You are here: / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ALLOWING JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR...

Search Results

/

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ALLOWING JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, PARENTAL NEGLECT PRECLUDED REUNIFICATION.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made findings which would allow the juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). Reunification with a parent was precluded by parental neglect, including excessive corporal punishment, and forcing the juvenile to work rather than attend school:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, is unmarried, and has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for special immigrant juvenile status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law … , and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence … .

Based upon our independent factual review, we conclude that the record supports a finding that reunification of the child with one or both of his parents is not a viable option based upon parental neglect, which includes the infliction of excessive corporal punishment and requiring the child to begin working at the age of 12 instead of attending school on a regular basis … . The record further supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return to India … . Matter of Palwinder K. v Kuldeep K., 2017 NY Slip Op 02423. 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PHYSICAL INJURY ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SENTENCING AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER.

The Second Department determined the evidence of physical injury was not sufficient to support the assault third conviction. The court further determined the totality of the circumstances did not support sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender:

The record, which contains photographs that were shown to the jury depicting the complainant’s injury, demonstrated that the complainant sustained a one-half inch laceration on one of her toes, which stopped bleeding before an emergency medical technician arrived at the scene. No evidence was introduced that the injury sustained by the complainant caused her more than trivial pain. The complainant’s vague testimony that she was unable to wear shoes for an unspecified period of time failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the use of her foot was impaired by her injury. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence that the complainant suffered a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) … . …

… [T]he totality of the evidence adduced at the persistent felony offender hearing, although warranting the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, did not warrant his adjudication as a persistent felony offender … . In addition, in reaching its determination, the Supreme Court improperly considered a crime of which the defendant was acquitted as a basis for sentencing … . People v Fews. 2017 NY Slip Op 02443, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO SUE FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM A TRIAL BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF PLAINTIFFS’ CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the plaintiffs, who were discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, could sue for legal malpractice stemming from a personal injury trial brought in the name of the bankruptcy trustee. The plaintiffs alleged the recovery in the personal injury trial was diminished because the jury became aware an injury report had been altered by the defedant lawyers and a doctor:

… [W]e find that the plaintiffs, as Chapter 13 debtors, had standing to maintain this action. We note that standing, of course, concerns the absence or presence of a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome of the litigation … .

In contrast to Chapter 7 proceedings, the object of a Chapter 13 proceeding is the rehabilitation of the debtor under a plan that adjusts debts owed to creditors by the debtor’s regular periodic payments derived principally from income. Thus, in a Chapter 13 proceeding, a debtor generally retains his property, if he so proposes, and seeks court confirmation of a plan to repay his debts over a three- to five-year period … . Payments under a Chapter 13 plan are usually made from a debtor’s “future earnings or other future income” … . “Accordingly, the Chapter 13 estate from which creditors may be paid includes both the debtor’s property at the time of his bankruptcy petition, and any wages and property acquired after filing” … . Assets acquired after a Chapter 13 plan is confirmed by the court are not included as property of the estate, unless they are necessary to maintain the plan … , or the trustee seeks a modification of the plan to remedy a substantial change in the debtor’s income or expenses that was not anticipated at the time of the confirmation hearing … . Unlike Chapter 7 proceedings, there is no separation of the estate property from the debtor under a Chapter 13 proceeding, except to the extent that the plan, as confirmed by order of the court, places control over an asset in the hands of the trustee … . This is the basis for the conclusion that, while Chapters 7 and 11 debtors lose capacity to maintain civil suits, Chapter 13 debtors do not … . Thus, a Chapter 13 debtor keeps all, or at the very least some, of the income and property he or she acquires during the administration of the repayment plan. Accordingly, in this action, it was never the bankruptcy estate, or its creditors, that was damaged by a decrease in the amount awarded in the underlying personal injury action due to the alleged conduct of the defendants. Only the plaintiffs had an interest in the recovery of damages in the personal injury action … . Moreover, it was the plaintiffs and the defendants who were engaged in a face-to-face relationship in the underlying personal injury action and to the extent the defendants allegedly breached a duty in that action the foreseeable harm was to the plaintiffs, not the trustee or the bankruptcy estate. Thus, under the circumstances presented here, the relationship of the plaintiffs to the personal injury action is unique and demands an exception to the general rule regarding privity … . Nicke v Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 02437. 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

/ , ,

TERMINATION OF OUT OF WORK SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW IS NOT ARBITRABLE, PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the school district’s petition to stay arbitration should have been granted. A school district employee, Turco, was injured on the job and was out of work on Workers’ Compensation leave for more than a year. The district terminated his employment pursuant to Civil Service Law 71. Turco filed a grievance with his union alleging the termination violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Second Department held that the matter was not arbitrable because of the conflict between the agreement and the statute:

Despite the general policy favoring the resolution of disputes by arbitration, some matters, because of competing considerations of public policy, cannot be heard by an arbitrator. “If there is some statute, decisional law or public policy that prohibits arbitration of the subject matter of dispute, . . . the claim is not arbitrable'” … . Indeed, the public policy exception can be invoked as a threshold issue to preclude arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 … . “Preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process is warranted where the arbitrator [cannot] grant any relief without violating public policy” … . * * *

Here, the district terminated Turco’s employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. Section 71 provides that a public employer may terminate an employee who is absent due to an occupational disability for a cumulative period of one year if the employee remains physically or mentally unable to return to work … . Matter of Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown N.Y. v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02421, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

/

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIR’S DETERMINATION WAS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW WHICH RESULTED IN A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, DETERMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED.

The Second Department determined that the imposition of a fine by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) was improper because the fine was based upon a misinterpretation of a provision of the NYC Administrative Code. The Article 78 petition seeking annulment of the DCA’s determination should have been granted:

Here, the DCA’s determination was affected by an error of law, since its interpretation of the Administrative Code provision which the petitioner was charged with violating was unreasonable … . The Administrative Code provision at issue provides, in relevant part: “Any person requesting application information from a prospective tenant or tenants shall post a sign . . . in any location at which the principal purpose is conducting business transactions pertaining to the rental of residential real estate properties” (Administrative Code § 20-809[a]). It was undisputed by the respondents that the petitioner’s business concerned sales of real estate properties, although the petitioner admitted to handling one or two residential rentals per year. Under these circumstances, the petitioner correctly argued that the Administrative Code provision was inapplicable to it because it did not have a “location at which the principal purpose is conducting business transactions pertaining to the rental of residential real estate properties” (id.). Matter of Arash Real Estate & Mgt. Co. v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 2017 NY Slip Op 02416, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

/ , ,

THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 BEGAN TO RUN UPON ARRAIGNMENT.

The First Department noted that the three year statute of limitations for a false arrest cause of action under 42 USC 1983 began to run upon arraignment:

The three-year limitations period on a section 1983 claim based on false arrest begins to run “when the alleged false imprisonment ends” — that is, when the arrestee becomes subject to the legal process such as being “bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges” … . Here, because plaintiff was arraigned on July 16, 2011, the limitations period on his section 1983 claim based on false arrest ended on July 16, 2014, approximately three months before plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, the claim is time-barred. Cruz v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02386, 1st Dept 3-28-17

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE SANDOVAL RULING AT TRIAL, THE OBJECTION WAS NOT ON THE PRECISE GROUND RAISED ON APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS THEREFORE NOT PRESERVED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined defendant’s objection to a Sandoval ruling about the admissibility of evidence of a juvenile delinquency adjudication did not preserve the precise issue which was the subject of the appeal. The concurring opinion argued the error had been preserved, but was harmless. The People sought to introduce evidence of the facts underlying the juvenile delinquency adjudication, but not the adjudication itself. The defendant objected arguing that the defendant should not be judged by actions taken when his mind and values were undeveloped. The court ruled the People could elicit the fact that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, but could not elicit the facts. On appeal defendant argued it was a legal error to admit evidence of the juvenile delinquency adjudication:

Under the unique factual circumstances of this case and based on the trial court’s colloquy with counsel, we conclude that defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling is unpreserved. Defendant did not make the argument he now asserts at the time of the alleged erroneous ruling, or at any time at all. Instead, he argued, against the People’s initial proffer, that the court should deny the request because defendant’s actions should not be judged based on a young offender’s undeveloped mind and sense of values. Defendant failed to argue that it would be legal error to permit the People to elicit that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent … . Defendant did not make that argument before or after the compromise ruling, or at any point during the proceedings “when the court had the ‘opportunity of effectively chang[ing]’ its ruling” … and avoiding the error of which defendant now complains. People v Jackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 02361, CtApp 3-28-17

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the element of robbery first degree which requires the display of what appears to be a firearm. The defendant threatened to shoot the teller and, at some point in time, one of his hands was under his hoodie.  The defendant was quickly apprehended and no firearm was found:

We reject defendant’s assumption that the timing of the moment at which the defendant places a hand under his clothing is dispositive of the legal sufficiency analysis. A victim may reasonably believe that a gun is being used, on the basis of conduct that makes it appear that the defendant is holding a gun, regardless of whether the defendant makes a movement while addressing the victim or keeps his hand concealed throughout the encounter in a manner and location suggesting the presence of a gun. Whether a defendant displays what appears to be a firearm does not depend on when precisely the defendant begins the display, provided it occurs “in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom” (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 02362, CtApp 3-28-17

 

/ ,

EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED PRIOR IDENTICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW INTENT, MOTIVE, OR AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined evidence of an alleged prior sexual assault, identical to the charged offense, should not have been admitted to show intent or motive, or as background evidence:

Here, … the victim’s testimony as to the alleged prior sexual abuse was not necessary to show the nature of the relationship between her and defendant or to “sort out ambiguous but material facts” … . The victim testified as to her relationship with defendant, stating that they are relatives who lived, at certain times, in the same home and that on the night of the indicted sexual assault, she and her boyfriend went to defendant’s home to spend time together and drink alcohol. The introduction of the prior alleged assault was not necessary to clarify their relationship or to establish a narrative of the relevant events.

Further, the evidence of the uncharged crime was not admissible to show intent. The intent here — sexual gratification — can be inferred from the act. * * *

To the extent the evidence was admissible to show defendant’s motive in getting the victim drunk, the evidence was highly prejudicial, as it showed that defendant had allegedly engaged in the exact same behavior on a prior occasion with the same victim — classic propensity evidence. The prejudicial nature of the Molineux evidence far outweighed any probative value that may be attributed to it. People v Leonard, 2017 NY Slip Op 02359, CtApp 3-28-17

 

/ ,

POSSESSION OF COCAINE CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE COCAINE ITSELF AS EVIDENCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, noted that possession of cocaine can be proven without submitting the cocaine itself as evidence:

Although the People did not recover or introduce any of the cocaine that defendant was charged with possessing, “direct evidence in the form of contraband or other physical evidence is not the only adequate proof” (People v Samuels , 99 NY2d 20, 24 [2002]). The People presented sufficient evidence in the form of, among other things, defendant’s intercepted phone calls replete with drug-related conversations, visual surveillance, and the testimony of cooperating witnesses. People v Whitehead, 2017 NY Slip Op 02358, CtApp 3-28-17

 

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