You are here: / STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE...

Search Results

/ ,

STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.

The Second Department determined a statement made to law enforcement personnel by a juvenile respondent who was deemed incapacitated was admissible in the probable cause hearing which led to the juvenile’s commitment to the custody of the commissioner of mental health/mental retardation and developmental disabilities. The juvenile allegedly started a fire in his father’s house. Family Court found the juvenile to be incapacitated and therefore no fact-finding hearing was held. At the probable cause hearing (re: commitment of the juvenile) the juvenile’s statement, made after waiving his Miranda rights, was admitted in evidence:

… Family Court did not violate [the juvenile’s] due process rights by ordering his commitment based on a probable cause finding that depended, in part, on a written statement he made to law enforcement officials. The court’s finding that the appellant lacked the capacity to proceed to a fact-finding hearing did not equate to a finding that the appellant could not comprehend the Miranda warnings … that were administered by a police officer before the appellant made his statement. To be competent to proceed to a fact-finding hearing, a juvenile respondent must have the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist in his or her own defense (see Family Ct Act § 301.2[13]). In contrast, “[a]n individual may validly waive Miranda rights so long as the immediate import of those warnings is comprehended, regardless of his or her ignorance of the mechanics by which the fruits of that waiver may be used later in the criminal process” … . Thus, the court’s incapacity finding did not undermine the reliability of the appellant’s statement with respect to whether there was probable cause to believe that the appellant committed an offense. Further, the statement was, prima facie, competent for that purpose, even if it might later be rendered inadmissible by extrinsic proof … . Matter of Jaime E. S. (Anonymous), 2015 NY Slip Op 09694, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)/EVIDENCE (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, STATEMENT MADE BY INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING)

/

INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.

The Second Department determined a provision in the Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), was sufficiently concrete to serve as a predicate for a Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. The plaintiff was using a grinder cut sheet metal when a piece of sheet metal and a piece of the grinder “shot out” and injured him. Plaintiff alleged a “protector” had been removed from the grinder:

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to “provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . As a predicate to a section 241(6) cause of action, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a concrete specification promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor in the Industrial Code … . * * *

…[P]laintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim is predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3), which provides that “[a]ll safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged.” Sections 23-9.2(a) and 23-1.5(c)(3) each set forth an action to be taken (“corrected by necessary repairs or replacement”; “repaired or restored . . . or removed”) and set forth the trigger or time frame for taking such action (“upon discovery”; “immediately . . . if damaged”). Therefore … we hold that 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3) is sufficiently concrete and specific to support the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Perez v 286 Scholes St. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09664, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

LABOR LAW (INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE WAS A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE WAS A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/

WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Workers were using jackhammers to chip away concrete on an elevated structure. Netting had been installed to catch falling pieces of concrete. Plaintiff was struck and severely injured by a four-foot piece of concrete which fell through a gap in the netting. The netting was deemed to be an inadequate safety device:

The plaintiffs’ submissions demonstrated that the injured plaintiff suffered harm that “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” to the piece of concrete that struck him … , and that given the nature and purpose of the work that was being performed at the time of his injury, the falling debris presented a significant risk of injury such that the … defendants were obligated under Labor Law § 240(1) to use appropriate safety devices to safeguard the injured plaintiff from the harm it posed … . The plaintiffs’ submissions also demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s injury was “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against [the] risk” of harm posed by the falling debris … . Indeed, the plaintiffs established that the vertical netting that was installed around the controlled access zone to protect workers from the falling debris had pulled loose from the plywood barricade, creating an opening through which the concrete that struck the injured plaintiff traveled. Under these circumstances, the vertical netting constituted a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and the plaintiffs demonstrated that it was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” (Labor Law § 240[1]). Sarata v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 09667, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

LABOR LAW (WORKER STRUCK BY FALLING DEBRIS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.

The Second Department determined defendants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the cement patch over which plaintiff allegedly tripped was a trivial defect. The defendants did not submit evidence of the dimensions of the defect:

“[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Photographs that fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and photographs which the plaintiff claimed accurately depicted the condition that allegedly caused her to fall. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmovant … , the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence was elicited as to the dimensions of the defect at the time of the accident. In light of the photographs, which depict the irregular nature of the sidewalk, as well as the time, place, and circumstance of the plaintiff’s fall, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the condition at issue was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Mazza v Our Lady of Perpetual Help R.C. Church, 2015 NY Slip Op 09657, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

NEGLIGENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/EVIDENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT)

/ ,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LANDLORD-TENANT. .

/ ,

STIPULATION WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OLDEST CHILD WOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a stipulation which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce did not call for the reduction of child support upon emancipation of the older child. The dissent argued that, applying standard principles of contract interpretation, it was clear the parties intended emancipation of the older child would result in the reduction of child support, despite the absence of a formula for the reduction in the stipulation:

There is no evidence, other than plaintiff’s testimony, that the parties had agreed to a reduction in child support on account of any purported emancipation of the older child. Indeed, their agreement, freely entered into, does not allocate plaintiff’s child support obligation as between the children or provide a formula for a reduction in the event of one child’s emancipation … . “When child support has been ordered for more than one child, the emancipation of the oldest child does not automatically reduce the amount of support owed under an order of support for multiple children” … . Schulman v Miller, 2015 NY Slip Op 09603, 1st Dept, 12-29-15

FAMILY LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/STIPULATION, DIVORCE (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION DID NOT CALL FOR REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON EMANCIPATION OF OLDER CHILD)

/

FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY, STEMMING FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined Morgan Stanley’s motion to dismiss fraud and fraudulent concealment causes of action was properly denied.  The action stemmed from residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and the collapse of subprime mortgages. In essence, Morgan Stanley argued the plaintiff, Basis Yield, a mutual fund, did not allege justifiable reliance on the ratings of the investments and did not allege it exercised due diligence in researching the quality of the investments. With respect to the “failure to allege the exercise of due diligence” argument, the court wrote:

… Morgan Stanley … argues that the fraud claims are legally insufficient because Basis Yield does not allege that it conducted, or sought to conduct, a due diligence investigation into the allegedly misrepresented matters. This argument relies on the well-established principle that a plaintiff suing for fraud (and particularly a sophisticated plaintiff, such as Basis Yield) must establish that it “has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception” … . * * *

If accepted, Morgan Stanley’s position would require the prospective purchaser of a credit instrument to assume that the instrument’s credit rating is fraudulent until the rating has been verified through a detailed retracing of the steps of the underwriter and credit rating agency. This would largely negate the utility of the credit ratings of negotiable bonds and notes that are published by accredited rating agencies. Morgan Stanley does not draw our attention to any New York decision holding that the due diligence obligation of even a sophisticated investor extends so far as to require it to seek to verify the accuracy of an accredited agency’s credit rating of a note or bond through an investigation of nonpublic information. Basis Yield Alpha Fund Master v Stanley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09645, 1st Dept 12-29-15

FRAUD (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY, STEMMING FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY)/MORGAN STANLEY (FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy beam being lowered by two other workers struck him in the chest and leg when the workers lost control of it. The court noted an expert opinion that no safety devices were needed was insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law 240 (1) violation:

The court properly found a “causal connection between the object’s inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” … . By submitting an expert affidavit, plaintiff met his initial burden of showing that the beam “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … , and that statutorily enumerated safety devices could have prevented the accident … . It is undisputed that no enumerated safety devices were provided, and the testimony and expert opinion that such devices were neither necessary nor customary is insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation ”’ . The “height differential cannot be described as de minimis given the amount of force [the beam was] able to generate over [its] descent” … . Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, which were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which the other two workers lowered the beam; comparative negligence is no defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium, 2015 NY Slip Op 09632, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY BEAM LOWERED BY TWO WORKERS)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION NO SAFEY EQUIPMENT NECESSARY DID NOT DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (OPINION THAT NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)

/

SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE USED BY THE LANDLORD AS AN OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT, BUT CAN BE USED BY THE TENANT TO REDUCE AMOUNT OWED TO THE LANDLORD.

In finding the special referee exceeded the scope of the reference from Supreme Court, the First Department explained the consequences of a landlord’s failure to place a security deposit in a separate account pursuant to General Obligations Law 7-103:

Section 7-103 prohibits landlords from commingling security deposits with their own funds. Violation of the statute gives rise to an action in conversion and the right to immediate return of the funds … . A landlord who violates Section 7-103 of the General Obligations Law cannot use the security as an offset against unpaid rents. This is so because a landlord is considered to be a trustee with respect to those funds deposited as security. To allow the landlord to set off the rent against the deposit would be to treat the deposit as a debt and the landlord as a debtor, the situation the statute was enacted to change … .The same logic does not pertain where a tenant seeks to apply the security deposit to reduce amounts found owing to the landlord.  23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp. v 23 E. 39th St. Dev., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09605, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LANDLORD-TENANT (SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE USED AS OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SECURITY DEPOSIT CAN BE USED TO REDUCE AMOUNT TENANT OWES LANDLORD)/SECURITY DEPOSIT (LANDLORD CANNOT USE AS OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT)/SECURITY DEPOSIT (CAN BE USED TO REDUCE AMOUNT OWED LANDLORD BY TENANT)

/

FAILURE TO NAME INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS, OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED IN THE COMPLAINTS.

The First Department affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of an action against the police department and several named individual police officers because the notice of claim named only the New York City Police Department as a defendant and did not name any individual officers or any “john doe” officers. Justice Sweeney explained his reasoning for affirming in a concurring memorandum. Two justices dissented in a memorandum by Justice Manzanet-Daniels. Justice Sweeney argued that the underlying purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipality to make a timely investigation into the allegations. By failing to name individual officers, the municipality was not given sufficient notice. The dissent argued that the General Municipal Law does not require the naming (in a notice of claim) of individual employees of a municipality to state a valid claim against employees of a municipality:

Plaintiffs here did not put the City on notice that it would seek to impose liability upon specific employees of the NYPD. Indeed, as the action progressed, more and more police officers were added as individual defendants, the last of which over three years removed from the incident in question, thus rendering a timely investigation into and assessment of the claims impossible. To permit such a result raises questions of fundamental fairness for the individual defendants, since they were not put on notice, even in a generic way by way of “Police Officer John Doe” or similar language, that they were going to become defendants. Moreover, the prejudice accruing to both the municipal and individual defendants from such a delay is obvious, since memories fade over time, records that could have easily been obtained early on may have been archived, lost or discarded, and witnesses may have relocated, just to name a few of the potential obstacles. Delay in investigating and evaluating a claim defeats the purpose of GML § 50-e. Alvarez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09601, 1st Dept 12-29-15

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/POLICE OFFICERS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)

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