A Two-Justice Dissent Did Not Raise a Question of Law Reviewable by the Court of Appeals; Appeal Dismissed.
Shaw v City of Rochester, 2022 NY Slip Op 05197, Ct App 9-15-22
Hearings Required for Vacating Conviction on “Recanted Testimony,” “Actual Innocence” and “Ineffective Assistance” Grounds.
People v Werkheiser, 2022 NY Slip Op 05188, Third Dept 9-15-22
Landlord Did Not Prove Tenant Abandoned the Leased Premises; Tenant Entitled to Damages for Being Locked Out.
Patton v Modern Asian, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05192, Third Dept 9-15-22
Plaintiff’s Expert Should Have Been Allowed to Testify the Slippery Stairs Violated an Industry Custom, as Opposed to a Statute or Regulation.
- Searchable, Organized Database of Over 14,000 Decision-Summaries
- “Latest Posts” Updated Weekly
- Weekly Reversal Reports
- Weekly Reversal Newsletters
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Reports
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Newsletters
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Reports
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Newsletters
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Reports
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Newsletters
- First Department Quarterly Reversal Reports
- Second Department Quarterly Reversal Reports
- Third Department Quarterly Reversal Reports
- Fourth Department Quarterly Reversal Reports
- Family Law Quarterly Reversal Reports
- Court of Appeals Semi-Annual Reports
- Civil Procedure Update CLE’s
- Personal Injury Update CLE’s
- Criminal Law Update CLE’s
THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT NECESSARILY AFFECT THE FINAL JUDGMENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal, in a brief memorandum decision, held that the two-justice dissent (which would normally require review by the Court of Appeals) did not present a reviewable question of law:
… [A]ppeal dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law which would be reviewable by the Court of Appeals (see CPLR 5601 [a]; 5501 [a] [1]). The dissent was predicated on an order denying partial summary judgment that did not necessarily affect the judgment from which the appeal was taken (see Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 38 NY3d 1023 [2022]). Shaw v City of Rochester, 2022 NY Slip Op 05197, Ct App 9-15-22
Below is the summary of Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Ins. (cited by the Court of Appeals in Shaw, supra):
The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division order denying summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case did not “affect the final judgment” after trial. Therefore the order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals:
The 2018 Appellate Division order may be reviewed on appeal from a final paper only if, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a), the nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment. “It is difficult to distill a rule of general applicability regarding the ‘necessarily affects’ requirement” … and “[w]e have never attempted, and we do not now attempt, a generally applicable definition” … . That said, to determine whether a nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment, in cases where the prior order “str[uck] at the foundation on which the final judgment was predicated” we have inquired whether “reversal would inescapably have led to a vacatur of the judgment” … . This is not such a case. In other cases, we have asked whether the nonfinal order “necessarily removed [a] legal issue from the case” so that “there was no further opportunity during the litigation to raise the question decided by the prior non-final order” … .
In resolving plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division held that factual questions existed as to whether a statutory violation occurred and as to proximate cause, or more specifically as to whether plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . That nonfinal order did not remove any issues from the case. Rather, the question of proximate cause and liability was left undecided. The parties had further opportunity to litigate those issues and in fact did so during the jury trial. Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02835, CtApp 4-28-22
Practice Point: A nonfinal order is not appealable to the Court of Appeals unless it “affects the final judgment.” If questions of fact remain after the nonfinal order is issued, the order does not “affect the final judgment” and is not appealable. Here the nonfinal order was the Appellate Division’s denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The order left open factual questions resolved at trial. Therefore the order did not “affect the final judgment.”
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO HEARINGS ON HER SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ACTUAL INNOCENCE AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child. Defendant presented affidavits from six witnesses stating the victim had recanted her trial testimony. Defendant’s motion warranted hearings on: (1) the newly discovered evidence (the recantation); (2) actual innocence; and (3) ineffective assistance (failure to present expert evidence to refute the People’s reliance of the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome [CSAAS]):
To prevail [the newly-discovered evidence] claim, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that the evidence meets “the following requirements: (1) it must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be cumulative to the former issue; and[] (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence” … . * * *
… [W]e conclude that the six affidavits, together with the copies of text messages between victim B and some of the affiants,[FN1] were sufficient to warrant the holding of a hearing, such that County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence in the absence of such a hearing was error … . * * *
… [D]efendant has established her entitlement to a hearing on her claim of actual innocence. “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the court” … .* * *
… [A] defendant may establish that he or she was denied meaningful representation in connection with the failure to call an expert witness by “demonstrat[ing] that such testimony was available, that it would have assisted the jury in its determination or that he [or she] was prejudiced by its absence” … . People v Werkheiser, 2022 NY Slip Op 05188, Third Dept 9-15-22
Practice Point: Here the defendant was entitled to hearings on her second motion to vacate her convictions for predatory assault of the child. She presented newly-discovered evidence (the victim’s recantation) requiring a hearing. Her claims of actual innocence and ineffective assistant (failure to refute the People’s reliance on CSAAS) also warranted hearings.
LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TENANT ABANDONED THE LEASED PREMISES AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FOR THE PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER TENANT WAS LOCKED OUT; TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED IN THE LEASED PREMISES AFTER THE LOCKOUT (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing the plaintiffs’ verdict in this landlord-tenant dispute, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendants had abandoned the leased premises, a restaurant. Therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to recover rent after defendants were locked out by the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs did not submit sufficient proof of the alleged rent arrears (prior to the lockout). Defendants were entitled to recover on their unjust enrichment counterclaim for the value of the personal property which remained in the restaurant after the lockout:
As relating to commercial premises, “a landlord may avail himself or herself of a lease provision permitting reentry upon breach of conditions as long as he or she reenters peaceably” … . Certain evidence indicating abandonment may include failure to pay bills and rent, surrender of keys and physical relocation of business or personal items previously kept at the subject property … . Contrary conduct found not to demonstrate an intent to abandon a premises includes conduct such as leaving commercial equipment on the premises, paying the utilities, paying lump sum arrears, negotiating the sale of the business that included the leasehold and threatening to call the police on a landlord over a lockout … .
At trial, plaintiffs offered limited evidence of abandonment, namely, that plaintiff Martin P. Patton drove by the restaurant several times in May 2018 or June 2018 and observed it was closed and that defendants were behind on rent, although Patton was not exactly sure what days or what times he drove by or the total amount of rent arrears. In contrast, Chen [the tenant] testified that, although business was declining, he continued to pay the rent and began to contact potential buyers to take over the restaurant and lease. According to Chen, the restaurant operated the day before the lockout and, when he returned the next day to find the locks changed, he called plaintiffs, who did not respond to him, and then he called the police, who generated an incident report. Defendants entered into evidence several photographs of the premises depicting equipment, furniture, powered-on televisions, liquor bottles on display at the bar and other chattel owned by defendants … . Patton v Modern Asian, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05192, Third Dept 9-15-22
Practice Point: Here the landlord was unable to prove at trial that the tenant had abandoned the leased premises. The landlord was not entitled to rent for the period before and after the tenant was locked out. The tenant was entitled to recover the value of the personal property remaining on the leased premises after the lockout.
THERE WAS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL DRAIN PIPE WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MERE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL EVIDENCE TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was not premature and should have been granted. There was video evidence and photographs depicting an unlawfully disconnected drain pipe which was the source of the ice on the sidewalk:
“Although determination of a summary judgment motion may be delayed to allow for further discovery where evidence necessary to oppose the motion is unavailable to the opponent of the motion (see CPLR 3212[f]), ‘[a] determination of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence'” … . …
… [W]here the icy condition on the sidewalk as well as Sloan’s fall are clearly depicted on a surveillance video and the condition of the drain pipe over time is revealed in photographs of the building, the defendants have offered nothing more than hope and speculation that additional discovery might uncover evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the cause of [plaintiff’s] fall, and their notice of the defective condition of the drain pipe … . Sloan v 216 Bedford Kings Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05173, Second Dept 9-14-22
Practice Point: Where plaintiff makes out a prima facie case and the defendant doesn’t raise a question of fact, defendant’s mere hope that discovery will provide evidence to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is not enough to support denial of the motion aa premature.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER PREVIOUSLY FILED FRIVOLOUS VISTATION PETITIONS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED HER FROM FILING FUTURE PETITIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have prohibited mother from filing visitation petitions without leave of court:
The Family Court should not have prohibited the mother from filing petitions for visitation after October 22, 2021, without written leave of the court, since there is no basis in the record to demonstrate that the mother filed frivolous petitions or filed petitions out of ill will or spite … . Matter of Genao-Archibald v Archibald, 2022 NY Slip Op 05166, Second Dept 9-14-22
Practice Point: If there is no evidence in the record that mother previously filed frivolous or spiteful petitions for visitation, the appellate court will reverse a judge’s prohibition of future petitions without leave of court.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT TESTIFY THE STAIRWAY VIOLATED ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THE EXPERT COULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION VIOLATED A CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AS REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS STANDARDS; THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert (Fein) in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been precluded from testifying. Although the expert could not testify the condition of the stairway violated a code or regulation, he could have testified the slippery condition violated a custom in the industry represented by the American Society for Testing Materials standards:
The absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance is not dispositive of the plaintiff’s allegations based on common-law negligence principles … . Accordingly, a defendant may be held negligent for departing from generally accepted customs and practices even when the allegedly defective condition is in compliance with the relevant codes and ordinances … .
Had Fein been permitted to testify, he could have addressed whether the coefficient of friction of the subject staircase, as measured during his inspection, was a departure from generally accepted customs and practices, and whether the defendants were negligent in failing to correct it … . Fein could have testified as to the American Society for Testing Materials standards, even though the Supreme Court correctly stated that they were not law. Fein could have testified as to whether those standards represented the general custom or usage in the industry, and the jury could have considered any deviation from those standards as some evidence of negligence . Any purported shortcomings in Fein’s testing go to the weight to be given his testimony, not its admissibility … …. [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion in limine to preclude the plaintiff from presenting the proposed expert testimony relating to the American Society for Testing Materials standards regarding the coefficient of friction, and the preclusion of this testimony deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Martell v Dorchester Apt. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05164, Second Dept 9-14-22
Practice Point: Here in this stairway slip and fall, the expert could not testify the stairway violated any statute or code. However the expert was prepared to testify the slippery condition violated a custom in the industry as represented by the American Society for Testing Materials standards, which may be evidence of negligence. The experts should have been allowed to testify.
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Simonsen) in this foreclosure action was never given notice to appoint new counsel after his attorney (Sirianni) was suspended and withdrew from the case. Even though, in granting the Sirianni’s motion to withdraw, the court directed defendant to retain new counsel or continue pro se, defendant was never provided with the notice required by CPLR 321(c). Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted:
CPLR 321(c) provides, inter alia, that “[i]f an attorney dies, becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, or is removed, suspended or otherwise becomes disabled at any time before judgment, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action against the party for whom he [or she] appeared, without leave of the court, until thirty days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party.” “[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … . “It lies within the power of the other side to bring the stay to an end by serving a notice on the affected party to appoint new counsel within 30 days” … . The protections of CPLR 321(c) can be waived where the party elects to proceed pro se … . …
This action was automatically stayed by operation of CPLR 321(c) on … the effective date of Sirianni’s suspension from the practice of law. At no point was Simonsen provided, pursuant to CPLR 321(c), with the required notice to appoint another attorney, either by the court or opposing counsel. Moreover, the withdrawal order, which granted Sirianni’s motion pursuant to CPLR 321(b)(2) for leave to withdraw as counsel for Simonsen, had no practical effect as to whether the notice provision of CPLR 321(c) applied to this case … . … [T]he withdrawal order failed to direct service of a notice to appoint another attorney upon Simonsen, and there is no evidence in the record that Simonsen was ever served with a copy of the withdrawal order … . The record is also devoid of any evidence that … Simonsen waived the protections of CPLR 321(c) by electing to proceed pro se. Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until Simonsen moved, in effect, to vacate the summary judgment order … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Simonsen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05156, Second Dept 9-14-22
Practice Point: As soon as defendant’s attorney was suspended, the foreclosure action was stayed. Even though the court, in its order granting the attorney’s motion to withdraw, directed defendant to retain new counsel or go ahead pro se, defendant was never given notice to appoint another attorney required by CPLR 321. Therefore the stay was not lifted and defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCOVERY WOULD LEAD TO EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff motorcyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case was not premature, defendant’s violation of the Vehicle and Traffic law was negligence per se, and the comparative-negligence affirmative defense should have been dismissed. Plaintiff demonstrate defendant made an illegal left turn in front of him and he could not avoid the collision:
… [A] violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . “The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law” … . “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . …
… [T]he plaintiff’s motion was not premature since the defendants failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212[f] … ). Higgins v Stelmach, 2022 NY Slip Op 05155, Second Dept 9-13-22
Practice Point: Plaintiff demonstrated defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn in front of plaintiff’s motorcycle. Defendant did not demonstrate discovery would lead to evidence essential to defending the motion for summary judgment. The motion therefore was not premature. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of the comparative negligence affirmative defense.
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action, determined Supreme Court properly found plaintiff offered a sufficient reason for making a late motion for summary judgment, i.e., discovery was incomplete at the time the motion was due, but should not have denied the motion on the ground the discovery was not essential to the motion. The discovery dealt with whether plaintiff was engaged in unauthorized work at the time of the accident, which is a defense to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) actions:
A party may not move for summary judgment after the deadline to do so has expired, “except with leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212[a]). As a result, a court may not consider a late motion for summary judgment unless the moving party offers “a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness—rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy” … . “While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment,” the movant must establish that the discovery was “essential to its motion” … . This standard generally requires that the discovery be relevant to resolving disputed issues of fact … . Even if the discovery is essential, good cause for the delay will only exist if the party promptly moves for summary judgment after securing such discovery … . Fuczynski v 144 Div., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05151, Second Dept 9-14-22
Practice Point: Good cause for filing a late motion for summary judgment is demonstrated where, as here, the motion was due before discovery was complete and the discovery is essential to the motion.
PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined many of the causes of action in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent, Rosa, was electrocuted when working on live electrical equipment. Rosa’s boss, Cuevas (the building manager), testified he told Rosa not to work on the live equipment until he returned with rubber insulation and shut down the power to the building. Decedent’s daughter, however, testified Cuevas told her Rosa had to do the work with the power on because there was an upcoming inspection. Cuevas’ statement was deemed admissible as a party admission and should have been considered by Supreme Court. The “party-admissions” argument was raised for the first time on appeal:
When “a party raises a legal issue for the first time on appeal, as long as the issue is determinative and the record on appeal is sufficient to permit review, this Court may consider the new argument” … . We may also consider this testimony in our discretion because [defendants] also relied on it in support of their summary judgment motion … . …
… [P]laintiff testified to postaccident conversations that Cuevas had with her when he visited Rosa in the hospital, when he admitted to plaintiff that Rosa had to perform the bus duct work without shutting down the electricity because of the imminently scheduled building inspection, so as not to inconvenience the tenants, and to avoid any complaints attendant to a service interruption, such as a lack of elevator service. Cuevas never denied either having those conversations with plaintiff in the hospital or making those statements…. . In any event, assuming hypothetically that these statements were inadmissible hearsay, they may still be considered as they are not the only evidence in this record that the electricity was not shut down when Rosa performed the duct work … . Rosa v 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 9-13-22
Practice Point: Party admissions are not hearsay. A legal issue (here “inadmissible hearsay” versus “party admission”) raised for the first time on appeal may be considered where, as here, the record is sufficient and the issue is determinative.
THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAD REPRESENTED MOTHER IN A RELATED CUSTODY MATTER YEARS BEFORE FATHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY; THE JUDGE WAS STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CURRENT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined the Family Court judge in this custody proceeding should have recused himself because, as an attorney, he had represented the mother years before where custody was adjudicated. The judge did not remember representing mother, but disqualification was required by the applicable statute:
“A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding . . . in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel” (Judiciary Law § 14; see Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1] [b] [i]). “This prohibition is absolute and establishes a bright-line disqualification rule” … . Although neither the Judiciary Law nor the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct define “an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding” (Judiciary Law § 14), Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “claim” as “[t]he assertion of an existing right . . . to an equitable remedy, even if contingent or provisional” … .
… [O]ur jurisprudence recognizes that, except in limited circumstances, a parent has an existing and ongoing right to custody of and/or visitation with his or her children … , and it is undisputed that the November 2012 default order and the order on appeal both deal with the custodial arrangement between the same two parents regarding the same three children. Under these circumstances, where the two proceedings involve the same claim of custody, guardianship, or visitation for the same children, we find that Family Court was statutorily disqualified from the instant proceedings … . Matter of John II. v Kristen JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 05132, Third Dept 9-8-22
Practice Point: It is a bright-line statutory rule that a judge who, as an attorney, represented mother in a custody proceeding is statutorily disqualified from presiding over the same parties in a subsequent custody proceeding.
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM A SHARED BATHROOM USED ONLY BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMPLAINANT; ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault second conviction, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined it was reversible error for the judge to refuse to instruct the jury that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat (re: the justification defense). There is no duty to retreat from one’s own dwelling. Here the incident took place in a portion of the housing complex used only by the defendant and the complainant:
Defendant and the complainant lived in a housing complex where they each had a separate room that gave them access to a shared bathroom to which no one else had access. The court should have granted the defense’s request for a jury instruction that defendant, who asserted a defense of justification, had no duty to retreat from the bathroom he shared with the complainant as a matter of law … .
… [T]his bathroom, unlike a hallway bathroom, was accessible only from the respective rooms of defendant and the complainant. As a matter of law, the shared bathroom was a part of defendant’s dwelling, notwithstanding that he shared it with the complainant, as opposed to a common area in the building. Therefore, under Penal Law § 35.15 (2) (a) (i), defendant had no duty to retreat before using deadly physical force to defend himself … .
… [T]he court’s inaccurate instruction that whether the incident took place in defendant’s dwelling depended on the extent to which defendant exercised exclusive possession and control over the area in question could have led the jury to erroneously conclude that the bathroom was not part of defendant’s dwelling because he shared it with the complainant and that therefore defendant had a duty to retreat. People v Delisme, 2022 NY Slip Op 05130, First Dept 9-6-22
Practice Point: In the context of the justification defense to an assault charge, a defendant does not have a duty to retreat from his own dwelling. Here the incident apparently took place in a bathroom used only by the defendant and the complainant. The bathroom was part of defendant’s own dwelling. The jury should have been instructed that defendant did not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force
INSURANCE COVERAGE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE INJURED RESPONDENT RESIDED WITH HIS SON IN MAINE; RESPONDENT ALLEGED HE SPLIT HIS TIME BETWEEN RESIDING IN NEW YORK AND RESIDING WITH HIS SON; A PERSON MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE; A FRAMED-ISSUE HEARING WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a framed-issue hearing was required to determine whether respondent was entitled to coverage under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) provision of respondent’s son’s policy. Whether respondent is covered depends upon whether he resides with his son. Respondent alleged he splits his time between residing in New York and residing with his son in Maine. A person may have more than one residence:
The policy contained an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement (SUM coverage) which defined an insured as, among other things, “1. You or any family member.” The policy defined “family member” as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.” * * *
The policy conditions the status of an insured relative on whether the relative resides with the named insured. Residency is established by a degree of permanency and an intention to remain, and a person may have more than one residence … . Here, both parties have proposed that it would be reasonable to hold a framed issue hearing, and Elliott [respondent] has raised sufficient facts to warrant one, including that he splits his time between Maine and New York, spends a portion of each year at 22 Huntress Street [Maine] where he keeps personal items and has a bedroom, furnishes the house and landscapes the yard jointly with Zachary [respondent’s son], and holds the only mortgage on the property. Matter of Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. v Barowitz, 2022 NY Slip Op 05131, First Dept 9-6-22
Practice Point: Here whether the injuries to respondent were covered by an uninsured/underinsured motorist provision depended upon whether respondent resided with his son in Maine. A person may have more than one residence. Respondent alleged he resided both in New York and in Maine with his son. A hearing to was ordered to determine whether respondent in fact “resided” in both Maine and New York.
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE; THE PROVISION RELIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER TO AVOID PAYING DEFENDANT’S EARNED SALARY UPON TERMINATION APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (ALLOWING PAYMENT TO BE DEFERRED WHEN AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE INSUFFICIENT); A DIFFERENT PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENT IN CASH APPLIED TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the employment contract between Drone and defendant obligated Drone to pay defendant the salary which remained unpaid upon defendant’s termination. Drone unsuccessfully argued the provision of the contract which allowed cash payment of salaries to be deferred when there were insufficient funds applied only to persons who were employed, not to persons whose employment was terminated:
Drone claimed in opposition that it did not have to pay defendant his salary in cash, but had the option to pay defendant his wages in (worthless and unmarketable) Drone stock, relying on paragraph 3 in the employment agreement, governing compensation during the “employment period,” which states, “the Company may elect to . . . defer any cash payment until it has sufficient funds to do so.” Drone, however, ignores paragraph 5(b) of the employment agreement, applicable post-termination, which states that “[i]n the event that [defendant’s] employment with the Company is terminated . . . the Company shall pay or grant [defendant] any earned but unpaid salary, bonus, and Options through [defendant’s] final date of employment with the Company, and the Company shall have no further obligations to [defendant]” … . Read as a whole, the employment agreement makes clear that while payment of defendant’s salary could be deferred for lack of funds while he remained in Drone’s employ, “all earned but unpaid salary” was payable to defendant, unconditionally, upon termination of employment … . The finality of its language reflects an intent that the parties promptly settle up affairs within a reasonable time … . Drone USA, Inc. v Antonelos, 2022 NY Slip Op 05129, First Dept 9-6-22
Practice Point: Contracts must be read as a whole. Here the provision relied upon by the employer to avoid paying a former employee’s salary applied only to current employees (allowing payment to be deferred when there are insufficient funds available.) Another provision requiring payment to terminated employees was the operative provision.