Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder in a factory while cleaning a product manufactured by his employer. The product in question was a steel "wall module" made by the third party defendant. At issue was plaintiff's claim under Labor Law 240(1) against Bechtel, the purchaser of the wall module, and defendants, the third party defendant's landlords. The court held that section 240(1) did not apply to an injury suffered while cleaning a product in the course of a manufacturing process. Such injuries could hardly be uncommon; the court inferred that it had been generally and correctly understood that the statue did not apply to them. Accordingly, plaintiff's activity was not protected under section 240(1). View "Dahar v Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant, landlord, without giving notice to or receiving permission from plaintiff, entered the demised premises at issue and installed cross-bracing between two existing steel support columns on both of plaintiff's leased floors causing a change in the flow of patron foot traffic on the first floor and slight diminution of the second floor waiting area. At issue was whether a minimal and inconsequential retaking of space that had been leased to a commercial tenant constituted an actual partial eviction relieving the tenant from all obligation to pay rent. The court concluded, under the circumstances of the case, where such inference by a landlord was small and had no demonstrable effect on the tenant's use and enjoyment of the space, total rent abatement was not warranted. View "Eastside Exhibition Corp. v 210 E. 86th St. Corp." on Justia Law

Insurer commenced the instant suit against insureds, alleging eight causes of action and requesting a declaration that the insurer's policy provided no coverage or duty to indemnify any amount paid or payable by insured and the plan in an underlying class action suit. At issue was whether the disputed language in an insurance policy extended coverage to alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., by insureds. The court reaffirmed fundamental principles of insurance contract interpretation and held that the plain language of the policy did not cover such acts and, therefore, the Appellate Division correctly held that insurer was entitled to summary judgment and a declaration that was not required to indemnify insured in the manner requested. View "Federal Ins. Co. v Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp." on Justia Law

The Helseths first learned of the underlying foreclosure action and a scheduled auction sale of the property at issue when they were informed by their real estate broker that potential buyers had inquired about the lot. As a result, they moved by order to show cause to stay the sale of the property but Supreme Court declined to sign a temporary restraining order, adjourning the matter to a date after the auction. Consequently, the Helseths appeared at the auction and submitted a winning bid, paying a deposit. However, they failed to remit the remaining balance and the County auctioned the property to another party. At issue was whether the County provided sufficient notice, in accord with constitutional due process, of the release option offered pursuant to Local Law No. 7 of County of Orange. The court concluded that the release option in this appeal was a discretionary, permissive remedy made available to the Helseths after the property was lawfully foreclosed and conveyance to the County did not establish or extend a property right entitled to due process protection as any property interests held by the Helseths were lawfully extinguished as of the expiration of their right to redemption and the entry of the judgment of foreclosure. Rather, the release was simply an option to repurchase property then-owned by the County. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and that branch of respondents' motion, which was to allow them to pay back taxes and interest due for a release with respect to the property, denied. View "Matter of Orange County Commr. of Fin. (Helseth)" on Justia Law

Under Real Property Tax Law 523-b, the State Legislature authorized Nassau County to establish the Nassau County Assessment Review Commission (ARC) for the purpose of "reviewing and correcting all assessments of real property." At issue was whether the Nassau County Executive had the authority to terminate the commissioners of the ARC in the absence of cause, prior to the expiration of their fixed, statutory terms. The court found that RPLT 523-b and Nassau County Charter 203 were not incompatible and read them together to accomplish the clear legislative intent to protect the ARC from political influence. The court also concluded that the commissioners were not essentially at-will employees, subject to termination for any reason whatsoever. The court held that the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring that in the absence of cause, the County Executive did not have authority to remove the commissioners prior to the expiration of their statutory terms, and remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Matter of Sedacca v Kelly" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a nontenured teacher, commenced this action against defendants asserting causes of action for prima facie tort and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that plaintiff was not granted tenure because of the continuous pressure and influence exerted upon school officials by defendants. At issue was whether defendants' course of conduct in instigating complaints to school authorities against plaintiff was entitled to an absolute privilege under Brandt v. Winchell that would warrant dismissal of plaintiff's cause of actions with prospective contractual rights. Assuming the truth of the allegations in the complaint, the court must at this early stage of the litigation, conclude that defendants' conduct was not immunized by Brandt. View "Posner v Lewis" on Justia Law

This case arose when defendants' daughter revealed to her parents that plaintiff had raped and molested her when she was 10 and 12 years old. Defendants notified plaintiff's wife about her husband's alleged actions and informed her that defendants would file a civil suit against plaintiff. Plaintiff was never charged with a crime in connection with these allegations. Plaintiff adamantly denied that he had sexual contact with defendants' daughter and responded to these charges by commencing this action for defamation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that even if they made the statements that were attributed to them, those utterances were not actionable because they had truthfully relayed their daughter's accusations and merely expressed their belief in her veracity. Supreme Court denied defendants' motions, finding triable issues of fact based on the conflicting testimony of the parties. The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that the alleged statements were statements of opinion, not fact. The court held that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not defame plaintiff where, based on the conflicting recollections in this case, it was impossible to decipher exactly what was said by whom and the precise context in which the statements were made. View "Thomas H. v Paul B." on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute over ownership of Jacques Lipchitz's, the Russian-born cubist sculptor, bronze sculpture, "The Cry." Jacques' wife, Yulla, inherited the work of art after he died. Yulla subsequently entered into a relationship with Biond Fury and, from time to time, would make gifts to Fury of Jacques' works. Yulla's son, Mott, was the executor and a residuary beneficiary of one third of her estate. In July 2004, Mott claimed to have sold "The Cry" and three other sculptures in a package deal to Marlborough International Fine Art Establishment. On September 15, 2005, Fury sold his interest in "The Cry" to David Mirvish. The Surrogate's Court issued an order and subsequent to a settlement agreement, Mott argued in his motion that Mirvish's claim was untimely and he could not prove all elements of a gift. Mirvish countered Mott's motion and contended, inter alia, in his cross motion, that Yulla made a valid gift of the work to Fury. The court reversed the order of the Appellate Division and reinstated the Surrogate's Court's order granting Mirvish's cross motion and denying Mott's motion for summary judgment. The surrogate concluded that Yulla had made a valid inter vivos gift of the work to Fury, observing that the wording of the deed of gift was "in the past tense, i.e., 'I gave this sculpture "The Cry" to my good friend Biond Fury,'" which was not only "indicative of a past transfer," but also "clearly identifie[d] the intended object and [was] consistent with [Yulla's] long pattern of making gifts of similar items to her companion." View "Mirvish v Mott" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired after a motor vehicle stop. On appeal, defendant maintained that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce as proof of consciousness of guilt evidence that he refused to take a chemical breathalyzer test to determine his blood alcohol content when requested to do so by State Troopers. The court held that, since a reasonable motorist in defendant's position would not have understood that, unlike the prior encounters, the further request to speak to an attorney would be interpreted by the troopers as a binding refusal to submit to a chemical test, defendant was not adequately warned that his conduct would constitute refusal. Therefore, the evidence of that refusal was received in error at trial and the court reversed the conviction, remitting for a new trial. View "People v Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Michael Stolzman and Judith Rost, commenced separate actions against various defendants, including Michael and Susan Oliver, alleging claims for a violation of the Dram Shop Act, General Obligations Law 11-101, after Stolzman left the Olivers' party and backed his truck into oncoming traffic. Plaintiffs alleged that the Olivers served Stolzman an unreasonable amount of alcohol rendering him intoxicated and failed to control him while he was on their property. The court concluded that the Olivers were no longer in a position to control Stolzman when he entered his vehicle and drove away. Furthermore, the court concluded that "requiring social hosts to prevent intoxicated guests from leaving their property would inappropriately expand the concept of duty." The court also concluded that the Olivers had no duty to assist Stolzman as he pulled out of their driveway, or otherwise warn him that vehicles parked along the road to the driveway may obstruct the view when exiting. Accordingly, the Olivers' motion for summary judgment was granted. View "Martino v Stolzman" on Justia Law