Latest decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department

April 29, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

The Appellate Division, Second Department, located in Brooklyn Heights, has issued rulings on several cases, modifying previous decisions on matters ranging from breach of contract and personal injury to property disputes and scientific evidence standards in lawsuits. Brooklyn Eagle photo by Rob Abruzzese

Legal relief for condo manager in Brighton Tower lawsuit, other allegations stand

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has partially modified a 2019 ruling by the Supreme Court of Kings County in a legal battle involving the Board of Managers of the Brighton Tower II Condominium and Brighton Builder, LLC, along with other defendants. Justice Devin P. Cohen originally presided over the case, which centered on allegations of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion related to a condominium construction and subsequent issues post-Hurricane Sandy.

The case was brought against Brighton Builder LLC, its manager and controlling principal Leon Mikhlin, and Mikhlin Holdings Inc. after the condominium suffered damages during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, followed by claims of untimely or incomplete repairs and misuse of funds. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims against Mikhlin for breach of contract was appealed, leading to the recent appellate modification.

The Appellate Division agreed with the defendants that Mikhlin, as a principal who signed the condominium’s offering plan, should not be held personally liable for breaches of contracts that he signed only in his capacity as the sponsor’s authorized signatory. The court ruled that such a role does not inherently subject him to personal liability unless the corporate veil is pierced, which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

However, the court upheld the decision to maintain the claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion against the defendants, rejecting the notion that these were barred by the statute of limitations or lacked merit.

Scientific basis for mold injury claims fails legal standard, court rules

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has reversed a decision from the Supreme Court of Kings County regarding a personal injury lawsuit involving Ashley Buist and Bromley Company LLC. The case, originally presided over by Justice Francois A. Rivera, dealt with claims that Buist suffered various health issues due to mold exposure in her rented apartment. The Supreme Court had previously denied a motion to preclude expert testimony on the causation of Buist’s ailments, a decision that has now been overturned by the appellate court.

The legal issue at the heart of this appeal was whether the scientific theories presented by Buist’s expert, linking mold exposure to her specific health conditions, were generally accepted in the scientific community, a requirement under the Frye standard. This standard mandates that for expert testimony to be admissible, the scientific basis for the causation claims must be widely accepted among relevant professionals. The appellate panel, including Justices Mark C. Dillon, Cheryl E. Chambers, Helen Voutsinas and Carl J. Landicino, found that Buist’s expert’s opinions on both general and specific causation did not meet this threshold.

The appellate decision emphasized that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish that exposure to mold at levels found in Buist’s apartment could cause the health issues she experienced. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s expert testimony on causation should be precluded.

Mixed outcome in Kings County property dispute: Quiet title rejected, constructive trust claim stands

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has modified a decision from the Supreme Court of Kings County involving a long-standing real estate dispute between Heriberto Morales and Ada Rolon. The case, overseen by Justice Robin K. Sheares in the lower court, centered on Morales’ claim that he had an oral agreement with Ada Rolon and Juan Rolon to own property that was never officially deeded to him. Morales sought to impose a constructive trust on the property and to quiet title against Ada Rolon, who currently holds the property title.

The appellate court upheld the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Ada Rolon’s motion for summary judgment on the constructive trust issue, suggesting there could still be merit to Morales’s claims of unjust enrichment based on the alleged oral agreement. However, the court reversed the lower court’s decision regarding the quiet title action, finding Morales lacked standing as he could not demonstrate an actual interest or possession of the property, which is necessary to pursue such claims.

The appellate ruling clarifies that while Morales might have an argument for unjust enrichment, he lacks the legal standing required to challenge the title itself without concrete evidence of ownership or possession.

Appellate Court stresses mandatory compliance in defendant service

The Appellate Division, Second Department has overturned a Supreme Court decision in a personal injury case at a high school that involves plaintiff John Doe against defendant David Doe under the Child Victims Act.

The central legal issue on appeal was whether David Doe had been properly served with the lawsuit against the defendant. The appellate panel, led by Judge Colleen Duffy, found that the initial process service did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 308(2) because the affidavit of service purportedly failed to confirm that the summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant’s residence as required. The appellate court criticized this oversight and reversed the decision, calling for a new hearing to verify the services.

The appeals court explained the importance of a reliable service of process, stressing that it serves as a defendant’s formal notice of the proceedings against them.

Appellate Division evaluates breach of contract claims under CPLR standard

The Appellate Division, Second Department upheld a Kings County Supreme Court decision in a commercial lease dispute between 1470 39th Street LLC and David Goldberg. This appeal was presided over by a panel including Judges Colleen Duffy, William Ford, Deborah Dowling and Lourdes Ventura, affirming the lower court’s ruling that had denied Goldberg’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims.

The legal issue at the heart of the appeal revolved around Goldberg’s challenge to the initial complaint’s sufficiency and his assertion that documentary evidence conclusively negated the plaintiff’s allegations. Goldberg’s motion was initially rejected by Judge Richard Velasquez of the Kings County Supreme Court on August 30, 2021, prompting the appeal.

In their decision, the Appellate Division emphasized the standard judicial procedure on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), which obliges courts to accept as true the plaintiff’s allegations, granting all favorable inferences. The panel reviewed additional evidentiary material alongside the complaint, which reinforced the breach of contract claims related to unpaid rent and additional tax fees.

The appellate judges concluded that the documentary evidence presented by Goldberg did not irrefutably establish a defense against the claims as a matter of law. They affirmed the lower court’s decision, allowing 1470 39th Street, LLC, to continue pursuing damages.