• Santiago v City of Rochester (October 1, 2004) -- A victim of misidentification and of inattention to the alibi evidence which exonerated him, the plaintiff was nonetheless barred from maintaining a false imprisonment action on timeliness grounds and a malicious prosecution action because there was no misconduct before the Grand Jury.

• Spalla v Village of Brockport (July 2, 2001)--If an innocent bystander is injured during a police chase, what is the municipality's liability? This decision was reversed in part by the Appellate Division on June 14, 2002.

• Turner v Village of Newark (May 8, 2001)--Does an imputation of malicious prosecution arise when someone with ties to the police seems to get preferred treatment?

• Carvotta v City of Rochester (March 29, 1996) -- Did a bar owner obstruct the police as they investigated a shooting at his premises?

• Maenza v Town of Irondequoit (November 13, 1996) -- What can the police do as they execute a search warrant?

• Colon v City of Rochester et al. (June 26, 2002) -- In a case of "defamation by photograph", an innocent party whose image was mistakenly shown on a TV documentary as that of a suspected murderer sued the agencies that supplied the photo and those involved with the broadcast.

• Smith v Allen (February 6, 2001) -- Does a qualified privilege protect members of a fraternal organization that has become something less than fraternal?

Intentional torts include battery, willful infliction of emotional distress, and sexual matters:

• Cleary v Methodist Church (August 26, 2002) -- The liability of a minister and the church hierarchy for a sexual affair with a married parishioner, and issues regarding counselling and the lack of consent.

Municipal law -- zoning and property taxes, for example -- is another source of litigation:

• Greece Park v Town of Greece et al. (No. 2) (October 7, 2004) -- Board's treatment of contiguous but separately-owned paring areas in a plaza as a single parking lot was not arbitrary or capricious.

• Kase v City of Rochester (March 26, 2004) -- Does the Multiple Residence Law keep the City from requiring a Certificate of Occupancy for two-family dwellings?

• Matter of Cerame v Town of Perinton (February 6, 2003) -- Environmental review must stay within the bounds of legitimate environmental concern. This decision was modified by the Appellate Division on procedural grounds, and the same factors led to a similar decision in Cerame v Town of Perinton No. 3 (November 8, 2004).

• Town of Sweden v Paul. -- (December 12, 2002) -- The Town has the right to enjoin a nonconforming business from continuing; with a discussion of the standard for such an injunction and the Town's authority to sue.

• Hunter v City of Rochester. (October 24, 2002) -- Cities have no special duty to protect meter readers from a dangerous dog.

• Anderson v City of Rochester (June 24, 2002) -- It's all right for the City to add building code violation fines to the tax bill, although the State Comptroller had disagreed.

• Matter of Cerame v Town of Perinton (April 3, 2002) -- Environmental review was required for the construction of a noise-reduction berm.

• Matter of Bianchi v Town of Greece (August 20, 2001) -- The applicant for a zoning change is a necessary party when one attacks that change in an Article 78 proceeding.

• Optitech v Town of Rush (December 12, 2000) --does a rental facility for construction-equipment belong in a high-tech office park?

• Town of Mendon v Bartholf (February 22, 2000) -- If motorcycle riding is permitted on private property, how about modifications of the property to make the riding better?

• Smith v Village of Naples (June 1, 1999) -- Is a construction rental business proper in a retail zone? How much leeway does the Zoning Board have in making these determinations?

• Vancheri v Passero, the City of Rochester and the County of Monroe (December 8, 1997) -- What kind of liability does a municipality have for the design of its roads and intersections? This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division on October 1, 1999.

• R.A.G.E. v Livingston County and R.A.G.E. v Mount Morris et al. (February 1, 1999) -- When can an environmental challenge be brought, and what kind of issues can be considered by the court?

• Irondequoit Land Use Coalition v Town of Irondequoit (September 23, 1993) -- Who has standing to oppose Town Board actions? Who is aggrieved by them?

• Harper Neighborhood Association v City of Rochester (September 24, 1994) -- When can a City reconsider its actions? This zoning case is intriguing because the City itself opposed its own board...Affirmed by the Appellate Division.

• Max Farash v City of Rochester (December 2, 1994) -- Tax-exempt status of rental property.

Civil procedure may bore a lot of people, but failure to adhere to the rules can be fatal. Those practicing may also do well to consider a guide to summary judgment practice, as well as pieces on collateral source reductions and on the right of health insurers to pursue a lien or subrogation claim after a verdict or settlement. In addition, attorney Carl Lustig has graciously contributed a useful article on calculating liens under Workers' Compensation Law § 29--a pitfall in many settlements.

• Matter of B. v Monroe County DSS et al. (December 6, 2004) -- County Clerk's refusal to accept petition when application was made for poor person status will not affect timeliness of commencement, which is deemed to have occurred when petitioner attempted to file the petition.

• Dugan v Cherkis (October 8, 2004) -- Notice for videotaping a deposition must be made 20 days before the deposition, in compliance with the general rules for noticing EBTs.

• Greece Park v Town of Greece No. 1 (August 13, 2004) -- Court approval is required to add parties to an Article 78 proceeding, though a motion to do so tolls the statute of limitations.

• Bielewicz v Maplewood Nursing Home (June 7, 2004) -- Records of nursing home quality assurance committees are entitled to the same protection as those of hospital committees.

• Quinlan v Rochester General Hospital (May 27, 2004) -- Unless an IME is scheduled, plaintiffs' discovery obligations may be satisfied with medical records; narrative reports are not required.

• Rochester Home Equity v Upton (October 29, 2003) -- Disclosures must be made in the mortgage process before the applicant can be obligated to pay fees. A case of first impression.

• Daniels v MCCSCU et al. (July 16, 2003) -- Priorities of an attorney's charging lien, the statutory lien of a Workers' Compensation carrier, and the child support enforcement unit. A case of first impression in New York.

• Finger v Amico et al. (July 16, 2003) -- Does a receivership created during a fight over an incapacitated person's assets terminate on her death? Includes an object lesson for those who would attempt a Medicaid spend-down by way of a power of attorney.

• Matter of NYS Board (October 23, 2002) -- A document from a physicians' self help group loses its statutory protection when supplied to an employer.

• Citizen's Oversight Committee v Monroe County District Attorney et al. (July 16, 2002) -- A pro se litigant with a lot on his mind but no clear idea of the rules.

• Stokes v Strong Health (June 10, 2002) -- When the defendant moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show at least a prima facie case--which may mean different results for different causes of action.

• Matter of American Financial v City of Rochester (May 28, 2002, amended June 10, 2002); and Matter of American Financial v City of Rochester (September 23, 2002) -- What happens if the clerk loses your filing?

• Walker v National Car Rental (April 30, 2002) -- One co-defendant defaults, and the other wants to open the default an put in an answer--but their interests are opposed. What should be done?

• Kennedy v Cedar Court (April 3, 2002) --A bizarre case involving wiretapping of a tenant who had complained about health conditions in her apartment complex, and the remedy for this violation.

• Matter of H. (January 16, 2002) -- Should a patient receiving mental health care be released because the hospital failed to act within statutory time limits to retain him without his consent?

• Because it was unanimously reversed by the Appellate division, Matter of McManus et al. v Relin et al. has been removed from this site.

• LaSalle National Bank v Maxwell et al. (October 12, 2001) -- The dangers of moving for summary judgment are illustrated here, because only certain lenders can write the 16.5 percent home equity loan here--and the foreclosing bank couldn't prove that this loan was legal.

• Simon v Town of Chili (September 1, 2000) -- Under what circumstances can an answer be amended to raise the defense of the Statute of Limitations?

• Kirschner-Orcutt v Sullivan (July 26, 2000)--Do attorneys engaged in arbitration have the subpoena power that they would in a court proceeding?

• Divelbliss v Bilancini (May 24, 2000)--Distinguishing between collateral source reductions in awards and insurance liens.

• DeFrancesco v Bement. (May 17, 2000)--What is the burden of proof when a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff has not suffered a serious injury as defined by the Insurance Law?

• Townley v Emerson Electric Co. (October 26, 1998) -- When can a parent corporation be held responsible for the acts of a subsidiary? This case considers both piercing the corporate veil and the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

• Doe v Wing No. 1 (May 14, 1998) -- When is a constitutional case ripe for review? (The merits of the case were resolved in a later decision, Doe v Wing No. 2.)

• Salway v Copeland (March 20, 1998) -- Is a plaintiff entitled to know if the defendant has carried out surveillance before he or she is deposed?

• RCSB v City of Rochester (September 27, 1996) -- an essay in interpreting two different sections of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, on whether one can rescue an action that wasn't properly started. The Fourth Department recently reversed this decision, but the reversal actually affirmed the conclusion this court preferred but because of precedent could not apply. A later amendment to the CPLR then mooted the entire issue.

• Marion v Inzana (October 23, 1996) -- Attorney's fees in foreclosure judgments.

• Lennar v Gifaldi (August 10, 1998) -- When does the 90-day limitation period begin to run for a deficiency motion in a foreclosure? In this case the buyer held on to a blank deed "in escrow" for a year, with unfortunate results. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on July 9, 1999.

• Matter of DiFede v Sobczak (February 27, 1997) -- The arcana of New York's notorious Election Law.

• Montgomery v Matos (April 28, 1997) -- Moving to dismiss after serving an answer.

Commercial disputes include both insurance questions and contracts:

• Greece Park v ABC (No. 3) (December 7, 2004) -- A right is defined by the delegation or surrender of specific powers, and is limited by them as well.

• Employee Relations v Xperius (June 18, 2003) -- Is continuity of ownership required to establish a de facto merger in contracts cases, or is the looser tort standard appropriate? The court held to the strict rule, for policy reasons.

• Cromer v 8 Prince Street (December 12, 2002) -- When a contract is in force there's no recovery in quantum meruit, and the contract's provsions for authorizing changes must be followed.

• Robbins v Harris Beach (January 10, 2001) -- Though this local ophthalmologist attempted to recover from his partnership's law firm on a theory of legal malpractice, this court saw the complaint as essentially seeking damages for a bad business decision. This decision was reversed by the Appellate Division on February 1, 2002.

• Roberts v Cobblestone (June 7, 2000) -- In a highly-publicized foreclosure of wildly over-valued properties, a supplier of lumber tries to get priority to get paid ahead of the construction lender. This decision was reversed by the Appellate Division on February 1, 2002.

• Citibank v DiNorma (January 8, 1999) -- The conduct of one law firm in challenging a credit card company's lawsuits.

• Peerless Insurance v Smith (November 4, 1998) -- Whether or not an adult child is a resident of her parent's house, when she changed residences frequently and could always return to her childhood home.

• Plonk v Conesus Corporation (September 11, 1998) -- What is the scope of a tenant's duty to name the landlord as an additional insured? This tendant sued the landlord after a fire neither had caused; the landlord then counter-claimed, arguing that the tenant's coverage should have protected the landlord.

• Lane v Security Mutual (175 Misc2d 616, February 2, 1998) -- A case of first impression, on the duty of an insurer to protect a policy holder when a relative, defined in the policy as an insured, causes the damage. This decision was initially reversed by the Appellate Division but was finally upheld by the Court of Appeals on February 8, 2001.

• Rochester Midland v Utica Mutual (February 2, 1993) -- Duty to defend in a pollution case under CERCLA, the "Superfund" law. Affirmed for reasons stated by the Appellate Division.

• Emerald Enterprises v Chili-Paul Plaza (July 22, 1996) -- When is a restaurant a restaurant? Or is it a "sports bar"? This decision was modified by the Appellate Division.

• Lugo v Town of Irondequoit (April 25, 1997) -- The duty to defend, again; with contract issues involved as well.

Negligence cases are what most people think of when they think of civil actions:

• Bleeg-Smith v Michael (October 27, 2004) -- A question of fact as to legal malpractice was raised by comparing the material available to a lawyer responding to a summary judgment motion with the material he submitted.

• Brown v Wilson Medical Center et al. (October 27, 2004) -- To survive a summary judgment motion there must be evidence of an actual involvement by medical personnel in the care decisions regarding a patient in malpractice cases.

• Guerin v Falcone (September 27, 2004) -- Under the no-fault law pain must be both medically established and lead to disability for 90 out of 180 days to constitute a serious injury; in itself it is not considered one.

• Bielewicz v Maplewood Nursing Home (June 7, 2004) -- There is no statutory right of action for negligence or malpractice in nursing homes when those causes of action are viable.

• Micca v Northern Hemisphere Gymnastics (April 23, 2004) -- What risks does a child assume when she enters a gynmastics class?

• Tarantelli v 7401 Willowbrook Road. (December 5, 2003) -- Unless the area is a genuinely public one, the landlord out of possession is not generally liable for dangerous conditions on property.

• Matter of Henderson Receivables (DeMallie) (December 5, 2003) -- A suggested rule for the sale of structured settlements: they should be permitted only upon proof of unforeseeable changed circumstances.

• Matter of Application of Emerald Funding (June 4, 2003) -- When can a structured settlement be sold to obtain advances on the payments? The legislature did not intend to expand this practice, and a clause denying payees both the right and power to alienate the settlement was still effective.

• Webster v Savary (May 3, 2003) -- If a prior owner's negligent installation of "dualie" wheels resulted in their coming off, the present owner is not liable under a theory of res ipsa loquitur.

• Thevanesan v Max (January 2, 2003) -- General principles for rear-end collisions, with very odd facts.

  Dromgoole v T-Foots and Laraby (December 12, 2002) -- The court pierced the corporate veil to allow Dram Shop plaintiffs to sue the owner of the bar as well as the bar itself.

• Harbec v Doan (November 4, 2002) -- You take your victim as you find him; and if you destroy a hard-to-replace car you're liable for the rental costs before a replacement can be found, as long as the plaintiff acted promptly to order a replacement.

• O'Neil v City of Rochester (June 24, 2002) -- Inviting people to a fireworks show downtown doesn't change the rules for municipal tort liability.

• Peters v State Farm (June 11, 2002) --Was a disclaimer by an insurance company improper when the insured assaulted the plaintiff? An interesting comparison with Matijiw, below. This decision was affirmed by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.

• Gray v Churchville-Chili School District (April 17, 2002) -- When does a school bus have to have its flashing red lights on?

• Iacovangelo v Hoffman (March 8, 2002) -- Are parents responsible for the accident that followed their child's taking the family car?

• D'Angelo v City of Rochester (October 15, 2001) -- Municipalities are not generally liable for reasonable decisions about how sidewalks or highways are to be built.

• Matijiw v New York Central Mutual. (June 19, 2001) If an insurer declines to defend on the grounds that an act was intentional, can it challenge a later determination that it was instead negligent when sued by the plaintiffs? This decision was reversed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in March, 2002.

• Nolan v AMF (January 5, 2001) -- A trip-and-fall in a bowling alley brought up questions of constructive notice and the burden of persuasion in summary judgment motions.

• Wright v City School District (August 30, 2000) -- Do the coaches bear responsibility when a player is gravely injured making in improper (and dangerous) head-first tackle in varsity play?

• Barton v Hapeman (October 2, 1997) -- What kind of risks do you accept when you play junior hockey?

Real Property cases contain some of the oldest rules in our legal tradition:

• Bohrer v Pluta (July 12, 2004) -- changing water flow from your property by pipes and drains renders you liable for damages caused by the runoff, even though the pipes were part of a mandated back-flow protection system.

• Cerame v Town of Irondequoit et al. (December 9, 2003) -- Easements for utility lines implied by long use, and how buyers may be put on notice of a duty to investigate.

• Booth v Hanson Aggregates (November 13, 2003) -- Stigma damages are permitted in an environmental lawsuit, but in a public nuisance case there must be something more than an allegation of declining property value to sustain a suit for either form of damages.

• Walther v Taranto (November 19, 2003) --A mortgage commitment conditioned on an appraisal is no commitment at all.

• Ramachandran v Cendant et al. (October 22, 2002) -- Liability for a special assessment in a condominium, where the owners misrepresented the condition of the roof and a relocation firm passed on the owners' false assurances to the eventual buyer.

• Agostinelli v Stein (October 14, 2003) -- Individual immunity for condo board members doesn't mean the board as a body can't be sued; and a no-subrogation clause between the condo community and the individual owners can't bind the insurance companies.

• Matter of Genesee & Wyoming Railroad v Brady (May 16, 2002) -- On the scope and determination of condemnation damages.

• Matter of Natapow v Schwab et al. (December 10, 2001) -- Standards and procedures for reviewing the assessment of a large partment complex.

• Long Beach v Pezzulo et al., (July 23, 2001) -- A fraudulent real estate transaction led to a foreclosure, in which both bank and buyer appear to be innocent; is there a fraud defense that can forestall summary judgment?

• Simon v Town of Chili (September 1, 2000) -- Listed above under Civil Procedure, it also addresses municipal liability for a long-standing flooding problem.

• Smith v Cole (March 20, 1998) -- How is a driveway easement created, and how can it be extinguished?

Copyright © 1994 - 1997 Andrew V. Siracuse and Michael Steinberg, except for text of decisions.

HOME GUIDES CASES ISSUES INDEX