You are here: / Child’s Unemancipated Status Was Revived Entitling Father to Child...

Search Results

/

Child’s Unemancipated Status Was Revived Entitling Father to Child Support

The Fourth Department determined the child’s moving in with father after becoming emancipated by leaving mother’s residence revived his unemancipated status, thereby entitling father to child support.  The child left mother to avoid her rules, including rules prohibiting the use of drugs. After living with friends for a while, the child sought treatment for drug addiction.  It was thereafter the child moved in with father:

“[T]he case law makes clear that a child’s unemancipated status may be revived provided there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the corresponding change in status” … . “Permitting reversion to unemancipated status is consistent with the statutory principle that parents are responsible for the support of their dependent children until the children attain the age of 21” … . Generally, a return to the parents’ custody and control has been deemed sufficient to revive a child’s unemancipated status … . Although most of the cases concerning a revival of a child’s unemancipated status involve a child’s return to the home that he or she abandoned versus the home of the noncustodial parent …, we conclude that the return to the noncustodial parent’s supervision and control does not preclude a revival of unemancipated status inasmuch as it has generally been held that “the move from one parent’s home to the other parent’s home does not constitute emancipation as th[e] child is neither self-supporting nor free from parental control” … . In this case, the child did not immediately move in with the father after flouting the mother’s rules … . Rather, he engaged in treatment for his addiction and then resumed living under the supervision and control of a parent while attending school. Baker v Baker, 2015 NY Slip Op 05045, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

/ , , ,

Defendant’s Employee Had “Apparent Authority” to Act on Behalf of Defendant Insurance Agency—Plaintiff Justifiably Relied on the Apparent Authority When It Purchased a Fake Policy from Defendant’s Employee–Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Fraud Cause of Action

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its fraud cause of action against defendant insurance agency.  An employee of the insurance agency issued a fake workers’ compensation policy to the plaintiff. The Fourth Department found that the actions of the insurance agency provided the employee with “apparent authority” to issue the policy and the plaintiff justifiably relied on that apparent authority.  The relevant law was succinctly explained:

“In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the maker], made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” … . It is undisputed that the insurance policy purportedly issued by AIG was false, and thus plaintiff established that a false representation was made that was known to be false by defendant’s employee. Defendant contends, however, that the justifiable reliance element was not met because it cannot be liable for the acts of its employee, and plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged “apparent authority” of defendant’s employee was not reasonable.

It is axiomatic that “[t]he mere creation of an agency for some purpose does not automatically invest the agent with apparent authority’ to bind the principle without limitation . . . An agent’s power to bind his [or her] principal is coextensive with the principal’s grant of authority” … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to the third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his [or her] own acts imbue himself [or herself] with apparent authority. Rather, the existence of “apparent authority” depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentation of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal — not the agent’ . . . Morever, a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … . Here, plaintiff contacted defendant seeking workers’ compensation coverage, and defendant assigned its employee who specialized in plaintiff’s type of business to assist plaintiff. We therefore conclude that plaintiff established that it reasonably relied upon the authority of defendant’s employee to act for defendant. Regency Oaks Corp. v Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04959, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

/ ,

In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, in an action involving residential mortgage-backed securities, determined that a cause of action based upon breach of representations and warranties accrued on the date the contract was executed. A few years after the parties executed a mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) and a pooling a servicing agreement (PSA) borrowers began to default, resulting in hundreds of millions in losses.  Upon investigation it was determined that the underlying mortgage loans failed to comply with the defendant’s representations and warranties about the borrowers’ incomes, occupancy status and existing debts.  The Court of Appeals held that the breach of the representations and warranties occurred when the MLPA was executed on March 28, 2006.  The action was commenced on the last day of the limitations period (on March 28, 2012), but was untimely because the contractual conditions precedent to suit had not been complied with as of that date. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s refusal to cure or repurchase after notification in January, 2012, breached a second contract and started the six-year statute running from that point. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s repurchase obligation was not a valid agreement “to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date…”.  “[Defendant’s] cure or repurchase obligation could not reasonably be viewed as a distinct promise of future performance. It was dependent on, and indeed derivative of, [defendant’s] representations and warranties, which did not survive the closing and were breached, if at all, on that date…” . ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04873, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/

Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”

Plaintiff was directed to remove snow from the work site and slipped and fell in the process. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the cited industrial code provision (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)) did not apply to the work plaintiff was assigned. The industrial code prohibited allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, where the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed (here, removal of the slippery condition) that industrial code provision does not apply:

… [P]laintiff cites 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which prohibits an employer from allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, when the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed, 12 NYCRR 23.1-7 does not apply … . In other words, liability does not attach when the injury is caused by the “‘very condition [a plaintiff] was charged with removing'” … . … Here, plaintiff was injured due to the condition that he was specifically charged with removing … , Barros v Bette & Cring, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04910, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/ ,

Although a Close Case, the Evidence Supported Defendant’s Manslaughter Conviction Under an Accomplice Theory—the Judge’s Informing the Jury of the Correct Dates of the Offense, Outside the Presence of the Parties, with the Parties’ Consent, Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

Noting that it was a close case, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence supported defendant’s conviction for manslaughter under an accomplice theory.  Defendant struck the victim with a beer bottle and then chased after another man.  There was conflicting testimony about whether defendant was present when another man who was with the defendant struck the victim with a baseball bat.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence of a “community of purpose” among accomplice and principal was sufficient.  Further, the court determined the judge’s correcting an error in the jury instructions by informing the jury of the correct dates of the offenses outside the presence of the parties, but with the parties’ consent, was not a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal. People v Scott, 2015 NY Slip Op 04874, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/ , ,

Prior Owner of a Nursing Home Did Not Have Standing to Seek Payments from Medicaid for the Period During His Ownership—Only the Current Owner/Operator of the Nursing Home Had Standing

The Third Department determined petitioner, the former owner of a nursing home, did not have standing to seek payments from Medicaid for the period before petitioner sold the nursing home.  Only the current operator of the nursing home has standing to seek Medicaid payments. The court noted that petitioner had protected his interest in the payments by contract with the new owner of the nursing home:

Standing requires a party to demonstrate both an injury-in-fact and an injury falling “within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . Petitioner has clearly demonstrated an injury-in-fact particularly since it initiated the rate appeal while it was still the owner/operator … . The more difficult question is whether petitioner meets the zone of interests component as a former owner/operator. Our review shows that the governing statute and regulations contemplate the payment of Medicaid reimbursement to the current provider of medical services or the current operator of a nursing home facility. Specifically, Social Services Law § 367-a (1) (a) mandates that all payments “shall be made to the person, institution, state department or agency or municipality supplying such medical assistance” and expressly prohibits the assignment of a reimbursement claim to a third party. This legislation was designed to “relieve DOH from the potential liability and increased administrative burdens involved in such assignments” (Legislative Mem, 1971 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 2419-2420…). Correspondingly, nursing home facilities qualify for Medicaid payments provided that they possess a valid operating certificate issued by the Commissioner (see Public Health Law § 2801 [2], [3], [4] [b]; 10 NYCRR 86-2.1 [a]). An operating certificate “shall only be used by the established operator for the designated site or operation” (10 NYCRR 401.2 [b]). When, as here, the owner/operator sells a facility to a party who intends to continue operating the facility, it may transfer the operating certificate to the new operator only upon approval of the Public Health Council (see 10 NYCRR 401.3 [c]). Read together, these provisions establish that it is the current operator of a nursing home facility — i.e., the holder of a valid operating certificate — that is entitled to receive Medicaid payments and, thus, is the protected party within the statutory zone of interest. Matter of Park Manor Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 04909, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/ ,

In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined defendant was entitled to access to all the documents reviewed by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) in connection with the Board’s recommendation that defendant’s classification remain at risk level 3.  However, County Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment to allow defendant to gain access to missing documents (two emails) was not an abuse of discretion. The record evidence in support of the denial of the modification was overwhelming:

Section 168-o (4), applicable when a petitioner seeks modification of the risk level, does not contain any language entitling a petitioner to pre-hearing discovery, but simply provides that a petitioner has a right to submit “any information relevant to the review” (Correction Law § 169-o [2]). Further, the right to petition the sentencing court to be “relieved of any further duty to register” under Correction Law § 168-o (1) does not permit the court to review the correctness of the initial risk level determination (see Correction Law § 168-g [4]…). While there are statutory differences in the two [*5]proceedings, we agree with defendant that the procedural due process rights, in regard to the requested documents, were the same. Thus, defendant was entitled to access to the documents.

Nonetheless, it is well-settled that the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court … . “When the protection of fundamental rights has been involved in requests for adjournments, that discretionary power has been more narrowly construed” … . Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in failing to adjourn the hearing to gather the two emails. People v Lashway, 2015 NY Slip Op 04877, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/ , , ,

The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)

Plaintiff was injured when a piece of lumber fell off an open truck owned by the county.  Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when the debris came off the county truck and struck her in the head. The county truck was being used to transport debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. The Third Department determined that, by transporting unsecured debris in an open truck, the county had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a (1) and, therefore, the county was negligent per se.  The court interpreted Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a to mean that a prima facie case of a violation of the statute is made out by proof a load in an open truck was not covered. Once that showing is made, the owner of the truck will not be deemed to have violated the statute, despite the lack of a cover, if the owner can show the load was secure such that no cover was required. No such showing was possible here.  The court rejected the county’s argument that the emergency-related immunity conferred by the Executive Law applied here. The court noted the purpose of the Executive-Law immunity is to allow the government to make decisions during an emergency—which roads to clear first, for instance—without fear of liability, but the “emergency” immunity did not insulate the county from liability for its negligence in every context:

Executive Law § 25 (1) provides that, “[u]pon the threat or occurrence of a disaster, the chief executive of any political subdivision is hereby authorized and empowered to and shall use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of his [or her] political subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency resulting therefrom.” To be sure, this statute, which vests a political subdivision’s chief executive “with the power to respond to a local disaster or the immediate threat of a disaster, . . . reflects an awareness by the . . . Legislature that in emergency situations prompt and immediate unilateral action is necessary to preserve and protect life and property” … . Consistent with that awareness, the statute further provides, as noted previously, that “[a] political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in carrying out the provisions of this section” (Executive Law § 25 [5]).

In our view, the scope of the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 is clear. When faced with a disaster, a political subdivision’s chief executive may, for example, decide where to set up a makeshift hospital or aid station, prioritize and determine which streets to clear or allocate supplies and personnel as he or she sees fit, and such discretionary determinations, in turn, will not serve as a basis upon which to expose the political subdivision to liability. In other words, a disgruntled homeowner who is confronted with a flooded basement and is living on an impassable residential street cannot seek to hold a locality liable for damages simply because its chief executive deemed it more important to first clear a path to the local hospital or to pump out the holding cells in the local police station. That said, the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, to our analysis, grant a political subdivision carte blanche to perform a discretionary function in any manner that it sees fit — particularly in a manner that poses a danger to the traveling public. Here, a valid — and discretionary — determination may well have been made that the removal of storm debris from, among other locations, the DPW garage was a priority and, further, that transporting such debris in open containers was the most efficient and expeditious way to do so. The discretionary nature of these broad, resource-based decisions, however, did not obviate the need for defendants to comply with the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1) in terms of the actual transport of such debris. As the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, in our view, extend to the particular facts of this case, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. …

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful to operate on any public highway any open truck or trailer being utilized for the transportation of any loose substances, unless said truck or trailer has a cover, tarpaulin or other device of a type and specification . . . which completely closes in the opening on. . . said truck or trailer while said truck or trailer shall be so operated, so as to prevent the falling of any such substances therefrom. However, if the load is arranged so that no loose substance can fall from or blow out of such truck, the covering is not necessary.” * * *

In our view, in order to discharge her initial burden on her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff need only have shown that defendants failed to utilize a cover; at that point, the burden shifted to defendants to demonstrate that no statutory violation actually occurred because the load was arranged in such a manner that no cover was necessary. To hold otherwise would place a nearly insurmountable burden upon plaintiff, as the manner in which the container was loaded and the contents were arranged inevitably lies within the exclusive knowledge of defendants… . Pierce v Hickey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04914, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

/

Possession of the Note, Not the Mortgage, Confers Standing to Foreclose

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that possession of the note, not the mortgage, when the foreclosure proceedings are commenced is sufficient to confer standing upon the note-holder. ” ‘[A]ny disparity between the holder of the note and the mortgagee of record does not stand as a bar to a foreclosure action because the mortgage is not the dispositive document of title as to the mortgage loan; the holder of the note is deemed the owner of the underlying mortgage loan with standing to foreclose’… . . Accordingly, the [defendants’] argument that [plaintiff] lacked standing because it did not possess a valid and enforceable mortgage as of the commencement of this action is simply incorrect. The validity of the … assignment of the mortgage is irrelevant to [plaintiff’s]  standing;”

… [T]o have standing, it is not necessary to have possession of the mortgage at the time the action is commenced. This conclusion follows from the fact that the note, and not the mortgage, is the dispositive instrument that conveys standing to foreclose under New York law. In the current case, the note was transferred to [plaintiff] before the commencement of the foreclosure action — that is what matters.

A transfer in full of the obligation automatically transfers the mortgage as well unless the parties agree that the transferor is to retain the mortgage (Restatement [Third] of Property [Mortgages] § 5.4, Reporter’s Note, Comment b). The [defendants] misconstrue the legal principle that “an entity with a mortgage but no note lack[s] standing to foreclose” … to also mean the opposite — that an entity with a note but no mortgage lacks standing. Once a note is transferred, however, “the mortgage passes as an incident to the note” … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 04872, CtApp 6-11-15

 

/

Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined questions of fact about the sequence of rear-end collisions precluded summary judgment.  DiPaoli, the driver of the front vehicle, was at a complete stop at a red light. The middle vehicle was driven by Passos, the plaintiff.  The last vehicle was an MTA bus.  From the deposition testimony, it was unclear whether the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the first vehicle before the bus struck plaintiff’s vehicle. The court explained the applicable law:

When approaching another vehicle from behind, drivers are required to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed, maintain control over the vehicle, and use reasonable care to avoid a collision, by, among other things, including maintaining a safe distance (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). Under the law applicable to rear end collisions, a presumption of negligence is established by proof that a stopped car was struck in the rear … . However, that presumption can be rebutted if the operator of the rear vehicle comes forward with an adequate non-negligent explanation for the accident … . Passos v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04916, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

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