You are here: / / FATHER WAS 40 MINUTES LATE FOR A HEARING, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD...

FATHER WAS 40 MINUTES LATE FOR A HEARING, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition should not have been dismissed because he was 40 minutes late for a hearing:

… [T]he father explained that he had miscalendared the time of the hearing. Although we are sensitive to the Family Court’s interest in adhering to its time-specific calendaring process, we find that, in light of the relatively short delay, the proceedings that had already taken place on the petition, the absence of prejudice to the mother, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s objections … . Moreover, the father showed that he had a potentially meritorious petition … . Matter of Pecoraro v Ferraro, 2019 NY Slip Op 00129, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

You might also like
Pleading Requirements for Unjust Enrichment and Fraud Not Met
Downward Departure Warranted in SORA Proceeding Where Victim’s Lack of Consent Was Solely By Virtue of Age
AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS SERVICED, A TIRE (WHEEL?) FELL OFF, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF BANK HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED THE DATE OF POSSESSION DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement/Analytical Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).
TENANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK BY ITS EFFORTS TO REMOVE SNOW AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS ATTEMPTED WAS DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAY NOT BE AMENDED TO CURE AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE IT... ALLOCUTION CAST DOUBT ABOUT GUILT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, AN...