You are here: / DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED.

Search Results

/

DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the derivative neglect was not supported by the evidence:

Here, the proof relied upon by petitioner to support its claim of derivative neglect — namely, 1999 and 2010 indicated hotline reports involving different children — was insufficient to support a finding of derivative neglect. Neither the 1999 report nor the 2010 report resulted in a finding of neglect against respondent … . Moreover, the conduct that formed the basis for each of the indicated reports failed to demonstrate that respondent’s understanding of the responsibilities accompanying parenthood were fundamentally flawed at the time of this proceeding … . In addition to its remoteness, the 1999 report was made against the biological parents of the child who was the subject of the report, as well as respondent, who was temporarily residing with the biological parents of the child at the age of 18, and did not conclusively establish which of the three adults had engaged in the conduct giving rise to the indicated findings. The 2010 report was indicated against respondent and his then-paramour for inadequate guardianship based on the children witnessing domestic violence, conduct that may not necessarily form the basis for a neglect finding … . Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proof, Family Court’s finding of neglect cannot stand. Matter of Choice I. (Warren I.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07899, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

FAMILY LAW (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED)/NEGLECT (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED

/

FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING.

The Third Department, in rejecting father’s request for a transcript of a Lincoln hearing (in a custody matter), explained why children’s testimony in a Lincoln hearing must be kept confidential:

A child’s testimony in a Lincoln hearing in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6 is not akin to the testimony that may be taken from a child in proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10. In an article 10 proceeding, an adversarial relationship may exist between the child and the accused parent. As the child’s testimony may be the sole basis for a finding of abuse or neglect, the parent’s due process rights are implicated. Although there are circumstances in which a child’s testimony in such a proceeding may be obtained in camera or outside the presence of the respondent parent, this must be carefully balanced with the rights of the accused parent … .

By clear contrast, in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding, in which a Lincoln hearing may be conducted, such a hearing serves entirely different, nonadversarial purposes, and a parent’s constitutional rights are not implicated. The purpose of a Lincoln hearing is not primarily evidentiary; it is instead to assist the court in making the determination of what serves the best interests of the child. The Lincoln hearing is allowed as a manner of directly ascertaining the child’s wishes and may also serve to corroborate information that has been adduced on the record during the course of the fact-finding hearing … .

“[T]he right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to the rights or preferences of the parents” … . Matter of Heasley v Morse, 2016 NY Slip Op 07883, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING)CUSTODY (LINCOLN HEARING, FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING)/LINCOLN HEARING (CUSTODY,  FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING)

/

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted enforcing the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant had raised a question of fact about whether the agreement was unconscionable:

Under the terms of the separation agreement, the defendant relinquished all of the property rights that he acquired during the marriage, including any interest that he may have had in the plaintiff’s partnership interest in a neurological practice and the parties’ four properties in Florida, as well as any spousal maintenance. Given the vast disparity in the parties’ earnings, the evidence that the defendant had no assets of value, and the defendant’s documented medical condition which inhibits his future earning capacity, the defendant’s submissions were sufficient to create an inference that the separation agreement was unconscionable … . In addition, the defendant’s evidence indicating that the plaintiff sold almost $1 million in securities in the months preceding his execution of the separation agreement, the value of which were not accounted for in the list of her bank and brokerage accounts therein, raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff concealed assets … . Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have exercised its equitable powers and directed further financial disclosure, to be followed by a hearing to test the validity of the separation agreement … . Gardella v Remizov, 2016 NY Slip Op 07924, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

FAMILY LAW (QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE)/SEPARATION AGREEMENT (QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE)/UNCONSCIONABILITY (FAMILY LAW, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE)

/ ,

UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION AS SANDOVAL EVIDENCE.

Although the errors were deemed harmless, the Second Department noted that allowing, as Sandoval evidence, a comment posted by defendant on Facebook and evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation was improper under the facts:

The Supreme Court erred, in its Sandoval ruling … , in permitting the People to elicit testimony from the defendant regarding a comment posted on his Facebook page, since the comment was not probative of the defendant’s credibility … . The Supreme Court further erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from certain witnesses regarding the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation and involvement in a prior violent incident. Contrary to the People’s contention and the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendant did not introduce evidence that could properly be construed as character evidence and, thus, it was improper to permit the People to elicit evidence as to the defendant’s alleged prior bad acts on that basis … . In addition, the Supreme Court improperly modified its Sandoval ruling by permitting the prosecutor to question the defendant regarding his alleged gang affiliation and the prior violent incident, as the defendant did not “open the door” to the otherwise precluded evidence … . People v Borgella, 2016 NY Slip Op 07972, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)/SANDOVAL (UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION)

/ ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE.

The Second Department determined prohibiting the cross-examination of a police officer about a federal lawsuit which alleged the officer fabricated a weapons charged was reversible error. Defendant was arrested by the officer and charged with possession of a weapon allegedly found by the officer in the seat of the car where defendant was sitting:

The Court of Appeals has held that law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other prosecution witness for purposes of cross-examination and that civil allegations of misconduct in a federal lawsuit filed against a law enforcement agent are favorable to a defendant as impeachment evidence insofar as such allegations bear on a law enforcement officer’s credibility as a witness … . Furthermore, there is no prohibition against cross-examining a witness, including a police officer, about bad acts that have never been formally proven at a trial … .

In cross-examining a law enforcement witness, the same standard for good faith basis and specific allegations relevant to credibility applies, as does the same broad latitude to preclude or limit cross-examination … . Counsel must first present a good faith basis for inquiring, namely the lawsuit relied upon. Second, specific allegations from the lawsuit that are relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness must be identified. Third, the trial judge must exercise discretion in assessing whether inquiry into such allegations would confuse or mislead the jury, or create a substantial risk of undue prejudice to the parties … . People v Enoe, 2016 NY Slip Op 07977, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)/POLICE OFFICERS (CROSS-EXAMINATION, (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE)

/ , ,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESERVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed a witness (Perkins) was an accomplice as a matter of law. The defendant was charged and convicted of tampering with evidence (attempting to dispose of a jacket allegedly worn when defendant committed murder). It was alleged defendant instructed Perkins to get rid of his boots. The court noted that defendant’s request for the instruction, made during deliberations in response to a jury note, preserved the issue for appeal:

… [I]t is well settled that, “to be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crime[] for which the defendant is on trial” … . Thus, “a ‘witness is an accomplice as a matter of law only if the jury could reasonably reach no other conclusion but that he [or she] participated in the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged'” … .

Perkins’ testimony established that she picked defendant up at the same location that the jacket was later found and she subsequently disposed of defendant’s boots pursuant to his direction. In addition, she was arrested the same day as defendant, was charged with a felony, entered into a cooperation agreement with the People and, pursuant to that agreement, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for her truthful testimony against defendant. When defendant requested the accomplice charge, he stated that Perkins had pleaded guilty to “obstructing governmental administration . . . in exchange for not being prosecuted for tampering.” In light of this, we find that Perkins was an accomplice as a matter of law “since [s]he could have been (and was) charged with a crime ‘based upon some of the same facts or conduct’ upon which the charge[] against defendant [was] based” … . People v Whyte, 2016 NY Slip Op 07880, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESEVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge did not use the right criteria in denying defendant’s request to represent himself:

County Court inquired into defendant’s background, emphasized the importance of having counsel represent him, cautioned against the dangers of representing himself and tested defendant’s skill as an advocate with several evidentiary questions. The issue, however, is not the extent of defendant’s legal knowledge, but his capacity to knowingly waive the right to counsel … . In denying the request, County Court essentially ruled that it was not in defendant’s best interest and that the application was untimely, without expressly addressing defendant’s capacity to waive his right to counsel. Since defendant’s request was made prior to the commencement of trial, it was unquestionably timely … . Moreover, we are satisfied that defendant, who informed the court that he had obtained his GED and engaged in paralegal studies for a year, and was described by the court as “bright” and “articulate,” competently, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to the counsel. People v Poulos, 2016 NY Slip Op 07879, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/PRO SE CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

/

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined the contract between plaintiff contractor and property-owner defendant was a design specification contract, as opposed to a performance specification contract. Therefore plaintiff contractor could not be held responsible for defects in materials, methods or design, which were the responsibility of the property owner:

In contrast to a performance specification contract, which affords a contractor the freedom to choose the materials and methods employed to achieve a specified result, a design specification contract requires a contractor to use the materials, methods and design dictated by the owner, without bearing any “responsibility if the design proves inadequate to achieve the intended result” … . In other words, when there is a design specification contract, a contractor follows the architectural plans and specifications provided by an owner, and the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in such plans and specifications or be prevented from recovering contractually-agreed upon payments for work completed in compliance with them … . Whether a construction contract is one of performance or design specification turns on the language of the contract as a whole, with consideration given to factors such as “the nature and degree of the contractor’s involvement in the specification process, and the degree to which the contractor is allowed to exercise discretion in carrying out its performance” … . CGM Constr., Inc. v Sydor, 2016 NY Slip Op 07895, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONTRACT (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONTRACT (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED)

/ ,

FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Third Department determined, under the facts, defendant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress defendant’s statement, which was made after 26 hours of interrogation:

… “[C]ounsel had everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving to suppress the [oral statements]” … . This is not to say that counsel must always seek to suppress evidence, and we reiterate that counsel is not ineffective for failing to make meritless motions … . Under the circumstances of this case, however, had counsel taken steps to suppress statements from the interrogation, the potential upside would have been the exclusion of the inconsistent statements … . Another potential gain would have been a basis to exclude the seized physical evidence obtained by the search warrants inasmuch as these warrants were secured, in part, by information obtained from defendant’s interrogation … . Indeed, with respect to this physical evidence, counsel recognized that, by not seeking to suppress the physical evidence on which blood had been found, he had to explain the blood’s presence to the jury. He further admitted that the People’s case would have been weaker had this physical evidence been excluded. While we do not pass on whether counsel would have been ultimately successful in suppressing either defendant’s oral statements or the seized physical evidence, we do conclude that a colorable basis existed for seeking suppression. Given the potential benefit in doing so, we discern no strategic or legitimate reason to let any of this crucial evidence come in unabated at trial … . People v Zeh, 2016 NY Slip Op 07881, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)

/

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.

In a lengthy opinion by Justice Austin, too detailed to be fairly summarized here, the Second Department determined a New York agent (Kraft) which acted on the investors’, including defendant’s, behalf, but over which the defendant exercised no control, and a subscription agreement with a New York choice of law provision were insufficient, under the facts, to confer jurisdiction of New York courts over the lawsuit. The lawsuit sought payment on a note which was related to defendant’s investment in an oil and gas joint venture (AIV). Defendant resided in Illinois, the note was executed in Illinois, and defendant did not transact any business in New York:

Here, the defendant did not personally transact business in New York, and the complaint does not contain any allegations that he did so … . After the defendant executed the Subscription Agreement and the note in Illinois, the only acts connecting him to New York with respect to his investment in AIV were sending one letter in December 1997 to representatives of AIV and engaging in a telephone conversation with representatives of AIV … . Moreover, no meetings were held in New York between the defendant and the plaintiffs … . Even though CPLR 302(a) is a single-act statute, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant’s act of appointing Kraft, a corporation that maintains its principal office in New York, as his attorney-in-fact upon investing in the joint venture is not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. * * *

Accepting the plaintiffs’ assertions that Kraft executed business orders and drilling and operating agreements and collected and distributed monies on the defendant’s behalf in New York State, and that knowledge of and consent to Kraft’s actions were established by the Subscription Agreement, which appointed Kraft as his attorney-in-fact with regard to these transactions, the defendant’s lack of control undermines a finding of an agency relationship. America/International 1994 Venture v Mau, 2016 NY Slip Op 07915, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)/JURISDICTION (LONG-ARM, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT)

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