You are here: / ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed without a hearing a non-parent’s petition seeking custody of a child. Although the child resided with the petitioner for a significant period of time, there was evidence the arrangement was temporary to allow father, who was working full-time, to attend law school at night:

​

The Court of Appeals has created a “two-prong inquiry for determining whether a nonparent may obtain custody as against a parent” … . “First, the nonparent must prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances such as surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, and unfortunate or involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time” … . “If extraordinary circumstances are established such that the nonparent has standing to seek custody, the court must make an award of custody based on the best interest of the child” … .

“A hearing to determine the issue of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the papers submitted”… .

​

… [T]he period of time when the child resided primarily with the petitioner and not the father largely coincided with the period of time when the father was working full time and attending law school at night. During that period of time, the father contributed financially to the child’s support. The petitioner and the father completed certain forms designating the petitioner as the child’s caregiver for stated purposes, yet these forms were for a limited duration, and some of the forms contained notations to the effect that the father was not giving up his custodial rights. Matter of Schmitt v Troche, 2017 NY Slip Op 07732, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, NON-PARENT, ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FAMILY LAW, NON-PARENT, ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/NON-PARENT (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, STANDING,  ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined criminal contempt charges were not precluded by the double jeopardy rule. As part of a neglect proceeding defendant admitted violating orders of protection. Although a 60-day period of incarceration was part of the disposition, it was repeatedly delayed as the court monitored defendant’s compliance (and was never imposed). Because the incarceration was deemed to induce compliance with Family Court’s orders, it was remedial, not punitive in nature. Therefore a subsequent prosecution for criminal contempt, arising from the violations of the orders of protection, did not violate the double jeopardy prohibition:

 

The double jeopardy protections of the US and NY Constitutions “shield a defendant from multiple criminal punishments arising from the same offense” … . Whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution subsequent to a finding of contempt or similar violation of a court order depends not on the labels used to describe the previously imposed sentence, but on “the character and purpose” of that sentence … . In a contempt matter, the sentence imposed for violation of a court order is remedial if it was intended “to coerce compliance” with a court order … . By contrast, when “a contemnor is sentenced to imprisonment for a definite period which cannot be affected — that is, ended — by the contemnor’s compliance with the law [or a court order], then the contempt is not remedial but punitive” … . Double jeopardy precludes “a subsequent prosecution where a prior contempt sentence serves a punitive rather than remedial purpose” … . However, if the imposed sentence was remedial, double jeopardy does not apply … . People v Lamica, 2017 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the state trooper properly stopped the defendant, which led to his arrest for DWI, because the defendant had his high beams on as he approached the trooper:

​

Petitioner contends that the revocation of his driver’s license must be reversed because the trooper’s testimony at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (3), thereby rendering the traffic stop unlawful. We disagree. A police officer may lawfully execute a traffic stop of a vehicle when he or she has probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle has committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (3), a driver shall operate his or her headlights in such a manner “that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver of [an] approaching vehicle.” To establish such a violation, it must be shown that the operator of the motor vehicle used his or her high beams within 500 feet of an approaching vehicle and that the use of such high beams interfered with the vision of that driver by “hampering or hindering [his or her] vision” … .

At the hearing, the trooper testified that he was traveling westbound … , when he observed petitioner’s vehicle approximately 500 feet away in the eastbound lane of travel with his high beams activated. The trooper testified that petitioner’s high beams caused “a glare to [his] vision” and affected his driving insofar as he had to “adjust [his] eyes.” In our view, such testimony sufficiently established that he had probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law … and, together with the negative inference that the Appeals Board permissibly drew from petitioner’s failure to testify at the hearing … , we conclude that the determination was supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Barr v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2017 NY Slip Op 07664, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (HIGH BEAMS, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT)/HIGH BEAMS (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/REVOCATION (DRIVER’S LICENSE, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVER’S LICENSE (REVOCATION, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))REFUSAL (CHEMICAL TEST, DWI, DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (TRAFFIC STOP, REVOCATION HEARING, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, in part on the ground of actual innocence, was properly denied. The court explained the standard of proof for actual innocence:

In People v Hamilton (115 AD3d 12 [2014]), the [2nd] Department determined that a claim of actual innocence must be established with clear and convincing evidence of “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial” … . While we recognize that in People v Caldavado (26 NY3d 1034 [2015]) the Court of Appeals opted not to determine whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence is viable … , we concur with the analysis set forth in Hamilton and find that such a claim may be raised pursuant CPL 440.10 (1) (h) … . * * *

In our view, the evidence submitted at the hearing failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant did not murder the victims. Much of the evidence presented at the hearing was also presented to the jury, which considered and rejected defendant’s explanation, and the jury’s verdict was upheld on appeal … . At best, the additional evidence submitted in support of the motion to vacate arguably raised “[m]ere doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or a preponderance of conflicting evidence as to the defendant’s guilt,” neither of which is sufficient to support a motion to vacate a judgment based on actual innocence … . People v Mosley, 2017 NY Slip Op 07648, Third Dept 11-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VACATE CONVICTION, ACTUAL INNOCENCE, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, over a dissent, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Even though some of the ineffective assistance claims could be determined from the original record (and therefore should have been raised on appeal), because some of the claims could not be determined from the record, the court could consider all the ineffective assistance issues:

​

… [W]e do not find that all of the alleged failures on the part of trial counsel involve matters adequately reflected in the record that could have been raised upon direct appeal. Defendant’s argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the cabdriver “is dependent upon [a] statement[] to the police that [is] outside the record” and, therefore, was properly raised in the context of the instant CPL 440.10 motion … . Defendant also faults trial counsel for failing to request that the crime of assault in the third degree … be submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree … . While it is apparent from the face of the record that counsel did not request submission of assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense, it is axiomatic that “the decision to request or consent to the submission of a lesser included offense is often based on strategic considerations, taking into account a myriad of factors, including the strength of the People’s case” … . Because defendant’s complaint about counsel in this regard is predicated on counsel’s strategy, or lack thereof, which is not discernable from the face of the record, we likewise find that this claim of ineffectiveness may properly be advanced by way of a CPL 440.10 motion … .

The two other allegations of ineffectiveness raised on the motion — that counsel failed to object to County Court’s Allen charge and failed to sufficiently articulate and support a request for an instruction on the defense of justification under Penal Law § 35.05 — are, as defendant concedes, based on matters that appear on the face of the record. Yet, relying on People v Maxwell (89 AD3d 1108 [2d Dept 2011]), defendant claims that these record-based allegations of ineffectiveness may appropriately be considered together with his nonrecord-based allegations in the context of this CPL 440.10 motion, thereby permitting review of his claim of ineffective assistance in its entirety. … [W]e agree. People v Taylor, 2017 NY Slip Op 07649, Third Dept 11-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a contract was not actionable because the consideration for a past or executed promise was not spelled out in it. The court noted that a decision on a motion to dismiss does not become the law of the case in a subsequent motion for summary judgment:

​

General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-1105 provides:

“A promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed.”

It essentially codifies the notion that “[g]enerally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because the detriment did not induce the promise.’ That is, since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise'”… . However, General Obligations Law § 5-1105 makes an exception where the past consideration is explicitly recited in a writing. To qualify for the exception, the description of the consideration must not be “vague” or “imprecise,” nor may extrinsic evidence be employed to assist in understanding the consideration … . * * *

… “[T]he law of the case doctrine does not apply when a motion to dismiss is followed by a summary judgment motion” … . Korff v Corbett, 2017 NY Slip Op 07677, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-1105  (CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPELL OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR A PAST OR EXECUTED PROMISE, DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE IN A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

/

HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (HEAR) controlled an action in New York making a claim to a painting that was confiscated during the German occupation of France in 1944. Under HEAR the action was timely commenced:

​

HEAR supplants the statute of limitations provisions otherwise applicable to civil claims such as these (see Pub L 114-308, § 5[a]). Under HEAR, the applicable statute of limitations is six years from the date of “actual discovery” of “the identity and location of the artwork” and “a possessory interest of the claimant in the artwork” (id.). We reject defendants’ argument that HEAR can be displaced by a choice-of-law analysis.

 

Under section 5(c) of HEAR, for purposes of starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations provided by section 5(a), a preexisting claim covered by HEAR is “deemed to have been actually discovered on the date of enactment of [HEAR].” However, section 5(c) is made subject to the exception provided in section 5(e), which, as here relevant, provides that HEAR does not save a preexisting claim that was “barred on the day before the date of enactment of [HEAR] by a Federal or State statute of limitations” where “not less than 6 years have passed from the date [the] claimant . . . acquired such knowledge and during which time the civil claim or cause of action was not barred by a Federal or State statute of limitations.” Accordingly, to establish that HEAR does not save the subject claim, defendants were required to show that [plaintiff] discovered the claim on or before December 15, 2010 (six years before the day before the date of HEAR’s enactment). This they have failed to do. Maestracci v Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07676, First Dept 11-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/PAINTINGS (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))

/

HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (HEAR) controlled an action in New York making a claim to a painting that was confiscated during the German occupation of France in 1944. Under HEAR the action was timely commenced:

​

HEAR supplants the statute of limitations provisions otherwise applicable to civil claims such as these (see Pub L 114-308, § 5[a]). Under HEAR, the applicable statute of limitations is six years from the date of “actual discovery” of “the identity and location of the artwork” and “a possessory interest of the claimant in the artwork” (id.). We reject defendants’ argument that HEAR can be displaced by a choice-of-law analysis.

Under section 5(c) of HEAR, for purposes of starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations provided by section 5(a), a preexisting claim covered by HEAR is “deemed to have been actually discovered on the date of enactment of [HEAR].” However, section 5(c) is made subject to the exception provided in section 5(e), which, as here relevant, provides that HEAR does not save a preexisting claim that was “barred on the day before the date of enactment of [HEAR] by a Federal or State statute of limitations” where “not less than 6 years have passed from the date [the] claimant . . . acquired such knowledge and during which time the civil claim or cause of action was not barred by a Federal or State statute of limitations.” Accordingly, to establish that HEAR does not save the subject claim, defendants were required to show that [plaintiff] discovered the claim on or before December 15, 2010 (six years before the day before the date of HEAR’s enactment). This they have failed to do. Maestracci v Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07676, First Dept 11-2-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))/PAINTINGS (HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN AN ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF A PAINTING CONFISCATED DURING THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF FRANCE (FIRST DEPT))

/

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action. Plaintiff alleged he was directed to work without a scaffold. He rigged up a ladder with planks on it placed horizontally over a fire escape as a makeshift scaffold. The ladder tipped when a heavy object was placed on it and plaintiff fell:

​

Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites … . “In order to prevail on a claim under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that this violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . No recovery is available under Labor Law § 240(1) when the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … .

​

Here, the evidence submitted on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to establish, prima facie, that no [Labor Law 240(1)] violation occurred, or that the alleged violation was not a proximate cause of the accident … . …

​

Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of an owner or contractor to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . * * *

​

Here, the cause of action arose out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work. The defendants failed, prima facie, to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [defendant] had the authority to supervise or control the injured plaintiff’s work, and as to causation … .

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … .  Here, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.16, which requires, in relevant part, that safety belts and harnesses be properly attached to a tail line or lifeline so that “if the user should fall such fall shall not exceed five feet” … . King v Villette, 2017 NY Slip Op 07596, Second Dept 11-1-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff teacher’s age discrimination suit was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

​

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (hereinafter the ADEA) provides, in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age” … . “To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a claimant must demonstrate that: 1) [she] was within the protected age group; 2) [she] was qualified for the position; 3) [she] was subject to an adverse employment action; and 4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination'” … .

​

… [T]he general allegation in the amended complaint that the plaintiff and two other “older” teachers had been “continuously harassed” by the principal and the assistant principal are vague and conclusory … . Furthermore, the specific instances of discrimination described in the amended complaint, which allegedly occurred over a period of more than three years, were isolated and episodic. For instance, the amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff “was required to teach a class that she was not qualified to teach,” that the principal left her name off an art fair newsletter, that the assistant principal gave the plaintiff “a useless laptop to complete a survey,” and that on two separate occasions the principal slammed her hand on the table and screamed at her. These occurrences were “not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment” … . Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07609, Second Dept 11-1-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT  (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (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