You are here: / / 2022
,

A CHILD IN A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY THE ATTORNEY-FOR-THE-CHILD (AFC), WHICH INCLUDES ADVOCATING THE CHILD’S POSITION EVEN IF THE AFC DISAGREES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child received ineffective assistance in this modification of custody proceeding. With a couple of exceptions, even if the attorney-for-the-child (AFC) doesn’t agree with it, he or she must argue the child’s position:

… [T]he AFC “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]). “[I]n ascertaining the child’s position, the [AFC] must consult with and advise the child to the extent of and in a manner consistent with the child’s capacities, and have a thorough knowledge of the child’s circumstances” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d] [1]). “[I]f the child is capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d] [2]). There are two exceptions, not relevant here, where the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, or following the child’s wishes is likel… y to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child (see 22 NYCRR 7.2 [d] [3]).

… [A] child in an article 6 custody proceeding is entitled to effective assistance of counsel … , which requires the AFC to take an active role in the proceeding … .

Here, the AFC at trial made his client’s wish that there be a change in custody known to the court, but he did not “zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d] …). He did not cross-examine the mother, the police officers, or the school social worker called by the father, and we agree with the AFC on appeal that the trial AFC’s cross-examination of the father was designed to elicit unfavorable testimony related to the father, thus undermining the child’s position . His questioning also seemed designed to show that there was no change in circumstances since the entry of the last order. Further, he submitted an email to the court in response to the mother’s motion to dismiss in which he stated his opinion that there had been no change in circumstances, which again went against his client’s wishes  … . Matter of Sloma v Saya, 2022 NY Slip Op 06587, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: The attorney-for-the-child (AFC), absent two exceptions not relevant to this case, must argue the child’s position in a modification of custody proceeding even if he or she disagrees. Here the AFC didn’t cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was unfavorable to the child’s position and questioned witnesses in a manner which elicited testimony against the child’ position. The child was not afforded effective assistance of counsel.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the town did not demonstrate it did not have written notice of the fallen signpost on the sidewalk (which plaintiff bicyclist allegedly struck), and (2) plaintiff demonstrated the town should comply with discovery demands for documents relating to the existence and repair of signs by the town:

The Town had the initial burden on the motion of establishing that no prior written notice of the alleged condition was given to either the Town Clerk or the Town Superintendent of Highways … . In support of its motion, the Town submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of an administrative aide in the Town Highway Department and the Town’s sign shop fabricator, each of whom testified that he did not learn of the fallen sign until he received the police report for the incident. However, neither employee testified that he searched the Highway Department’s or the Town Clerk’s records. Thus, the Town failed to establish as a matter of law that neither the Town Clerk nor the Town Superintendent of Highways received prior written notice of the alleged condition … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff met his burden of establishing that the discovery documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see generally CPLR 3101 [a]). In opposing the motion, the Town failed to establish that the discovery requests were unduly burdensome … . Garcia v Town of Tonawanda, 2022 NY Slip Op 06584, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Because the town did not demonstrate that it searched the highway department and town clerk’s records it did not demonstrate it had not received notice of the fallen signpost plaintiff bicyclist allegedly struck. Plaintiff was entitled to discovery of town documents relating to the repair of signs.

 

THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240(1) when he was injured. Plaintiff, a diesel technician, was injured installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer at a recycling plant. The majority concluded the plaintiff was not involved in construction, renovation or alteration of the recycling plant. The two dissenting justices argued that the truck was a “structure” within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… [P]laintiff, a certified diesel technician, was injured while installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer on the premises of a recycling plant. Inasmuch as plaintiff was “engaged in his ‘normal occupation’ of repairing [vehicles] . . . , a task not a part of any construction project or any renovation or alteration to the [recycling plant] itself,” he was not engaged in a protected activity within Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident … .

From the dissent:

“Labor Law § 240 (1) provides special protection to those engaged in the ‘erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure’ ” … . “Over a century ago, the Court of Appeals made clear that the meaning of the word ‘structure,’ as used in the Labor Law, is not limited to houses or buildings . . . The Court stated, in pertinent part, that ‘the word “structure” in its broadest sense includes any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner’ ” … .. … [W]e [have] held that it was error to dismiss a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the crane upon which the plaintiff’s decedent was working fit “squarely within” the definition of a “structure” as set forth by the Court of Appeals … . We have also held that a plaintiff engaged in the conversion of a utility van into a cargo van “was engaged in a protected activity at the time of the accident” and that the van was “a structure” … . “Indeed, courts have applied the term ‘structure’ to several diverse items such as a utility pole with attached hardware and cables . . . , a ticket booth at a convention center . . . , a substantial free-standing Shell gasoline sign . . . , a shanty located within an industrial basement used for storing tools . . . , a power screen being assembled at a gravel pit . . . , a pumping station . . . , and a window exhibit at a home improvement show” … . Here, the flatbed trailer upon which plaintiff was working also fits “squarely within” the definition of a “structure” … . Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06583, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was installing an air tank on a flatbed trailer when injured. Because the activity was not connected to a construction site, the majority concluded the accident was not covered under Labor Law 240(1). The two dissenters argued the flatbed trailer met the definition of a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS POST-DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENCOMPASSING FIVE APPEALS, WAS DEEMED TO HAVE MADE MANY RULINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, IN PART BECAUSE NECESSARY HEARINGS WERE NOT HELD; THE IMPROPER RULINGS INCLUDED A RESTRICTION OF THE ATTORNEY-FOR-THE-CHILD’S (AFC’S) INTERACTIONS WITH THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (and modifying) Supreme Court in this post-divorce proceeding encompassing several appeals, determined many of the court’s rulings were not supported by the record, due in part to the court’s failure to hold hearings. The court had imposed “house rules” for the children, refused to hold a Lincoln hearing, made contempt findings, modified father’s visitation, suspended father’s child support obligations, ordered family unification therapy, limited the attorney-for-the-child’s interactions with the children, and made several other rulings with which the appellate division found fault. The decision is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

The mother and the AFC contend in appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5 that the court erred in altering the terms of the parties’ custody and visitation arrangement and in imposing its house rules without conducting a hearing to determine the children’s best interests. We agree. We therefore modify the orders in appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5 accordingly, and we reinstate the provisions of the agreement and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing, including a Lincoln hearing, to determine whether modification of the parties’ custody and visitation arrangement is the children’s best interests.

Where there is “a dispute between divorced parents, the first concern of the court is and must be the welfare and the interests of the children” … , and “[a]ny court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine what is for the best interest of the child[ren], and what will best promote [their] welfare and happiness” … . Consequently, visitation and “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ “… , “[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of” the children’s best interests … . Burns v Grandjean, 2022 NY Slip Op 06577, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department took issue with many, many rulings made by Supreme Court in this post-divorce proceeding. The decision encompassed five appeals and too many issues to fairly summarize. Many of Supreme Court’s rulings were deemed to have been unsupported by record, in large part because necessary hearings were not held.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED BEYOND THE PLEADINGS IN CONSIDERING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the complaint:

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit” ( … see CPLR 3025 [b]). “A court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face” … . Here, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion inasmuch as there was no showing of prejudice arising from the proposed amendments … and the proposed amended complaint adequately asserts causes of action for slander of title … and removal of a cloud on title by reformation or cancellation of a deed … . In making its determination that the proposed causes of action were palpably insufficient, the court improperly looked beyond the face of the proposed pleading to the documents establishing the chain of title to plaintiffs’ properties and a 2011 deed from the Trustees of Grenell Island Chapel to defendant. DiGiacco v Grenell Is. Chapel, 2022 NY Slip Op 06576, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The judge should not have looked beyond the pleading in deciding the motion to amend.

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE INITIAL PURSUIT BY THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER AN ISSUE NOT RULED UPON; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, determined the appellate court could not consider the suppression argument which was not ruled upon by the motion court. Defendant argued the police did not have reasonable suspicion such that the initial pursuit of the suspect was justified:

At the suppression hearing, the People presented evidence that on the night in question, a police officer was flagged down by an unnamed citizen, who stated that shots had been fired in that area. During that conversation, the officer himself heard a gunshot. He went immediately to the location and observed several people hiding or running into a nearby store. One man took flight, grabbing his waistband with both hands. According to the officer, such a gesture was indicative of a person “holding a very heavy object or a handgun.” That individual was the only person not attempting to hide or seek cover. At that point, the officer began his pursuit, but lost sight of the individual. The officer broadcast a description of the suspect, including specifics of his clothing, over the radio, at which point other officers in the area observed a man fitting that description and pursued him, eventually arresting him at a residence and bringing him to the location of the shooting, where he was identified by two eyewitnesses as the person who had fired the shots. Surveillance video from the store and body camera footage from the officers involved confirms the sequence of events. Following the hearing, the court ruled, inter alia, that there was “more than adequate probable cause.” However, the court did not explain when probable cause existed or rule on whether the officer who initially observed the suspect had reasonable suspicion to pursue him.  People v Anderson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06575, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: If an issue was raised in a suppression motion but was not ruled upon by the suppression court, the appellate court cannot consider the issue. Here the Fourth Department remitted the case for a ruling.

 

,

HERE THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEASE WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND NONE OF THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS WHICH INVALIDATE A CONTRACT WERE PRESENT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release signed by plaintiff in this snowmobile accident case was enforceable and the complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was a passenger on the snowmobile and she and the driver were represented by the same law firm. The settlement was for $25,000. Plaintiff signed the release but allegedly did not receive any compensation. The decision is comprehensive and well worth consulting; it addresses substantive issues not summarized here:

… [D]efendant met his initial burden of establishing that he was released from any claims by submitting the release executed by plaintiff … . As defendant contends, “the language of [the] release is clear and unambiguous” and plaintiff’s action against defendant to recover for personal injuries is barred … . * * *

The release in this case contains preliminary broad language releasing defendant from “any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, loss of services, actions, and causes of action whatsoever . . . arising from any act or occurrence up to the present time and particularly on account of BODILY INJURY, loss or damages of any kind” that plaintiff sustained or may sustain as a consequence of the accident, which is later narrowed by the language stating that the “agreement only releases the parties named above with respect to BODILY INJURY damages arising out of the accident” and that the “agreement does not waive any other party or parties from making any other claims that are not discharged or settled by this release” … . It is well established that where the language of a release is “limited to only particular claims, demands, or obligations, the instrument will be operative as to those matters alone, and will not release other claims, demands or obligations” … .

Even so, the release of defendant for any “bodily injury damages” arising from the accident clearly and unambiguously encompasses plaintiff’s action against defendant to recover for personal injuries sustained in the accident … . Putnam v Kibler, 2022 NY Slip Op 06574, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Absent any of the traditional factors which will invalidate a contract, the unambiguous language of a release will be enforced to prohibit any further litigation in the matter.

 

,

IT IS ONLY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE LAW 63(3) THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AS OPPOSED TO A COUNTY PROSECUTOR) IS EMPOWERED BRING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWS REQUESTS FOR AN AG PROSECUTION ONLY FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; HERE THE CHIEF JUDGE REQUESTED THE PROSECUTION; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the attorney general (AG) from prosecuting him for alleged criminal offenses should be granted. The request for the prosecution came from a judge. Executive Law 63(3) does not authorize a request for prosecution from the judicial, as opposed to the executive, branch:

This CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition raises an issue of apparent first impression: whether the Attorney General may criminally prosecute an individual based on an Executive Law § 63(3) referral from the Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System. Executive Law § 63(3) authorizes the Attorney General of the State of New York, “[u]pon request of the governor, comptroller, secretary of state, commissioner of transportation, superintendent of financial services, commissioner of taxation and finance, commissioner of motor vehicles, or the state inspector general, or the head of any other department, authority, division or agency of the state,” to investigate and prosecute criminality relating to any matter connected with the referring entity. Petitioner, the subject of the criminal prosecution initiated and maintained by the AG based on the purported Executive Law § 63(3) referral by an officer within the Unified Court System, commenced this special proceeding for a writ of prohibition challenging the validity of the referral and the legality of the AG’s authority to prosecute him. We hold that an Executive Law § 63(3) referral can come only from an agency within the executive branch. Therefore, a referral from an officer within the Unified Court System — that is, the judicial branch of government — is not permitted by the statute, and, for the reasons discussed below, we grant prohibition relief to petitioner. Matter of Makhani v Kiesel, 2022 NY Slip Op 06556, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The attorney general can bring a criminal prosecution only upon request from an executive agency listed in Executive Law 63(3). Here the chief judge made the request. A writ of prohibition enjoining the prosecution was granted.

 

,

BOTH PARTIES MOVED TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE; DENYING THE MOTION MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CASE TO PROGRESS; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue should not have been denied because discovery was incomplete:

The motion court improvidently denied the motions of both parties to extend the deadline to file the note of issue and to complete discovery since discovery was not complete. Under the circumstances, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to adequately prepare (CPLR 3101[a] …). Additionally, as defendant demonstrated a need for additional discovery and to depose plaintiff’s expert, who was hired to calculate damages in this commercial case, its motion should have been granted (see 22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13[c] …). 361 Broadway Assoc. Holdings, LLC v Foundations Group I, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06571, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: if the judge makes it impossible for the case to progress, here by denying both parties’ motions to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue to complete discovery, the appellate court will reverse.

 

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH STRIKING A SMALL DOG WITH A BROOM HANDLE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE “CHOICE OF EVILS” INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY; DEFENDANT ARGUED HE STRUCK THE DOG TO PREVENT A “GREATER EVIL,” I.E., AN INFECTION FROM A BITE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT BECAUSE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED STRIKING THE DOG WAS AN ACCIDENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the defendant was not entitled to a “choice of evils” instruction in the grand jury proceedings. Defendant was charged with criminal mischief under Penal Law § 145.10, aggravated cruelty to animals under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a, and Overdriving, Torturing, or Injuring an Animal under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. During a confrontation with a person, a small dog (Gigi) started biting at defendant’s pant leg and defendant struck the dog with a broom handle. Defendant argued the grand jury should have been instructed on the “choice of evils” defense because he struck the dog to prevent an infection from a dog bite:

Section 35.05 (2) of the Penal Law provides that conduct that would otherwise be criminal may be justifiable when “[s]uch conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent . . . private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.” * * *

… [D]efendant testified before the grand jury that he was not afraid of Gigi, that he never intended to hurt her, and that he struck her by mistake during his struggle with the uncle and as a reaction to the surrounding circumstances. Thus, by his own account, defendant made no choice at all to strike Gigi, but acted without intending to hit anything or specifically to hurt her. The record, including defendant’s own testimony and the surveillance video, forecloses defendant’s argument that he chose to strike Gigi as an “emergency measure to avoid an imminent . . . private injury” … . Accordingly, the prosecutor was not obligated to instruct the grand jury on the “choice of evils” defense under section 35.05 (2) … . People v Jimenez, 2022 NY Slip Op 06541, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: There is a “choice of evils” defense which allows the argument that the charged act was necessary to prevent a “greater evil.” Here the defendant argued the grand jury should have been so instructed, claiming that he struck the small dog to prevent an infection from a dog bite (the greater evil). However defendant testified he struck the dog by accident, which foreclosed the availability of the defense; no “choice” between evils was made.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy