You are here: / Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction...

Search Results

/ ,

Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period

The Second Department determined the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) did not have the authority to expunge a Family Assessment Response (FAR) report prior to the end of the 10-year statutory period.  The decision includes an in-depth analysis of the early expunction (expungement) of reports pursuant to Social Services Law 422(5)(c) and why such early expunction (expungement) is not authorized for Family Assessment Response (FAR) reports pursuant to Social Services Law 427-a:

… Social Services Law § 427-a is not “silent” on the matter of expunction of FAR reports and records. Rather, it expressly requires that FAR reports and records be maintained for 10 years after the initial report is made (see Social Services Law § 427-a[4][c][i]; [5][c]). Thus, as OCFS correctly determined, pursuant to Social Services Law § 427-a, FAR reports and records are only subject to expunction 10 years after the initial report is made to the SCR, and not before.

…[T]he existence of an early expunction provision in Social Services Law § 422 supports … this interpretation. In this respect, the failure of the Legislature to include an early expunction provision in Social Services Law § 427-a, when it had, prior to the enactment of Social Services Law § 427-a, included such a provision in a statute within the same statutory scheme, “should be construed as indicating that the exclusion was intentional” … .

…[T]he interpretation of Social Services Law § 427-a as not incorporating the early expunction process set forth in Social Services Law § 422(5)(c) does not conflict with the legislative intent of section 427-a. As explained in the relevant legislative history, “[t]raditionally, CPS is required to respond to reports of child abuse and maltreatment with a standard investigation that is narrowly focused on determining whether a specific incident of abuse actually occurred and if the child is at risk” … . “The focus of the CPS system on investigation of abuse and maltreatment has created an environment that, for many families, casts suspicion over any offer of services or service referrals” (id.). Implementation of a differential response, in the form of a FAR track, “permits a social service district to conduct an assessment of the family’s needs and strengths rather than investigate the validity of the allegations in a child abuse and maltreatment report” … . “The expectation of FAR is that families will be more likely to seek necessary help when a less adversarial, less threatening, approach is taken” … . Matter of Corrigan v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2015 NY Slip Op 05473, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/

Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s Notification of His Insurer of the Settlement Offer—Although Insurer Sent a Letter Responding to the Notification, It Was Sent to the Wrong Address and the Insured Never Received It

In determining the insurer’s (GEICO’s) motion to stay arbitration should have been denied, the Second Department explained the procedure where the insured has been offered a settlement by the tortfeasor for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy and permission to settle is sought from the insured’s carrier (GEICO here). The insured timely notified and requested permission to settle from GEICO, but GEICO sent its response to the wrong address and the insured never received it.  After the passage of 30 days, the insured accepted the settlement and served a demand for arbitration on GEICO re: the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits under the GEICO policy:

As a general rule, an insured who settles with a tortfeasor in violation of a policy condition requiring his or her insurer’s consent to settle, thereby prejudicing the insurer’s subrogation rights, is precluded from asserting a claim for SUM benefits under the policy … . However, the language set forth in 11 NYCRR 60-2.3(f), which must be included in all motor vehicle liability insurance policies in which SUM coverage has been purchased, creates an exception to this rule in situations where the insured advises the insurer of an offer to settle for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy, which obligates the insurer either to consent to the settlement or to advance the settlement amount to the insured and assume the prosecution of the tort action within 30 days … . In the event that the insurer does not timely respond in accordance with this condition, the insured may settle with the tortfeasor without the insurer’s consent, and without forfeiting his or her rights to SUM benefits (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3[f]…).

Here, the burden was on GEICO to come forward with sufficient facts to establish justification for a stay of arbitration … . GEICO’s submission of its letter requesting additional documentation regarding the settlement, which was addressed to the wrong law firm at an address different from that of the law firm which had initially notified GEICO of the settlement offer, failed to sustain this burden. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Arciello, 2015 NY Slip Op 05477, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action by plaintiff-janitor who fell from an A-frame ladder while cleaning the basketball backboard in a school gymnasium. The Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because cleaning the backboard was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 240 (1).  The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed because the defendant school demonstrated the ladder was not defective and it did not have the authority to control the manner in which plaintiff did his work:

… [T]he injured plaintiff’s work did not constitute “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant established that the injured plaintiff was performing routine maintenance of the basketball backboards, done regularly throughout the course of the basketball season, that did not require any specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the school. As such, it was not a covered activity under Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it ” either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . When an accident is alleged to involve defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … .

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by a defect in the ladder, which was owned and provided by the defendant, a premises condition is at issue … . However, the defendant established, prima facie, that the ladder was not in a defective condition and that, in any event, it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any defect in the ladder … . …

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by the manner in which the work was performed, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the injured plaintiff’s work … . Torres v St. Francis Coll., 2015 NY Slip Op 05466, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/ ,

Police Officer Who Refused a Light-Duty Assignment Was Not Entitled to Disability Benefits Pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c

The Second Department determined a police officer was not entitled to refuse a light duty assignment during the period his entitlement to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c was being determined:

A disabled officer receiving General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits is entitled to a due process hearing before those benefits may be terminated when the officer submits medical evidence contesting the finding of a municipality’s appointed physician that the officer is fit for duty … . Once such evidence has been submitted, an “order to report for duty may not be enforced, or benefits terminated, pending resolution of an administrative hearing, which itself is subject to review under CPLR article 78” … . However, where the municipality’s physician is of the opinion that the officer is able “to perform specified types of light police duty,” payment of the full amount of salary or wages may be discontinued should the officer refuse to perform such light police duty if same “is available and offered to [the officer]” and enables him or her “to continue to be entitled to his [or her] regular salary or wages” (General Municipal Law § 207-c[3]…). If an officer who refuses to return to light duty fails to provide medical proof that he or she is unable to do so, the municipality may discontinue disability payments without a hearing … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05476, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/ , , ,

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed (for failure to state a cause of action) the negligence cause of action, should not have dismissed the General Business Law 349 cause of action, and properly denied the motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract cause of action. The court succinctly described the elements of the three causes of action (facts not described in the decision):

To prevail on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. “Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” … . * * *

To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, the complaint must allege that ” a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . * * *

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract are the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and damages … . MVB Collision, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05453, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/

Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus Dry and Free of Snow During a Snow Storm

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant bus company could not be held liable for a slip and fall on wet steps on a bus during a snow storm:

“[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential tortfeasor—reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not breach any duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident … . Given the inclement weather conditions when the accident occurred, “it would be unreasonable to expect the [defendant] to constantly clean the steps of the subject bus” … . Batista v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05430, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

/

Liquor Authority Properly Complied with the Requirements for Issuing a Liquor License When Three or More Licensed Premises Are Located Within 500 Feet

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined a petition to annul the NYS Liquor Authority’s conditional approval of a liquor license was properly denied.  The Liquor Authority properly considered the factors associated with the “500-foot-rule” requiring good cause for the issuance of a license when there are three or more licensed premises within 500 feet:

Ordinarily, applications for licenses to sell liquor for consumption on premises “shall be issued to all applicants except for good cause shown” (ABCL § 64[1]); however, no such license shall be granted for any premises within 500 feet of three or more existing licensed and operating premises, unless the Authority “determines that granting such license would be in the public interest” (ABCL § 64[7][b], [f]). In determining whether the granting of a license will promote the public interest, the Authority may consider:

“(a) The number, classes and character of licenses in proximity to the location and in the particular municipality or subdivision thereof.

“(b) Evidence that all necessary licenses and permits have been obtained from the state and all other governing bodies.

“(c) Effect of the grant of the license on vehicular traffic and parking in proximity to the location.

“(d) The existing noise level at the location and any increase in noise level that would be generated by the proposed premises.

“(e) The history of liquor violations and reported criminal activity at the proposed premises.

“(f) Any other factors specified by law or regulation that are relevant to determine the public convenience and advantage and public interest of the community” (ABCL § 64[6-a]).

These factors are intended to guide the Authority “in assuring that appropriate factors are taken into consideration which relate to the business and the impact it has . . . [and] to assure that quality of life impacts are fully incorporated into the responsible state decision-making apparatus” … .

In cases implicating this 500-foot rule, “[b]efore it may issue any such license, the [A]uthority shall conduct a hearing, upon notice to the applicant and the municipality or community board, and shall state and file in its office its reasons therefor” (ABCL § 64[7][f]).

“A reviewing court is not entitled to interfere in the exercise of discretion by an administrative agency unless there is no rational basis for the exercise, or the action complained of is arbitrary and capricious” … . Courts look to whether the determination “is without sound basis in reason and is generally without regard to the facts” … .

Regarding the substance of the reasons stated by the Authority, this Court has held that something more than a “perfunctory recitation” is needed to comply with the requirement that the Authority state its reasons for concluding that issuance of a license would be in the public interest … .

Here, the Authority’s written statement sets forth detailed, concrete reasons for its determination, made after a hearing, that issuance of a liquor license … would be in the public interest (ABCL § 64[7][b], [f]). Matter of BarFreeBedford v New York State Liq. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05428, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

/

Frivolous Lawsuit Warranted Sanctions and the Award of Attorney’s Fees

The First Department determined sanctions and the award of attorney’s fees were appropriate for a frivolous lawsuit brought by an attorney who had represented himself in a related divorce proceeding.  The lawsuit sought $27,000 allegedly loaned to the defendant-wife by plaintiff. However, the $27,000 claim was made in the divorce proceedings and, although the lower court did not directly rule on the loan, the claim was effectively rejected by the court in a “catch-all” provision denying all relief not specifically addressed:

A court may, in its discretion, award to any party costs in the form of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorneys’ fees resulting from “frivolous conduct,” which includes: (1) conduct completely without merit in law, which cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) conduct undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; and (3) the assertion of material factual statements that are false (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c][3]). The court may also award financial sanctions on the same grounds (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]).

In determining whether conduct is frivolous, the court shall consider “the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).

Here, the husband made a claim in the divorce action for repayment of the $27,000 “loan,” and Supreme Court rejected it. He then failed to challenge that finding on direct appeal. Any argument that Supreme Court did not actually decide the issue of the “loan” because it did not specifically address it is rejected, since the court included the “catch-all” language that any claims not discussed were denied. In any event, the husband could have sought clarification from the court if he felt that the claim related to the “loan” had escaped the court’s attention. Indeed, it would have behooved him to do so, as it is well settled that “res judicata bars a subsequent plenary action concerning an issue of marital property which could have been, but was not, raised in the prior matrimonial action” … . Again, we are required to consider “the circumstances under which the conduct took place” when reviewing a sanctions motion (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Here, the circumstances are that the husband, an experienced divorce lawyer, ignored a long-standing principle of matrimonial jurisprudence. Thus, his decision to commence an action that he knew, or should have known, was futile from its inception, weighs heavily in favor of a finding that his conduct was intended solely to harass the wife.  Borstein v Henneberry, 2015 NY Slip Op 05390, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

/ ,

Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld

The First Department determined defendant had validly waived his right to be tried in front of a 12-person jury. During defendant’s trial, after the court had been closed for several days due to Hurricane Sandy, one of the jurors informed the court he was leaving town. The defendant, against the advice of his lawyer, was insistent that he wanted the trial to continue with 11 jurors:

The court noted on the record that the excused juror had informed the court that he had a flight scheduled for that day, and that the court had called the juror that morning but could not reach him. Defense counsel objected to the court’s discharge of the juror without first consulting with counsel. Counsel informed the court that, against her advice, defendant wanted deliberations to continue with the remaining 11 jurors. Defense counsel stated that she had told defendant “a number of times that I do not think we should go forward with 11,” but defendant was “extremely insistent,” was “tired of this process,” and did “not want to retry the case.” The court confirmed with defendant on the record that he wanted to continue with 11 jurors, and defendant executed a written waiver of a 12-person jury. Defense counsel also signed the written waiver.

Although the court should have given defense counsel an opportunity to be heard before it excused the juror (see CPL 270.35[2][b]), defendant entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a 12-person jury … . Defense counsel stated that she had discussed with defendant the possibility of a retrial, and that defendant rejected that option … . The court questioned defendant on the record and confirmed that he had discussed his decision with counsel, and that he understood but rejected counsel’s advice. As defense counsel stated, defendant was insistent that deliberations continue with an 11-person jury. Defendant “must accept the decision he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” … . People v Perry, 2015 NY Slip Op 05394, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

/ , ,

Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

The First Department determined the savings provision of General Municipal Law 50-e applied and a notice of claim which was timely served by an unauthorized method was valid.  The court noted that a motion court can exercise its discretion to hear a motion to renew which relies on information known but not raised at the time the original motion was made:

Although the motion was based on information that was available to plaintiff earlier, “courts have discretion to consider such evidence in the interest of justice” … .

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s notice of claim was not served within the 90-day period set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, and plaintiff had not timely moved for an extension of time to serve. Plaintiff contended that she qualified under either or both prongs of the “savings provision” under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c), which provides that “[i]f the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant. . .be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fails to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.”

Moreover, “[t]he purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipal defendant to make a prompt investigation of the facts and preserve the relevant evidence. The applicable statute should be applies flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error. General Municipal Law § 50-e was not meant as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against spurious ones” … .

Here, the record shows that plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant on December 8, 2011 via regular mail, which did not comply with the requirement that service be completed in person or via registered or certified mail. However, defendant subsequently demanded that plaintiff appear for examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h with regard to her claim. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim is valid under the first prong of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c). Person v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05417, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

 

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