him prior to the attack. The attack itself occurred in the school cafeteria, in close proximity to a teacher who had not been notified of the threat or the conflict between the two students. According to Breyette, he calmly approached LaValley, called his name to get his attention and proceeded to punch him in the head 37 times without any adult intervention. He did not stop until another student intervened. In light of this evidence, we agree with Supreme Court that factual issues exist with respect to the adequacy of defendants’ supervision and whether the lack of adequate supervision was a proximate cause of LaValley’s injuries … . LaValley v Northeastern Clinton Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06187, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

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