You are here: / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF...

Search Results

/

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did not have the authority to order mother to be fingerprinted in this special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) proceeding:

​

… [T]he mother commenced this proceeding to be appointed guardian of the subject child for the purpose of obtaining an order declaring that the child is dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J). Thereafter, the mother moved for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. The Family Court denied the motion without a hearing and dismissed the guardianship petition for “failure to prosecute” based on the mother’s failure to obtain fingerprinting. The mother appeals.

Since there is no express statutory fingerprinting requirement in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) for “[g]uardianship of the person of a minor or infant” … , the Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion based on her failure to comply with the court’s directive to obtain fingerprinting … . Further, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in dismissing the petition for “failure to prosecute” based on the mother’s failure to obtain fingerprinting … . Matter of Fermina B. v Rene P., 2017 NY Slip Op 09125, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FINGERPRINTING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATE (SIJS) (FAMILY LAW,  FINGERPRINTING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/FINGERPRINTING (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FINGERPRINTING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION  (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FINGERPRINTING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a downward departure in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment proceeding. Defendant submitted two psychological risk assessments, the Static-99R and the Vermont Assessment, in support of the request for downward departure:

​

To recognize a low or moderate-low score on the Static-99R and/or the Vermont Assessment as a mitigating factor would, in essence, permit SORA courts to rely on those instruments in lieu of the RAI [New York’s Risk Assessment Instrument} promulgated by the Board [of examiners of sex offenders] and designed to account for the specific factors prescribed by the Legislature. This would amount to a rejection of the RAI in favor of assessment instruments that serve the more limited function of attempting to measure risk of reoffense alone, in clear contravention of the legislative intent to require consideration of both risk of reoffense and the danger of harm posed by reoffense … . …

​

Even were we to accept the proposition that the fact that a sex offender received a more favorable assessment on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment could constitute an appropriate mitigating factor, we would find that the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his request for a downward departure on this basis. …

​

Our conclusion that an offender’s lower risk score on an alternate risk assessment instrument is not itself a mitigating factor that can support a downward departure does not necessarily mean that an offender cannot rely upon one or more of the individual risk factors included on such instruments to demonstrate that he or she is at a lower risk of reoffense or poses less of a danger to the community. While some of the risk factors included on the Static-99R and Vermont Assessment are also taken into account by the RAI, other risk factors are unique to those instruments. Here, however, the defendant has not identified any specific, unique risk factors on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment that could qualify as a mitigating factor. People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 09184, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/MITIGATING FACTORS  (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/

/ ,

THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault conviction, determined the jury should not have been instructed that the paramedic defendant was accused of assaulting was a peace officer (thereby negating the justification defense). The paramedic (Cohn) was a member of the NYC Fire Department, and was not authorized to arrest:

​

Penal Law § 35.27 provides that “[a] person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer.” CPL 2.10 sets forth the “[p]ersons designated as peace officers,” including, as relevant here, “[a]ll officers and members of the uniformed force of the New York city fire department as set forth and subject to the limitations contained in section 487a-15.0 of the administrative code of the city of New York” (CPL 2.10[28]). The relevant section of the New York City Administrative Code provides, with limited exceptions not applicable here, that “[i]n the performance of their duties, all officers and members of the uniformed force [of the FDNY] . . . shall have the powers and perform the duties of peace officers, but their power to make arrests and to serve process in criminal actions shall be restricted to cases arising under laws relating to fires and the extinguishment thereof, and to fire perils” … .

… EMS personnel are not members of the uniformed force of the FDNY … . Accordingly, Paramedic Cohn was not acting as a peace officer within the meaning of CPL 2.10(28) at the time that the defendant allegedly assaulted him, and the Supreme Court erred when it instructed the jury that Penal Law § 35.27 applied with respect to the charge of assault in the second degree related to Paramedic Cohn. Since the court’s charge effectively removed from the jury’s consideration the defendant’s justification defense, under the circumstances, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on count one of the indictment charging her with assault in the second degree relating to Paramedic Cohn … . People v Thomas, 2017 NY Slip Op 09178, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (CRIMINAL LAW, THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEACE OFFICERS, THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/PARAMEDICS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEACE OFFICERS, THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/RESISTING ARREST  (THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY NEGATING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained an aspect of the rigid proof requirements for summary judgment. Here plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment in a foreclosure action. Defendant, in opposition, raised plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with a condition precedent in the note. Plaintiff submitted reply papers with proof the condition precedent had been met. The Second Department determined the reply could not be considered and therefore the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case in its papers:

​

As part of her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the defendant asserted, inter alia, that the plaintiff l… failed to show that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note…  “[A] party moving for summary judgment cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply, and generally, evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers should be disregarded by the court”… . Here, since the defendant raised the issue of compliance with paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note in her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the plaintiff’s submission for the first time of a copy of the requisite default notice with its reply to the defendant’s opposition to the summary judgment motion was not sufficient to establish its prima facie compliance … . Since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden on the motion, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Osias, 2017 NY Slip Op 09195, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE, N MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this fraudulent conveyance action. The court offered a particularly clear description of how summary judgment motions are analyzed by the appellate courts. Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, a defendant bringing a motion for summary judgment bears the burden of proof. Gaps in a defendant’s proof require that the motion be denied, without considering the plaintiff’s opposing papers. Therefore a defendant cannot point to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof as a ground for summary judgment in favor of defendant:

​

It is the movant’s burden on a motion for summary judgment to “make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact”… . Only if the movant succeeds in meeting its burden will the burden shift to the opponent to demonstrate through evidence in admissible form that there exists a triable issue of fact. While the ultimate burden of proof at trial will be borne by the plaintiff, a defendant seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form … . On a summary judgment motion by a defendant, the defendant does not meet its initial burden by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case; rather, it must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense… . Vumbico v Estate of Rose H. Wiltse, 2017 NY Slip Op 09194, Second Dept 12-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding and was properly dismissed as untimely. The action concerned alleged violations of height restrictions on new construction which had been the subject of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS):

An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). However, where a declaratory judgment action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period … . Where an action could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies … .

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 may be brought to review a determination of a public body or officer which is “final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]; see CPLR 7801[1]). There are two requirements for fixing the time when agency action is final and binding upon the petitioner: “First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . A determination is final and the statute of limitations begins to run when the agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … , so that the petitioner knew or should have known that it was aggrieved… .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that this action could have been brought as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . Save The View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 09189, Second Dept 12-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ARTICLE 78 (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS , ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an off-duty police officer (Rodriguez) working security at a bar was not acting within the scope of his employment during the encounter with plaintiff. Therefore the causes of action against the city based upon vicarious liability or respondeat superior, alleging negligence, assault and false imprisonment, should have been dismissed:​

​

… [W]here there are no material disputed facts and there is no question that the employee’s acts fall outside the scope of his or her employment, the determination is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury … . A municipality may be held vicariously liable for the conduct of a member of its police department if the officer was engaged in the performance of police business… . Here, in support of their motion, the City defendants established that Rodriguez was at all relevant times off-duty, was engaged in other employment as a private citizen, was not in uniform, did not arrest plaintiff, and did not display his police badge. We thus conclude that the City defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that Rodriguez was not acting within the scope of his employment as a police officer during the encounter with plaintiff … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that Rodriguez’s identification of himself as a police officer during the encounter raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion with respect to the issue of scope of employment … . Maloney v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08993, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Where a municipality has a written notice requirement which has not been met, it still can be liable for a dangerous condition it created. However a defect which develops gradually over time, as opposed to immediately after some act by the municipality, is not actionable. Here the collapse of pavement near a storm drain was caused by water over time:

​

There is no dispute that defendant established that it lacked prior written notice, thus shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to the general rule is applicable … . Such an exception exists where “the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence” … . That exception, however, applies only “to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . Here, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact because his expert opined that the dangerous condition developed over time as a result of the intake of storm water, not that the dangerous condition was the immediate result of allegedly negligent work … . Malek v Village of Depew, 2017 NY Slip Op 08998, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs’ battery and medical malpractice causes of action properly survived summary judgment. The court noted that the defendants had submitted plaintiff’s testimony in support of summary judgment and thereby demonstrate triable issues of fact. With respect to the battery cause of action, the court wrote:

​

It is “well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, plaintiffs allege in the complaint that “defendant physician knew that . . . she was exceeding the scope of . . . plaintiff’s consent by performing a medical procedure that . . . plaintiff had not authorized” …  and, inasmuch as defendants do not challenge the battery claim with respect to the element of causation, we conclude that plaintiffs have stated such a claim. Tirado v Koritz, 2017 NY Slip Op 08954, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’s TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

/ , , ,

DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the lead-paint exposure complaint should not have been dismissed because, although the exposure occurred after the judgment of foreclosure on the property, it occurred before the foreclosure sale, when defendants still held title:

​

… [D]efendants sought partial summary judgment dismissing those claims because defendants had lost title to the property by order of foreclosure entered on that date. We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion.

Although defendants established in support of that part of their motion that a judgment of foreclosure had been entered, it is well settled that ” [t]he entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale does not divest the mortgagor of its title and interest in the property until [a] sale is actually conducted’ ” … . It is undisputed that the actual sale of the property did not take place until April 1993, after plaintiff had allegedly been exposed to lead paint, and thus defendants failed to meet their burden on that part of their motion. Nero v Kendrick, 017 NY Slip Op 08980, Fourth Department 12-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (TITLE, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY (FORECLOSURE, TITLE, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH 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