Second Department partially reverses in Child Victims Act case: foster care agency’s negligence and Social Services Law § 413 reporting claims survive summary judgment, but punitive damages are dismissed and school district escapes liability for acts of an agency-employed abuser.
Second Department reverses and dismisses hostile work environment and religious discrimination claims against faculty union (PSC) and its president, holding that unions have no affirmative duty to prevent workplace harassment because they do not control the employer’s work environment.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed MCRA and defamation verdicts against neighboring property owners who mounted a campaign of threats and false statements against a cannabis retailer’s permit and property rights, holding that the absolute litigation privilege did not shield demands and defamatory statements made in private meetings and community settings unrelated to the defendants’ pending Land Court lawsuits. The civil conspiracy judgment was reversed because the underlying “extortion” theory was tied to a c. 93A claim on which the defendants had prevailed; extortion is not a freestanding civil tort in Massachusetts. The $178,743.25 MCRA attorney’s fee award was affirmed as timely and reasonable; fee petitions under civil rights statutes are not subject to the Rule 59(e) deadline and need not be proportionate to damages.
Second Department modifies ASA ruling against Goodyear: post-18 IIED and negligence claims dismissed on respondeat superior and WCL exclusivity grounds, but NY Human Rights Law hostile work environment claim survives.
The Third Department reverses and holds that a police officer who suffered psychological trauma from a station-house shooting is a “crime victim” under New York’s Son of Sam Law without needing to show physical injury, broadly construing Executive Law § 632-a.
The Fourth Department bars a state premises-liability claim arising from hepatitis A contraction in Erie County jail under collateral estoppel, based on the federal court’s explicit finding that the plaintiff produced no evidence of unsanitary conditions, and dismisses punitive damages against the municipality.
The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed a grandparent visitation order entered after the mother was forced to proceed pro se, holding Family Court violated her statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 by relieving her second assigned attorney without finding forfeiture based on egregious conduct.
The Appellate Division, Third Department held that the State Police must individually review and justify each redaction in its officer misconduct spreadsheet rather than applying a blanket personal-privacy exemption, while upholding FOIL counsel fee awards for the agency’s unreasonable denial.
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a dismissal and reinstated a class action challenging the NYPD’s practice of routinely handcuffing all arrestees during arraignment without judicial approval, finding the policy states a viable due process claim under the New York State Constitution.
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirms summary judgment dismissing race discrimination and retaliation claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL brought by a former MetroPlus executive whose employment was terminated following a state Medicaid audit, finding defendants provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason that plaintiff failed to show was pretextual.
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirms leave to amend a Child Victims Act complaint to correct an incorrectly listed address for a defendant Roman Catholic church, rejecting appellants’ argument that the amendment introduces a new defendant after the CVA revival window closed.
A claimant who filed within the Adult Survivors Act’s revival window cannot amend after that window closes to add entirely new incidents of sexual abuse beyond those pleaded in the original claim, even if the proposed incidents involve the same parties or the same correctional facilities.
The First Department dismissed gender-motivated violence and intimate-recording claims in a divorce action, holding that the NYC Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act requires allegations of gender-based animus beyond possessive or jealous conduct, and that both NYC Administrative Code § 10-180 and Civil Rights Law § 52-b apply only to visual depictions — not audio recordings.