You are here: / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL...

Search Results

/

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE, RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION; PETITION DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined a juvenile, Nigel H, who admitted committing what would constitute a misdemeanor arson offense, should have been granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal as the least restrictive sentencing alternative. The period of probation should not have been imposed. Because the probation term had expired, the court dismissed the petition, noting the potential consequences of a record of the offense:

 

The Family Court was required to impose the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of Nigel H. and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2[2][a]). This “least restrictive available alternative” requirement compels the Family Court to balance the needs of the juvenile and the need for the protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2[2][a]…).

… [T]he least restrictive dispositional alternative available to the Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding was the imposition of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Family Court Act § 315.3(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is an adjournment of the proceeding, for a period not to exceed six months, with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice.” Permissible terms and conditions of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal may include “supervision by the probation service” (Family Ct Act § 315.3[2]). * * *

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing a period of probation. Given Nigel H.’s many positive characteristics, his lack of prior criminal or behavioral issues, the services and support he is already receiving as a result of his placement in foster care, and the minimal risk that he poses to the community, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Nigel H., 2016 NY Slip Op 01326, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/JUVENILES (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/SENTENCING (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)

/

CONVERSION THEORY DOES NOT APPLY TO REAL ESTATE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined the causes of action for conversion should have been dismissed. Conversion applies only to personal property, not, as here, to real property and a business interest:

 

“A conversion takes place when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person’s right of possession” … . The subject matter of a conversion cause of action ” must constitute identifiable tangible personal property’; real property and interests in business opportunities will not suffice”… . Here, the first cause of action seeks to recover damages for conversion based upon [defendant’s] alleged interference with the right of the plaintiff C & B Enterprises, USA, LLC … , “to possession of its Property,” and the second cause of action seeks to recover damages for conversion based upon [defendant’s] alleged interference “with [the plaintiff[‘s]] right to possession of his ownership of C & B.” Inasmuch as the subjects of these causes of action are real property and [plaintiff’s] interest in a business, respectively, a cause of action in conversion does not lie … . C & B Enters. USA, LLC v Koegel, 2016 NY Slip Op 01281, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

CONVERSION (ACTION WILL NOT LIE RE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE)

/

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL-CONTRACT ACTION WHERE ORIGINAL ACTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A WRITTEN CONTRACT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined defendant did not waive the statute of limitations defense not raised in the answer to the original complaint, but raised in the answer to the amended complaint. The court further concluded a subsequent action based upon an alleged oral agreement did not relate back to the original action based upon a written agreement and was therefore time-barred:

 

Generally, a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived unless raised by pre-answer motion or in the defendant’s answer (see CPLR 3211[e]). A defendant, however, may assert a statute of limitations defense for the first time in an answer served in response to a plaintiff’s amended complaint … . Moreover, a party may amend its pleading once without leave of court, among other circumstances, within 20 days after service of that pleading (see CPLR 3025[a]). An amended answer, made as a matter of right pursuant to CPLR 3025(a), may include a statute of limitations defense previously omitted … . * * *

The relation-back doctrine permits a plaintiff to interpose a claim or cause of action which would otherwise be time-barred, where the allegations of the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven and the cause of action would have been timely interposed if asserted in the original complaint … . The relation-back doctrine is inapplicable where the original allegations did not provide the defendant notice of the need to defend against the allegations of the amended complaint … . Moezinia v Ashkenazi, 2016 NY Slip Op 01300, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)

/

JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED AS NOT SIMILAR IN LAW.

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the First Department, in two concurring memoranda, disagreed about whether the offenses should have been severed. Defendant assaulted and robbed a subway passenger, and upon arrest several stolen MetroCards were seized. Defendant was tried on all offenses in a single trial. Justice Renwick, disagreeing with Justice Andrias, argued that the severance issue was preserved and the motion should have been granted (although the error was harmless):

 

[FROM JUSTICE RENWICK’S CONCURRING MEMORANDUM:] Under the principles set forth in People v Pierce (14 NY3d 564, 573-574 [2010]), the motion court should have granted defendant’s motion to sever the counts charging possession of stolen property, relating to eight stolen MetroCards, from the other counts of the indictment, relating to an assault and robbery. The counts were not properly joined under CPL 200.20(2)(c), because they were not “similar in law,” except to the extent that “both offenses involve misappropriated property,” which does not suffice (id. at 574). Although the counts at issue here are more closely connected, factually, than were the counts in Pierce, we reject the People’s argument that this difference warrants a different result under the statute. While factual or evidentiary connections between counts may be relevant to joinder and severance under other portions of CPL 200.20 that are not applicable here, CPL 200.20(2)(c) only involves similarity of statutory provisions defining offenses. People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01257, 1st Dept 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED)/SEVERANCE OF COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED)

/ ,

NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT AN ALLEGED ORAL WAIVER OF A LEASE PROVISION, CRITERIA EXLAINED.

The First Department, in a lease-dispute, determined the tenant’s claim that a provision of the lease requiring percentage rent (based upon the income of the tenant) was orally waived did not raise a question of fact. The lease specifically required any waiver to be in writing. The court explained when an oral waiver can be valid, despite the written-waiver requirement:

 

An agreement in a lease providing that no waiver of a term shall be inferred absent a writing to that effect is enforceable … . Thus, “if the only proof of an alleged agreement to deviate from a written contract is the oral exchanges between the parties, the writing controls” … . Tenant correctly notes that the parties to a contract may, by mutual agreement, disregard a no-waiver clause. However, some performance confirming the modification must be present, and it must be “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” …  As stated by this Court, in the context of a lease dispute, there must be “sufficient indicia that the reasonable expectations of both parties under the original lease were supplanted by subsequent actions” … . …

Here, tenant has attempted to establish that it did not pay percentage rent over the years because landlord had orally waived the requirement. However, tenant has failed to establish that nonpayment of the percentage rent was unequivocally referable to the alleged statement … . To be sure, where a party orally waives a contract provision requiring the other party to perform an affirmative act, it may be difficult for the other party to establish the waiver other than by demonstrating that it did not do the thing it was originally required to do. Nevertheless, a nonbreaching party should not have to litigate the issue based only on the breaching party’s unsupported and uncorroborated representation that it orally waived a provision. This is the very reason why many contracts require waivers to be in writing. Such a bald representation is all tenant presents here. Accordingly, it has failed to raise an issue of fact. Paramount Leasehold, L.P. v 43rd St. Deli, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01258, 1st Dept 2-23-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ALLEGED ORAL WAIVER IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN-WAIVER REQUIRMENT IN THE LEASE)/LANDLORD-TENANT (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ALLEGED ORAL WAIVER IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN-WAIVER REQUIRMENT IN THE LEASE)/WAIVER (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ALLEGED ORAL WAIVER IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN-WAIVER REQUIRMENT IN THE LEASE)

/ ,

EQUITABLE ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION BASED UPON FRAUD NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined a triable issue of fact had been raised about whether defendant made misrepresentations in a contract for a condominium such that the contract could be rescinded. Defendant agreed the condominium was to be used for residential purposes, but sought to operate a day care center on the premises. The court noted that pecuniary damages need not be alleged in an equitable action to rescind a contract based upon fraud:

 

Fraud sufficient to support the rescission requires only a misrepresentation that induces a party to enter into a contract resulting in some detriment, and “unlike a cause of action in damages on the same ground, proof of scienter and pecuniary loss is not needed” … . Thus, the fourth cause of action alleging that misrepresentations in defendant’s purchase application induced plaintiff to forgo exercise of its right of first refusal has a sound basis in the record, and Supreme Court properly concluded that a triable issue is presented. Board of Mgrs. of the Soundings Condominium v Foerster, 2016 NY Slip Op 01273, 1st Dept 2-23-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (RESCISSION FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT BE SUPPORTED BY AN ALLEGATION OF PECUNIARY LOSS)/RESCISSION (ACTION FOR RESCISSION BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)/FRAUD (ACTION FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)/DAMAGES (ACTION FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FALSE ARREST ACTIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment dismissing the complaint against police officers alleging, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff had been arrested and indicted for murder after signing a confession. The charges were eventually dismissed by the prosecutor. In her civil suit, plaintiff alleged the confession was essentially written by the police and she signed it only after she was subjected to hours of intense interrogation. The Court of Appeals concluded a question of fact had been raised whether the police had probable cause to arrest. The court noted that if the police pass false information on to the prosecutor, the “commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding” element of malicious prosecution has been satisfied (with respect to the police officers). The absence of probable cause also bears on the “actual malice” element of malicious prosecution:

 

We have “never elaborated on how a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case demonstrates that the defendant commenced or continued the underlying criminal proceeding” … . But, by suggesting that a defendant other than a public prosecutor may be liable for supplying false information to the prosecutor in substantial furtherance of a criminal action against the plaintiff, we have implicitly recognized that such conduct may, depending on the circumstances, constitute the commencement or continuation of the prosecution … . * * *

Just as in the false arrest context, the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must also establish at trial the absence of probable cause to believe that he or she committed the charged crimes, but this element operates differently in the malicious prosecution context because “[o]nce a suspect has been indicted, [ ] the law holds that the Grand Jury action creates a presumption of probable cause” … . Generally, the plaintiff cannot rebut the presumption of probable cause with evidence merely indicating that the authorities acquired information that, depending on the inferences one might choose to draw, might have fallen somewhat shy of establishing probable cause … . And, even if the plaintiff shows a sufficiently serious lack of cause for the prosecution and rebuts the presumption at trial, he or she still must prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant acted with malice, i.e., that the defendant “must have commenced the prior criminal proceeding due to a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served” … .

… [I]n some instances, the plaintiff can simultaneously rebut the presumption of probable cause and satisfy the malice element by demonstrating that the evidence of guilt relied upon by the defendant was so scant that the prosecution was entirely baseless and maliciously instituted. In that sense, “[w]hile lack of probable cause to institute a criminal proceeding and proof of actual malice are independent and indispensable elements of a malicious prosecution action, the absence of probable cause does bear on the malice issue,” and “probable cause to initiate a criminal proceeding may be so totally lacking as to reasonably permit an inference that the proceeding was maliciously instituted” … . Moreover, in the alternative, the plaintiff may show malice and overcome the presumption of probable cause with proof that the defendant falsified evidence in bad faith and that, without the falsified evidence, the authorities’ suspicion of the plaintiff would not have fully ripened into probable cause … . Thus, we have observed that, in the context of a malicious prosecution suit against the police, the presumption may be overcome “by evidence establishing that the police witnesses have not made a complete and full statement of facts . . . to the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or otherwise acted in bad faith” … . De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01254, CtApp 2-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)

/ ,

PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Defendant walked in to a hospital with a gun shot wound and the police were notified. When the police officer arrived, defendant’s clothes were in a clear plastic bag on the floor. The officer examined the clothes and concluded defendant had shot himself with a gun which had been in his waistband. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals concluded one of the conditions of the plain-view warrant-exception had not been met by the evidence in the record, i.e., there was no showing the incriminating nature of the clothes was immediately apparent to the officer:

 

“Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent” … .

Against this backdrop we conclude that the hearing court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the clothes seized by police. There was evidence adduced at the suppression hearing that the officer who seized the clothes knew defendant to have been shot, and that defendant awaited treatment at the hospital while dressed in clothes different from those he wore at the time of the shooting. More important, however, is what the evidence presented at the suppression hearing does not establish. That evidence does not show that, before the seizure, the testifying officer knew that entry and exit wounds were located on an area of defendant’s body that would have been covered by the clothes defendant wore at the time of the shooting. Similarly, the record of that proceeding contains no other indicium that could have given rise to a reasonable belief that the shooting had affected defendant’s clothes. To that end, there is no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the investigating officer had probable cause to believe that defendant’s clothes were the instrumentality of a crime … . People v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SUPPRESSION (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREDMENT DID NOT APPLY)/PLAIN VIEW (EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)

/

AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPELLATE RIGHTS AT SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, explained that an inadequate waiver of appeal at the time of a guilty plea cannot be remedied by an adequate explanation of the waived appellate rights at sentencing:

 

“It is the trial court’s responsibility ‘in the first instance,’ to determine ‘whether a particular [appellate] waiver satisfies [the] requirements’ ” … . In order for a trial court’s inquiry to be meaningful, by logic and reason, it must be part of the colloquy in which a court engages prior to accepting a defendant’s plea … . It would make little sense, and serve only to encourage the filing of a motion to vacate the plea on the ground that defendant did not appreciate the consequences of the waiver, if a court confirmed, after-the-fact, whether the defendant understood the nature of the rights relinquished. Thus, a court complies with its obligation to ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, when a court adequately explains to defendant the “separate and distinct” right to appeal … , and “at least prior to the completion of the plea proceeding, [the court] assure[s] itself that defendant adequately understood the right that [defendant] was forgoing” … . Here, the court’s explanation at sentencing came too late to satisfy the court’s obligations. While the content of the court’s advisement was correct, its timing deprived defendant of the right to know and consider all the terms of the plea bargain prior to his decision to plead guilty. People v Leach, 2016 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)

/

GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT BY INJURED WORKER ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer properly disclaimed coverage because the insured, plaintiff general contractor, did not timely notify the insurer of a lawsuit brought by an injured construction worker. Plaintiff was not notified of the suit because it had not appointed a new registered agent for service to replace a defunct agent (not an adequate excuse). The court noted that the “no prejudice” rule applied to the disclaimer, meaning that the insured need not show it was prejudiced by the lack of notice to disclaim:

 

The liability insurance policy at issue here “contain[s] clauses requiring [plaintiff] to provide prompt notice of [both] an occurrence implicating coverage” and any ensuing legal action … . “The insurer’s receipt of such notice is therefore a condition precedent to its liability under the policy,” and a failure to give that notice “may allow an insurer to disclaim its duty to provide coverage” … . At the time the policy here was issued, “[n]o showing of prejudice [was] required” to justify a disclaimer … . The absence of a need to demonstrate prejudice represented “a limited exception to th[e] general rule,” and was justified by a primary “insurer’s need to protect itself from fraud by investigating claims soon after the underlying events; to set reserves; and to take an active, early role in settlement discussions” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff provided timely notice of the underlying accident, but it is equally clear that plaintiff failed to “[n]otify [defendant] as soon as practicable” that the personal injury action had been commenced. Indeed, plaintiff never gave notice to defendant, although counsel for Speirs did so approximately four months after papers had been served … . That delay, “in the absence of an excuse or mitigating factors, is unreasonable as a matter of law” … . Plaintiff never gave notice because it did not receive the summons and complaint but, inasmuch as its nonreceipt flowed from its failure to appoint a new registered agent for service to replace a defunct one that had been named decades earlier, that explanation was “insufficient as a matter of law” … . Kraemer Bldg. Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01233, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE, FAILURE TO NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE)

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