Selected judicial and quasi-judicial decisions issued during the week ending January 14, 2023

The Doctrine of Laches may bar granting an applicant workers' compensation benefits

Applying the doctrine of laches may be triggered within the context of a workers' compensation claim when a party is deemed guilty of the "failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, accompanied by other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party" (Matter of Fuller v Jackson, 205 AD3d 1291) and the Workers' Compensation Board's determination regarding the applicability of the laches doctrine "will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Trombino v FMB Inc., 210 AD3d 1212. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00138.htm

Governmental function immunity

A governmental entity is not entitled to governmental function immunity when engaged in a proprietary function at the time of an accident (see Wittorf v City of New York, 23 NY3d 473; Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 21 NY3d 420). Nor is a governmental entitled to qualified immunity, in the absence of any evidence in the record that a study of the risks involved had been conducted (see Turturro v City of New York, 28 NY3d 469). Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00055.htm

Determining if a settlement agreement is binding

A settlement agreement signed by an attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney's actual authority, if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the agreement (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1st Dept 1992]). Under the relevant circumstances in this action, plaintiffs' attorney had, at least, apparent authority to enter into the settlement agreement, and it is binding upon plaintiffs (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 231). The Appellate Division also opined that plaintiffs implicitly ratified the settlement agreement by making no formal objection for nearly two years before asserting that the attorney's acceptance was unauthorized (see Hawkins v City of New York, 40 AD3d 327). Further, said the court, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that the settlement agreement was the result of fraud, collusion, or mistake. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00174.htm

Touching all the bases when a union wishes to initiate litigation on behalf of its members

An organization such as a union wishing to file a claim on behalf of its members must:

[1] establish that it has organizational standing to bring such claim; 

[2] show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue; 

[3] that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts; and 

[4] that the case would not require the participation of individual members. 

Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07484.htm