Latest decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department
Business partner ordered to pay $742,993 after fraud ruling affirmed
The Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court decision ordering businessman Mark Gaft to pay $742,993 to his former business partner, Michael Yakubov, in a case involving claims of fraud and unjust enrichment. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment, which was based on a jury’s finding that Gaft deceived Yakubov and wrongfully benefited financially from their business relationship.
The case, which was filed in 2014, centered on Yakubov’s allegations that Gaft defrauded him of substantial business profits. The trial court admitted secondary evidence, including a ledger and testimony detailing missing records, which Gaft argued should have been excluded. The Appellate Division ruled that Yakubov sufficiently explained why original documents were unavailable, meeting the evidentiary standard.
Gaft’s appeal also argued that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that prejudgment interest was improperly awarded. The appellate panel found that the jury’s decision could reasonably be supported by the evidence and deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations. The appellate court said that Gaft’s objections regarding certain trial procedures were either unsupported by the record or unpreserved for review, affirming the trial court’s decisions on all counts.
~ Yakubov v. Gaft ~
New York lacks jurisdiction in personal injury case against Vermont companies
The Appellate Division, Second Department, has upheld a Kings County Supreme Court decision dismissing a personal injury lawsuit brought by New York resident Winston Trotman against two Vermont-based corporations, Priority Auto, Inc., and another defendant. The ruling affirms that New York courts lack jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants.
Trotman filed the lawsuit following a motor vehicle accident in Brooklyn involving a Budget rental truck that, he alleged, had recently been serviced by the defendants in Vermont. He claimed the companies’ negligent repairs caused his injuries and argued that New York’s long-arm statute permitted the court to exercise jurisdiction.
However, the court ruled that Trotman failed to demonstrate that the defendants met the requirements under New York’s CPLR 302(a)(3), which would require either substantial business activity or revenue derived from New York or significant interstate commerce. Additionally, Trotman did not establish that the defendants had “minimum contacts” with New York, as required by federal due process standards.
The Second Department upheld the Kings County Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint as a result and concluded that the Vermont corporations could not be sued in New York for Trotman’s injuries.
~ Trotman v. Priority Auto, Inc. ~
NYC emergency responders shielded from negligence claim, immunity doctrine upheld
The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld a Kings County Supreme Court ruling dismissing a lawsuit against New York City and its emergency services for alleged negligence during a 911 response. The ruling explained that actions taken by emergency responders in this case were protected by governmental immunity, as they involved discretionary decisions.
The case arose from a 2015 incident in which plaintiff Anita Walker-Rodriguez experienced a medical emergency, prompting her husband to call 911. A Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance staffed by emergency medical technicians arrived and, after assessing her condition, requested an Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance. The EMTs, however, chose to wait for the ALS unit rather than transport her immediately to a hospital five minutes away. Walker-Rodriguez later suffered injuries, including brain damage, which she attributes to the delayed treatment.
In their suit, the plaintiffs argued that New York City and its emergency services personnel were negligent in their response. The city moved for summary judgment, asserting that the actions taken fell under governmental immunity, a defense protecting discretionary actions performed during governmental functions.
The Second Department found that the emergency responders’ decisions, including dispatching a BLS ambulance and opting to wait for ALS paramedics, involved discretionary judgment. The court held that governmental immunity shielded the responders from liability, and affirmed the Kings County Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case.
~ Walker-Rodriguez v. City of New York ~
NYC bus driver found solely at fault in collision, limo cleared of liability
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a Kings County Supreme Court decision, ruling in favor of Luxor Limo, Inc., and its driver in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a collision with a New York City bus. The appellate court granted summary judgment to Luxor Limo, dismissing all claims against it and finding that the bus driver’s failure to yield was the sole cause of the accident.
The case arose from an incident in which Felicia Woodham, a passenger on a New York City Transit Authority bus, was injured when the bus collided with a Luxor Limo vehicle while pulling out of a bus stop. Luxor Limo argued that the bus driver, required by New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law to yield, entered the moving lane without doing so, leaving the limo driver with no time to avoid the collision.
The Second Department cited dashboard camera footage from the limo, which showed that the bus had entered the roadway without yielding and determined that Tomlinson acted lawfully and was not at fault. The court also dismissed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s argument that additional discovery was needed and said that the video evidence and the bus driver’s knowledge of the accident details rendered further investigation unnecessary. This ruling overturns the lower court’s decision and grants summary judgment in favor of Luxor Limo, holding the New York City bus driver solely responsible for the collision.
~ Woodham v. New York City Transportation Authority ~
Claims of contract interference by Nassau anesthesiologist dismissed due to insufficient evidence
The Appellate Division, Second Department, has upheld a Nassau County Supreme Court ruling dismissing several claims brought by anesthesiologist Song Yong Yu against colleagues and corporate entities connected to his former employer, Envision Physician Services. The appellate court’s decision confirms the lower court’s findings that Yu’s claims, including tortious interference with contract and employment discrimination, lacked sufficient factual basis.
Yu initially filed the suit in December 2021, alleging that fellow anesthesiologists and management committee members Matthew Giuca and Carl Schmigelski harassed him by assigning excessive weekend shifts and falsely accusing him of creating unsafe conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yu claimed this conduct led to his termination and constituted tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and emotional distress, among other causes.
The Second Department agreed with the Nassau County Supreme Court’s July 2022 decision, noting that Yu’s tortious interference claims were “vague and conclusory” and did not demonstrate that Giuca and Schmigelski acted outside the scope of their roles. Further, the court found no fiduciary duty owed by the defendants, as their corporate relationship with Yu did not establish such an obligation. The court also held that Yu’s claims of racial discrimination lacked specific factual support, deeming them insufficient under New York’s Executive Law § 296.
~ Song Yong Yu v. Envision Physician Services, LLC ~
Brooklyn drug conviction stands, no grounds found for appeal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, has upheld the Kings County Supreme Court conviction of Matthew Alvarado, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Alvarado had appealed his 2023 conviction, seeking to overturn the ruling.
The appeal was accompanied by a brief from Alvarado’s assigned counsel, who sought permission to withdraw from the case, citing no viable legal issues for further argument under Anders v. California. This legal precedent allows court-appointed attorneys to request withdrawal if they determine that no substantial grounds for appeal exist.
After an independent review of the case record, the Second Department agreed with counsel’s assessment, affirming the lower court’s decision and granting counsel’s request to withdraw. The appellate panel concluded that there were “no nonfrivolous issues” that could be pursued, effectively closing the case.
~ People v. Alvarado, Matthew ~
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment