NEGLIGENCE

 

Business Not Liable for Slip and Fall on Abutting Icy Sidewalk/”Special Use” Doctrine Explained

 

The Fourth Department determined the defendant funeral home could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s fall on an icy sidewalk in front of the home.  There was no statute or ordinance imposing liability on the abutting landowner (as opposed to the municipality), the funeral home did not derive a special use from the sidewalk, and the funeral home did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition. In explaining the “special use” doctrine, the court wrote:

 

Under the special use doctrine, a landowner whose property abuts a public sidewalk may be liable for injuries that are caused by a defect in the sidewalk when the municipality has given the landowner permission to “interfere with a street solely for private use and convenience in no way connected with the public use” and the landowner fails to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition … .  “A special use is typically characterized by the installation of some object in the sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof” … . Here, defendants established that the sidewalk was unencumbered by the installation of any objects or by other variances in construction, and plaintiff submitted no evidence that “the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner or occupier”… . Panzica v Fantauzzi…, 863, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

Storm in Progress Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant in Slip and Fall Case

 

In reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined the “storm in progress” doctrine warranted summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the defendant created the dangerous condition, noting that the failure to remove all the ice and snow and the failure to sand or salt a sidewalk does not constitute exacerbation of a dangerous condition.  With respect to the “storm in progress” doctrine, the Court wrote:

 

We conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant in support of his motion, including an affidavit from his expert meteorologist and the weather reports upon which that expert relied, established as a matter of law that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident … and, thus, that defendant had no duty to remove the snow and ice “until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm” ….  The accident occurred at approximately 8:45 a.m. on December 31, 2008, when plaintiff exited defendant’s store in the City of Rochester.  According to defendant’s expert meteorologist, a snowstorm began in the Rochester area late in the evening on December 30, 2008, and continued into the next day.  At 4:15 a.m. on December 31, the National Weather Service issued a “winter weather advisory” for the Rochester area and, two hours later, the advisory was upgraded to a “winter storm warning.”  More than 11 inches of snow accumulated in Rochester on December 31, which was a record for that date, and most of that snow fell during the early morning hours.  Indeed, plaintiff acknowledged during her deposition that it was snowing on the morning in question as she drove to the store, and that testimony was consistent with the testimony of defendant’s wife, among other witnesses. Glover v Botsford…, 959, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE/LEGAL MALPRACTICE

 

In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action/Legal Malpractice Case Alleging Failure to Adequately Investigate Can Go Forward

 

Plaintiff was attacked and injured in the lobby of his building.  He hired an attorney to bring a premises liability action.  The action was ultimately settled, but plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against the defendant attorney alleging the attorney did not adequately investigate the security of the building.  The First Department determined that plaintiff, who was described as unsophisticated in legal matters, had stated a cause of action because the defendant attorney admitted he had relied entirely on a brief conversation with the plaintiff about the security situation at the building before recommending settlement.  The First Department explained the relevant principles as follows:

 

For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, "a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for' the attorney's negligence" … . A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed "settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel" … . * * *

 

In this specific case, given plaintiff's lack of sophistication and his limited education, defendant's statement that he never conducted any investigation, except for speaking to plaintiff for a very limited time, raises a question of fact as to whether defendant adequately informed himself about the facts of the case before he conveyed the settlement offer. Furthermore, defendant says he told plaintiff, when he conveyed the settlement offer, that it was a "difficult liability case." It is difficult to understand, on the record before us, how he made that assessment without going to the building, or speaking to the superintendent. Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 05955, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

 

Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits

 

The Fourth Department determined competing experts raised a question of fact about whether the post-discharge arrangements for psychiatric treatment of plaintiff’s decedent were adequate.  Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide 16 days after he was released from defendant psychiatrist’s in-patient care:

 

…[P]laintiff submitted the affidavit of her unidentified expert, wherein the expert stated that the proper standard of care required that decedent, who had been prescribed multiple medications that had significant side effects, such as suicidal ideation, “be monitored closely by a psychiatrist from the point of his discharge.” It is undisputed that defendant approved the discharge without ensuring that decedent had a psychiatrist who could treat him. Additionally, defendant acknowledged at her deposition that decedent required psychiatric care upon discharge, but testified that it was not her responsibility to arrange for decedent’s post-discharge care and that this responsibility was “customarily [within] the purview of the social worker.”  Similarly, defendant’s expert stated in his affidavit that it was within the standard of care to delegate to a licensed social worker the task of arranging for post-discharge care. Plaintiff’s expert, however, disagreed, stating that “delegating the task to a social worker without insuring that the task was completed is a . . . deviation from the standard of care.”  We conclude that the conflicting opinions of the experts raise an issue of fact for trial… .  Mazella… v Beals…and Mashinik, 931, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE/DENTAL MALPRACTICE

 

Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Causes of Action

Dismissed as Duplicative

 

The Fourth Department dismissed as duplicative causes of action sounding in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in complaints against dentists also alleging malpractice, negligence, breach of General Business Law section 349 and 350, and failure to obtain informed consent, all based on dental treatment provided to children:

 

We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying those parts of their respective motions seeking dismissal of the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, and we therefore modify the order by dismissing the first and third causes of action of the amended complaints against defendants.  “Dismissal of a fraud cause of action is required ‘[w]here [it] gives rise to damages which are not separate and distinct from those flowing from an alleged [dental] malpractice cause of action’ ” … .  Inasmuch as the damages sought by plaintiffs, including punitive damages, are the same for the fraud and dental malpractice causes of action, we conclude that the fraud cause of action must be dismissed.  We further conclude that the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action must be dismissed because it is duplicative of the malpractice cause of action … .  Both the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and dental malpractice cause of action are based on the same facts and seek identical relief… . Matter of Small Smiles Litigation … v Forba Holdings LLC…, 996, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE/EVIDENCE

 

Emergency Doctrine Explained/Admissibility of Deposition

Excerpts Re: Summary Judgment Motion Explained/Bicyclist Injured When Path Allegedly Blocked to Protect Child

 

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiff-bicyclist was injured when, it is alleged, one of the defendants stepped into the bicyclist’s path to protect children who were crossing the street. The court explained the admissibility requirements for excerpts of deposition testimony and an unsworn police report, as well as the emergency doctrine:

 

The unsigned excerpts of …defendants' deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, were admissible under CPLR 3116(a) since they were submitted by the party deponents themselves and, accordingly, those transcripts were adopted as accurate by those deponents … . Additionally, although the defendants initially failed to submit the certification page of the depositions of nonparties …, as well as those for the depositions of …defendants, they submitted those certifications in reply papers in response to the plaintiffs' arguments in opposition … . Under the circumstances of this case, the late submission did not prejudice the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court properly considered these certifications …. Furthermore, although unsigned, as noted above, the transcripts … were certified, and the plaintiffs did not raise any challenges to their accuracy. Thus, the transcripts qualified as admissible evidence for purposes of the defendants' motion for summary judgment … . However, the unsigned, uncertified excerpt of the injured plaintiff's deposition was not in admissible form, nor was the uncertified, unsworn police report submitted by the defendants. Accordingly, neither of these items should have been considered in determining whether the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden … . * * *

 

"Under the emergency doctrine, when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context" … . " This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed'" … . " Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party's response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact'" … . Pavane v Marte, 2013 NY Slip Op 05991, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

 

 

FAMILY LAW

 

Criteria for Suspension of Judgment in Neglect Proceeding

 

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department explained the criteria for a suspension of judgment in a permanent neglect proceeding:

 

A dispositional order suspending judgment is a dispositional alternative, upon a finding of permanent neglect, that affords “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” … . In essence, an order suspending judgment provides the parent with a second chance, but it may be utilized only when the court determines that a second chance is in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633…). Moreover, the maximum duration of a suspended judgment is one year, unless the court finds at the conclusion of that period that “exceptional circumstances” require an extension of that period for one additional period of up to one year (Family Ct Act § 633[b]…). * * *

 

Family Court Act § 633© provides that an order suspending judgment “must set forth the . . . terms and conditions of the suspended judgment” (see also 22 NYCRR 205.50[b]) so that the Family Court may determine whether the parent has violated it … . Matter of Jesse D…, 2013 NY slip Op 06001, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

 

Neglect Finding Based on Children’s Exposure to

Bloody Domestic Violence Affirmed/Requirements for Admission of Police Reports Explained

 

In affirming Family Court’s finding of neglect based upon the children’s exposure to bloody violence involving the mother and her boyfriend, the Fourth Department noted that police reports should not have been admitted in evidence because they were not properly certified:

 

The mother correctly contends that Family Court erred in admitting police records in evidence inasmuch as the certification attached to those records failed to comply with Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (iv).  That statute provides that where, as here, a certification is completed by a “responsible employee” rather than the head of an agency, the certification “shall be accompanied by a photocopy of a delegation of authority signed by both the head of the . . . agency and by such other employee” (emphasis added).  The language of the statute is mandatory, and it is undisputed that “the requisite delegation of authority to [the employee] was lacking” … .  We must therefore “find the admission of these records to have been in error if we are to give effect to the clear and unambiguous intention of the [l]egislature”… . Matter of Kadyn J…, 929, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

Cognizable Counterclaim for

Breach of Domestic Partnership Stated

 

In finding defendant had stated a legally cognizable counterclaim for breach of a domestic partnership agreement, the Fourth Department explained:

 

With respect to domestic partnership agreements, “New York courts have long accepted the concept that an express agreement between unmarried persons living together is as enforceable as though they were not living together . . . , provided only that illicit sexual relations were not ‘part of the consideration of the contract’ ” … .  Additionally, there is no statutory requirement that such a contract be in writing … .  We conclude that here defendant sufficiently pleaded counterclaims for breach of a domestic partnership agreement and that the court therefore erred in dismissing the fourth and fifth counterclaims … . Ramos v Hughes, 866, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply When

Biological Mother Opposes Paternity Petition

 

In affirming Family Court’s dismissal of a paternity petition, the Fourth Department explained that the doctrine of equitable estoppel, urged to bar the mother from denying petitioner is the father of the child, did not apply:

 

“[T]he Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent” … .  It is well settled “that parentage under New York law derives from biology or adoption” …, and that “Alison D., in conjunction with second-parent adoption, creates a bright-line rule that promotes certainty in [custody situations] otherwise fraught with the risk of ‘disruptive . . . battles’ . . . over parentage as a prelude to further potential combat over custody and visitation” … .  As the Court of Appeals has stated, “any change in the meaning of ‘parent’ under our law should come by way of legislative enactment rather than judicial revamping of precedent” … .  Matter of White v Wilcox, 903, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

Proof Requirements Re: Whether An Account Is

Entirely Marital Property Explained

 

The Fourth Department explained the proof requirements where the defendant claimed the entire amount in a deferred compensation account should not have been deemed marital property:

 

According to defendant, the court improperly presumed that all of the funds in that account accumulated during the marriage, and he therefore contends that we should remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the “marital share” of that account as distinguished from his “separate property share.”  There is no merit to that contention. Pursuant to a statutory presumption, “all property, unless clearly separate, is deemed marital property,” and the burden rests with the titled spouse to rebut that presumption … . Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [d]).  “The party seeking to rebut that presumption must adequately trace the source of the funds” …; otherwise, the court may properly treat the funds as marital property … .  Here, it does not appear from the record that defendant offered any evidence establishing the amounts he contributed to his deferred compensation account before or during the marriage. Thus, he failed to meet his burden of establishing that any of the funds in that account are separate property, and we therefore conclude that the court properly presumed that the entire account constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution. Zufall v Zufall, 887, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE

 

Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand

Required Dismissal of the Action

 

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint after a demand should have been granted:

 

“To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action” … . Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden with respect to either prong of that test.  Concerning the first part of the test, plaintiff asserted that she delayed in filing the complaint because she did not receive defendant’s demand for the complaint.  In our view, that excuse is not reasonable… .  Service of the demand for the complaint was complete upon - mailing (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]), and defendant’s submission in support of its motion of a proper affidavit of service of the demand entitled it to the presumption that a proper mailing occurred … .  We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s mere denial of receipt of the demand was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Even assuming, arguendo, that nonreceipt of the demand was a reasonable excuse, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action with a verified complaint or an affidavit of merit, and thus dismissal of the action is required… . Dunlop v Saint Leo the Great, RC Church, 865, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

Timeliness Requirements for Motion for

Summary Judgment Explained

 

In affirming the trial court’s determination defendants’ motion for summary judgment was untimely, the Fourth Department explained the applicable law:

 

“Where . . . a court does not set a date by which summary judgment motions must be made pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), such a motion must be made no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue ‘except with leave of court on good cause shown’ ” … .  Good cause in the context of CPLR 3212 (a) “requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion—a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness—rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy”… .  O’Brien v Bainbridge…, 990, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

Failure to Serve Claim by Certified Mail Deprived

Court of Claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

 

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissal of an action for failure to comply with the statutory service-of-claim-by-certified-mail requirement.  The court noted that the court never gained subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the CPLR 3211 (e) waiver provision, which addressed personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction, did not apply:

 

…[C]laimants served their claim on the Attorney General by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11. Defendant’s answer raised the defense that the court lacked, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction based on claimants’ improper service, and defendant later moved to dismiss the claim on that ground.  Claimants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order deeming the service corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001. The court granted defendant’s motion and denied claimants’ cross motion, and we now affirm.

 

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against the State of New York must serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested.  It is well settled that “nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary” … .  Inasmuch as the claim herein was served by regular mail, the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim … . Contrary to claimants’ contention, defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper service, made approximately 20 months after service of its answer, was not precluded by the 60-day waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (e).  The failure to comply with the service requirements in the Court of Claims Act “result[s] not in a failure of personal jurisdiction, . . . but in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction[,] which may not be waived”… . Zoeckler…, v State of New York, 883, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

MUNICIPAL LAW

 

Criteria for County’s Immunity from Village Ordinances Explained

 

In remitting the matter to create a more complete record, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for determining whether the county is immune from the requirements of village ordinances prohibiting the use of the village sanitary system for a county jail within the village limits:

 

We agree with the Village that the record is inadequate to make a determination, based upon a “balancing of public interests,” whether the County is immune from the requirements of those amendments with respect to its siting of the proposed Facility … .  The factors to be weighed in making that determination are “the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests[,] . . . the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, . . . alternative methods of providing the needed improvement[,] . . . intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard” … .  Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance… . Matter of County of Herkimer v Village of Herkimer, 937, 4th Dept 9-27-13.

 

 

City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally

Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy

 

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of an Article 78 petition. In granting the petition, Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the city code and charter were unconstitutional as applied with respect to searches of petitioner’s property in connection with the issuance of certificates of occupancy.  In reversing that determination, the Fourth Department wrote:

 

We have previously upheld as constitutional the City’s CO requirement as well as its procedure for issuing judicial warrants for inspections of premises in cases where the City has failed to obtain the consent of the homeowners or tenants … .  Petitioner concedes that the laws at issue are valid on - their face, but contends that the determination that he violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d) is unconstitutional because, as a result of the determination, he will be required to consent to a warrantless inspection of his property or risk prosecution and fines.  That contention, however, was specifically considered and rejected by this Court in Matter of Burns v Carballada (101 AD3d 1610, 1611-1612), which involved facts nearly identical to those herein.  The petitioners in Burns commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of the Municipal Code Violations Bureau finding that they violated City Code § 90-16 (A) (2) (d), the same provision at issue here, by owning rental property that was occupied without a valid CO (id. at 1610).  In the Burns petition, like the petition in this case, petitioners asserted, inter alia, that the determinations that they failed to comply with the City Code CO provision violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution (id.).  Specifically, petitioners contended that the City’s CO inspection and warrant system was unconstitutional as applied to them because it prevented them from obtaining a CO without first consenting to a warrantless search of their properties (id. at 1611-1612).  We rejected that contention and stated that, “[u]nder the City’s ordinance, . . . an inspection can take place either upon consent or upon the issuance of a warrant (see City Charter § 1-11).  On the record before us, petitioners have not shown that they were actually penalized for refusing to allow an inspection inasmuch as there is no evidence that they ever applied for a CO and thereafter refused to consent to the required inspection of their properties” (id. at 1612).  Matter of Capon v Carballada…, 858, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

 

 

 

REAL PROPERTY

 

Ten Year Adverse Possession Period Began After Ten Year Permissive Use Period Expired

 

The Second Department determined that plaintiffs acquired property by adverse possession, even though the initial use of the property was by permission. The permission ceased by statute after ten years, and another ten years of hostile use passed:

 

A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the following common-law requirements of adverse possession: that the possession was (1) hostile and under claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period of 10 years … . Here, only the first element is in dispute. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs' use of the properties was by permission. * * *

 

…[A] landlord/tenant relationship existed between the parties and their predecessors and, therefore, RPAPL 531 applies. Since no written lease existed and the admissible evidence established that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor paid rent for their use of the properties since July 21, 1981, any permission that may have been granted to the plaintiffs or their predecessor to use the properties effectively ceased after 10 years (see RPAPL 531…). Thus, by operation of RPAPL 531, the plaintiffs' adverse possession of the properties commenced on July 21, 1991. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs established their hostile use of the properties for a period of 10 years after the permissive period expired …, and that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to a judgment declaring them to be the owners in fee simple absolute of the subject properties. Auto Gobbler Parts, Inc v Serpico, 2013 NY Slip Op 05977, 2nd Dept, 9-25-13

 

 

Question of Fact Whether Initial Broker Entitled to Commission

 

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined there was a question of fact about whether a real estate broker was entitled to a commission because it generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the sale:

 

To prevail on its cause of action to recover a commission, the plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, that it was "the procuring cause of the sale" … . "To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation" … . However, "a broker . . . does not automatically and without more make out a case for commissions simply because he [or she] initially called the property to the attention of the ultimate purchaser" … . "Where, as here, the broker is not involved in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the deal, the broker must establish that [it] created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded or that it generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the sale" … . Talk of the Town Realty v Geneve, 2013 NY Slip Op 05997, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES

 

Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commission for

Misconduct Explained (Commission Was Not Denied Here)

 

The First Department explained the criteria for determining whether a trustee can be denied an annual commission for misconduct.  The court ultimately concluded the commission should not be denied in this case:

 

We conclude that courts have the discretion to take into consideration all of a trustee's misconduct in determining the grant of annual commission, even conduct that occurred after the period applicable to the commission. Although there are no appellate cases on point, no New York case holds otherwise. As a basic principle, the Surrogate has broad discretion to deny commission to a trustee if the trustee has engaged in misconduct … . In determining if a commission should be denied, misconduct that is not directly related to the commission being sought may be taken into consideration … . The Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 243 supports this conclusion with a multi-factor analysis (Comment c). Among the factors to be considered under the Restatement in determining if a commission should be denied are whether the trustee acted in good faith, if the misconduct related to management of the whole trust and if the trustee completed services of value to the trust (id.). We conclude, therefore, it is within the court's discretion to determine whether the trustee's later misconduct bars her from receiving commission.

 

Trustees can be denied commission "where their acts involve bad faith, a complete indifference to their fiduciary obligations or some other act that constitutes malfeasance or significant misfeasance" …. The denial of a commission, however, should not be "in the nature of an additional penalty" (Restatement 243, Comment a). Rather, it should be based on the trustee's failure to properly serve the trust, not designed as an additional punishment … . Indeed, even the beneficiaries in this case state that it will be rare that a trustee's later misconduct will serve as the basis for a denial of commission. Matter of Gregory Stewart Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 06079, 1st Dept 9-26-13

 

 

 

LANDLORD/TENANT

 

Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations

Does Not Apply Where There Is Fraud

 

The First Department noted that the four-year statute of limitations for rent-overcharge actions does not apply where fraud in involved, because the fraud renders the underlying lease void:

 

We are not persuaded that plaintiffs' overcharge claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. As we noted in Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin. (68 AD3d 29, 32, affd 15 NY3d 358, 366 [2010] [citations ommitted]), "while the applicable four-year statute of limitations reflects a legislative policy to alleviate the burden on honest landlords to retain rent records indefinitely,' and thus precludes us from using any rental history prior to the base date, where there is fraud . . . the lease is rendered void[,]" and the legal rent is to be determined by the default formula … . We went on to note that "[s]anctioning the owner's behavior on a statute of limitations ground can result in a future tenant having to pay more than the legal stabilized rent for a unit, a prospect which militates in favor of voiding agreements such as this in order to prevent abuse and promote enforcement of lawful regulated rents'" … . We thus hold that the four year statute of limitations is not a bar in a rent overcharge claim where there is significant evidence of fraud on the record… . Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05956, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

 

ANIMAL LAW

 

Question of Fact About Whether Horse Owner

Liable for Injuries to Novice Rider

 

The Fourth Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the owners of a horse which allegedly brushed up against a tree, injuring the novice rider.  The court explained that the “knowledge of vicious propensities” doctrine applied here because there was evidence the defendants knew the horse had a propensity to ride too close to trees, the general release signed by plaintiff was void as against public policy, and the defendants did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff had assumed the increased risk of horseback riding alleged here:

 

It is well settled that “the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … .  “[A]n animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” (id. at 447).  In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, wherein she testified that defendant and a guide employed by the Ranch instructed plaintiff to push off of the trees if the horse walked too closely to the trees on the single-file woodland trail.  * * *

 

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants conclusively demonstrated that plaintiff executed the release, we conclude that, under these circumstances, where the riding lesson was ancillary to the recreational activity of horseback riding, General Obligations Law § 5-326 renders the release void as against public policy… .* * *

 

Finally, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risk of horseback riding.  Horseback riding “[p]articipants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks” … .  Here, defendants submitted evidence that raised a question of fact whether they unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by using a bitless bridle on their horses, which did not provide plaintiff with the ability to control the horse, and by failing to give plaintiff, who was a novice rider, adequate instructions on how to control the horse … .  Vandeerbrook v Emerald Springs Ranch…, 855, 4th Dept 9-27-13