You are here: / PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.

Search Results

/

PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.

The Second Department noted that public policy prohibited the recoupment of overpayment of child support by reducing future child support payments. However a commensurate reduction of future payments of educational expenses was okay:

“There is strong public policy in this state, which the [Child Support Standards Act] did not alter, against restitution or recoupment of the overpayment of child support” … . “The reason for this policy is that . . . child support payments are deemed to have been devoted to that purpose, and no funds exist from which one may recoup moneys so expended’ if the award is thereafter reversed or modified” … . Thus, recoupment of child support payments is only appropriate under “limited circumstances” … . * * *

However, “[w]hile child support overpayments may not be recovered by reducing future support payments, public policy does not forbid offsetting add-on expenses against an overpayment'” … . Thus, although the overpayments may not be applied to the father’s child support obligation, he may use the overpayments to offset his share of the add-on expenses, such as the educational expenses … . Matter of McGovern v McGovern, 2017 NY Slip Op 01862. 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND.

The First Department determined defendant bar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim was properly denied. Plaintiff was thrown to the ground by the bar’s bouncer. There was a question of fact whether the bouncer was acting within the scope of his employment:

Plaintiff was assaulted by a security guard/bouncer in the employ of defendant after plaintiff, who had been denied admittance to defendant’s bar because of perceived intoxication, grabbed the baseball cap from the bouncer’s head. Less than 30 seconds elapsed between plaintiff taking the cap and the bouncer throwing plaintiff to the ground, which occurred approximately 10 feet from the entrance to defendant’s bar. On this record, it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the bouncer was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the assault … . Salem v MacDougal Rest. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01832, 1st Dept 3-15-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)

/ ,

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim for a student (Lopez) allegedly injured in gym class was properly denied:

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the City had acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the accident or a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). While the petitioner alleges that the physical education teacher invented the particular exercise and was present when Lopez was injured, she failed to submit any evidence that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying their negligence claims … . Thus, the City had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence … .

The petitioner also failed to proffer evidence establishing a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Lopez’s infancy, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . Moreover, the assertion by the petitioner that she was consumed with Lopez’s medical care was also insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse, as it was not supported by any evidence demonstrating that the delay in serving a notice of claim was directly attributable to Lopez’s medical condition … .

Finally, the petitioner failed to present “some evidence or plausible argument” supporting a finding that the City was not substantially prejudiced by the 11-month delay in serving a notice of claim … . Matter of Ramos v Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01868, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)

/

IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

The Second Department determined defendant should have been sentenced concurrently for his two assault convictions. The victim was stabbed 20 times and his face was slashed. Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault first—intent to disfigure and intent to cause serious injury. It was not possible to determine whether the jury convicted on both counts based upon only the slashing of the victim’s face as opposed to two different acts:

We agree with the defendant’s contention. Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25(2), concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” ” Thus, sentences [of imprisonment] imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other'” … . Nonetheless, ” trial courts retain consecutive sentence discretion when separate offenses are committed through separate acts, though they are part of a single transaction'” … .

Here, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting the respective assault in the first degree convictions were separate and distinct from each other as required by the statute … . It is impossible to determine from the record whether the slashing of an “X” into the victim’s face, which formed the basis for the assault in the first degree “intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently” conviction … , also formed the basis for the jury’s verdict of guilt on the assault in the first degree “intent to cause serious physical injury” conviction …  Thus, the People failed to establish that the acts constituting each of the two assault in the first degree convictions were separate and distinct from each other. People v Henderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 01885, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/SENTENCING (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)

/ , ,

POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED.

The Second Department sent the matter back for a report from Supreme Court because the possibility of deportation was not mentioned at the time of the guilty plea:

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court mentioned the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s plea. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … , and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Agramonte, 2017 NY Slip Op 01876, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

CRIMINAL LAW (POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)/DEPORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)

/ ,

911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.

The Second Department determined a 911 call and a prior consistent statement were properly admitted as excited utterances:

… [T]he recording of the 911 call was properly admitted into evidence under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule, as the probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect … .

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a police officer and the victim’s niece regarding statements made by the victim’s son at the scene, which improperly bolstered the testimony of the victim’s son identifying the defendant as the shooter. … . If a proffered statement also meets the requirements to be admitted as an excited utterance, its admission would be proper, notwithstanding the characterization as a prior consistent statement … . Here, the Supreme Court properly admitted the testimony of the police officer and the victim’s niece concerning the statements of the victim’s son at the scene identifying the defendant as the shooter under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering … . People v Chin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01880, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EXCITED UTTERANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)

/ ,

WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY.

The First Department determined a witness’s disavowed identification of another as the perpetrator could not be used as evidence of third-party culpability:

The court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that defendant could not, in the absence of additional evidence, argue that the person initially identified by the witness was the actual perpetrator … , and this ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or the right to present a defense. The court did not preclude defendant from introducing evidence of third-party culpability; on the contrary, it expressly invited defendant to introduce certain evidence of that nature. Rather than precluding a third-party culpability defense, the court providently ruled that such a defense could not, without more, be supported by the disavowed identification, which the witness explained as a deliberate falsehood. Defendant received a full opportunity to explore the misidentification and all surrounding circumstances, and to use these matters to attack the witness’s credibility. While defendant cites additional evidence that would have supported the claim that the misidentified man was the actual perpetrator, he was free to introduce this evidence at trial but failed to do so. Even if the court had permitted defendant to specifically argue third-party culpability in summation, defendant would not have been entitled to argue about matters not in evidence. People v Francis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01817, 1st Dept 3-15-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRMINAL LAW, (WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)

/

FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined (in the interest of justice) the two defendants were deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the trial judge give supplemental instructions to clarify the requirements for robbery convictions under an accomplice (shared intent) theory. One of the two defendants stole three rings from a small shop. The other struck the shopkeeper after she confronted them. The jury made repeated requests for clarification of the intent criteria. In response to each request the trial court read the elements of the robbery charges and accomplice liability:

With regard to Telesford, the issue of intent was critical in one respect. The evidence adduced at trial undeniably established that Telesford assaulted the complainant. To sustain a conviction for robbery in the second degree based upon accessorial liability, however, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Telesford acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the robbery and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime … . Thus, in this case, an inference that Telesford helped Celestine commit the robbery, based on his role as an accomplice, would have been insufficient to prove the requisite intent to steal, in the absence of a specific finding that Telesford intended to do more than commit an assault … .

With regard to Celestine, the issue of intent was critical in a different respect. Undeniably, the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Celestine took the three rings. Such conduct, however, by itself, constituted no more than a larceny, absent proof that either defendant used force to take or retain the stolen items. Although, as indicated, Telesford did use force to attack the victim, in order to convict either defendant of robbery, the jury needed to find that the violent attack on the victim, by Telesford, was not a mere response to insults and being spat upon by the victim, but that it was rather part and parcel to the taking or retaining of the stolen items. In other words, the jury had to find that Celestine intended to use force to retain the ring(s), either by using his own force or taking advantage of Telesford use of force … . People v Telesford, 2017 NY Slip Op 01836, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/SHARED INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)

/ , ,

CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Second Department determined the claim alleging negligent highway design was properly dismissed after trial:

“[A] municipality owes to the public the absolute duty of keeping its streets in a reasonably safe condition” … . However, “in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the qualified immunity doctrine, liability may arise where there is proof that the State’s traffic design plan “evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis” … . Moreover, “something more than a mere choice between conflicting opinions of experts is required before the State . . . may be charged with a failure to discharge its duty to plan highways for the safety of the traveling public” … .

Here, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim based upon the evidence the State submitted at trial, which showed that the design and placement of the guardrail were the result of a deliberate decision-making process after an adequate study and had a reasonable basis … . Gagliardi v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01845, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

COURT OF CLAIMS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/NEGLIGENCE (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/HIGWAYS AND ROADS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/GUARDRAILS (CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE.

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff properly amended his bill of particulars as of right prior to the filing of the note of issue, despite labeling the document a “supplemental” bill of particulars. The amended bill of particulars added the failure to diagnose appendicitis as a basis for the lawsuit:

The defendant’s contentions regarding the plaintiff’s delay in amending his bill of particulars are misplaced. While it is true that “once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances'” … , no such showing is required where a bill of particulars is amended as of right before the note of issue and certificate of readiness have been filed. The as-of-right amendment of a bill of particulars has been appropriately compared to the as-of-right amendment of a pleading: “Presumably this amendment [pursuant to CPLR 3042(b)] can make any change in the bill, just as an amendment as of course can make any change in a pleading under CPLR 3025(a). But the latter is restricted in time to the outset of the action while CPLR 3042(b) keeps the bill’s amendment time open during the whole pre-note of issue period” … . Mackauer v Parikh, 2017 NY Slip Op 01847, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)

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