You are here: / Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s...

Search Results

/

Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s Willingness to Leave the Children with Father Unsupervised, Was Sufficient to Establish Neglect

The Third Department determined father’s status as an untreated sex offender, together with mother’s willingness to leave the children with father unsupervised, was sufficient to establish neglect:

Petitioner bore the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, “first that the children’s ‘physical, mental or emotional condition [was]; impaired or [was]; in imminent danger of becoming impaired’ and, second, that such harm was directly attributable to a failure on the part of [the]; respondent ‘to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the [children]; with proper supervision or guardianship'” … . While actual harm is not required, the imminent danger of harm “must be near or impending, not merely possible” … . “[A];dditionally, there must be a link or causal connection between the basis for the neglect petition and the circumstances that allegedly produce the child’s impairment or imminent danger of impairment” … .

…[W]e agree with Family Court that the evidence submitted regarding the facts underlying the father’s convictions for abusing young children in his care is sufficient to distinguish this case from Matter of Afton C. (James C.) (17 NY3d at 11…)..

In addition, petitioner also introduced evidence that the father did not complete the sex offender treatment he had been ordered to undergo after his first conviction, that he did not participate in any sex offender treatment while in prison for his second conviction and that the individual counseling he received from a minister while in prison and upon his release did not qualify as appropriate sex offender treatment. Matter of Lillian SS, 2014 NY Slip Op 04101, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Alleging Sexual Touching Were Not Corroborated—the Child’s Repeating the Same Allegations to Several Persons Does Not Constitute Corroboration—Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings Reversed

The Third Department determined that the child’s out-of-court stated alleged sexual touching (by Makenzie) were not sufficiently corroborated. The findings of neglect and derivative neglect based on the statements were reversed:

While the out-of-court statements made by a child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect are admissible in Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings, they must be corroborated in order to “be sufficient to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a]…). The purpose of this requirement is to establish the reliability of the hearsay statements, and Family Court has considerable discretion to determine the sufficiency of corroborative evidence … . Such a statement “may be corroborated by any evidence tending to support its reliability, and a relatively low degree of corroborative evidence is sufficient” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that petitioner failed to satisfy its burden here.

Family Court’s conclusion, based upon our decision in Matter of Brandon UU. (193 AD2d 835 [1993]), that sufficient corroboration existed because the child pointed to the area where she claimed respondent had pinched her, is misplaced. The determination in Matter of Brandon UU. (supra) was based on the child’s consistent account of sexual abuse coupled with the expert testimony that the child was being truthful (id. at 837). Here, there was no expert testimony and the child’s demonstration, without more, is part of the out-of-court statement itself and insufficient as corroboration … .

Likewise, there is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the child’s repetition of consistent accounts of the abuse to the grandmother, social worker and detective serve as sufficient corroboration. It is well settled that “repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate [that]; child’s prior account” … . The lack of any proof “validating the child’s account or relating any of her past or present conduct or characteristics to the alleged sexual abuse” requires reversal of the finding of neglect as to Makenzie on the ground that the out-of-court statements were not sufficiently corroborated … . Matter of Katrina CC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04094, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ , ,

District Attorney’s Former Status as a Judge Hearing Cases Involving the Department of Social Services Did Not Preclude the District Attorney from Issuing Subpoenas for Department Records

The Third Department determined the district attorney’s former status as a judge in matters involving the county social services department did not require the quashing of subpoenas issued by the district attorney seeking records kept by the social services department, either under the Judiciary Law or on appearance-of-impropriety grounds:

The subpoena seeks records pertaining to business relationships between the Columbia County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) and two contractors. The Commissioner first contends that, as the subpoena identifies the documents sought in part by reference to services provided to certain named children, Judiciary Law § 17 precludes the DA — who was formerly a Columbia County Judge — from issuing it. This statute prohibits a former judge from “act[ing]; as attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her]; in his [or her]; official character” (Judiciary Law § 17). The Commissioner asserts that, because the named children were allegedly the subjects of Family Court proceedings pending before the DA in his former role as a judge, the subpoena violates this provision. In this context, however, there is a relevant distinction between the object of the underlying court proceedings and the individuals involved in such proceedings. Notably, although the subpoena does reference named children, it does not appear to directly relate to any court proceedings involving those children; it appears instead, although little detail is provided, to relate to social services provided to the named children by the contractors. Similarly, although DSS was a party to many court proceedings over which the DA presided during his judicial tenure, disqualification is not mandated in the absence of an evidentiary showing that the subpoena addresses any action or court proceeding that was previously before him in his judicial capacity… . Matter of Columbia County Subpoena Duces Tecum…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04104, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ , ,

Where Proof of the Fair Market Value of Foreclosed Property (Offered in Support of a Motion for a Deficiency Judgment) Is Insufficient, Rather than Deny the Motion Outright, the Court Should Direct the Bank to Submit Additional Proof

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly failed to award a post-foreclosure-sale deficiency judgment to the bank because the bank’s proof of the fair market value of the foreclosed property, although uncontested, was insufficient.  However, Supreme Court should have allowed the bank to present additional proof establishing the fair market value:

RPAPL 1371 (2) directs that, when a lender makes a motion for a deficiency judgment,

“the court, whether or not the respondent appears, shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof and shall make an order directing the entry of a deficiency judgment” … .

This provision is a directive that a court must determine the mortgaged property’s “fair and reasonable market value” when a motion for a deficiency judgment is made. As such, when the court deems the lender’s proof insufficient in the first instance, it must give the lender an additional opportunity to submit sufficient proof, so as to enable the court to make a proper fair market value determination. * * *

It is, of course, within the court’s discretion to elucidate the type of proof it requires so it can render a proper determination as to fair market value. The court may also order a hearing if it deems one necessary. In proceedings that are governed by section 1371, the court is in the best position to determine the type of proof that will allow it to comply with the directives of that section. Lenders seeking deficiency judgments, however, must always strive to provide the court with all the necessary information in their first application.  Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Bitar, 2015 NY Slip Op 04678, CtApp 6-4-15

 

/ ,

Courts Do Not Defer to an Agency’s Construction of a Statute—Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination, Based Upon the Construction of Workers’ Compensation Law 25, Reversed

In the context of a “conciliation process” pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 25, the Third Department explained the court’s role in reviewing the determination of an agency when statutory construction is the sole issue. Unlike the factual determinations of an agency, to which courts must defer, no such deference is afforded an agency’s construction of a statute. Reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Third Department held that the statute unambiguously entitled claimant to a penalty imposed upon the employer for failure to timely make compensation payments:

Where, as here, the issue is one of pure statutory construction, no deference need be accorded to the Board’s interpretation of the statutory framework … . As to our construction of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25, “the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Further, the provisions within that statute must be “construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible” … .

Turning to the relevant statutory provisions, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 has two mechanisms for penalizing employers or workers’ compensation carriers who fail to make timely payment of compensation following a decision. The first provides that, “[i]f the employer or its insurance carrier shall fail to make payments of compensation according to the terms of the award within [10] days . . ., there shall be imposed a penalty equal to [20%] of the unpaid compensation which shall be paid to the injured worker or his or her dependents” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [3] [f]). The second provides that, if payment is not made within 10 days of a proposed conciliation decision becoming final, “the chair [of the Board] shall impose . . . a fine of [$500] for failure to live up to the terms of the decision upon verification that payment has not been timely made” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [2-b] [h]; see 12 NYCRR 312.5 [i]).

The statutory scheme unambiguously entitles claimant to the penalty described in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). Matter of Liberius v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04706, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/ , , ,

Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction

The Third Department determined, despite a statutory provision prohibiting judicial review when the employee elects to appeal to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial review, the courts have the power to review the agency’s determination when the agency has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Here the petitioner asserted her employment was terminated based on charges brought after the statute of limitations on those charges had passed. The Third Department agreed.  Although there is an exception to the application of the one-year statute of limitations when the charges constitute crimes, here the allegations of misconduct did not include the requisite mens rea for the crime of official misconduct (intent to gain a benefit and knowledge the conduct was unauthorized).  Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied. With respect to the power to review the agency’s determination, the Third Department wrote:

Civil Service Law § 76 (3) provides that where, as here, an employee has elected to appeal to respondent before seeking judicial review, “[t]he decision of [respondent] shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” (see also Civil Service Law § 76 [1]). Such explicit statutory language ordinarily bars further appellate review … . However, statutory preclusion of all judicial review of the decisions rendered by an administrative agency in every circumstance would constitute a grant of unlimited and potentially arbitrary power too great for the law to countenance … . Thus, even when proscribed by statute, judicial review is mandated when constitutional rights are implicated by an administrative decision or “when the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction”… . Matter of De Guzman v State of New York Civ. Serv. Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04712, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/

Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession

Reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their adverse-possession claim, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether plaintiffs’ use of the disputed land was with the defendants’ permission, which would defeat the “hostility” element of adverse possession.  The Third Department offered a detailed fact-based analysis which provides an excellent lesson on the law of adverse possession. The court noted, on the issue of exclusivity, the claim that defendants occasionally maintained the disputed property during the plaintiffs’ absence was not enough to raise a question of fact about the plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the property:

To establish their claim for adverse possession, plaintiffs are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their possession of the disputed property “[was] hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years” … . Additionally, where, as here, the adverse possession claim is not based upon a written instrument, the party asserting the claim “must establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … .

As for [defendant’s] alleged maintenance of the disputed property during plaintiffs’ absences, “exclusivity is not defeated even if the true owner makes occasional forays onto the property . . .. [A]ll that is required is possession consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” (1-5 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 5.33 [2015]). In our view, plaintiffs’ exclusive, regular use and maintenance of the disputed property during their periods of occupation were consistent with the seasonal nature of their property. The occasional maintenance that defendants allegedly performed or directed during plaintiffs’ absences — which was performed without plaintiffs’ knowledge and did not interfere in any way with plaintiffs’ possession or use of the disputed property — was insufficient to meet defendants’ prima facie burden to establish that plaintiffs’ use of the property was not exclusive … . Bergmann v Spallane, 2015 NY Slip Op 04713, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/

Questions Concerning the Presumption that a Will Not Found After a Thorough Search Had Been Revoked (by Destruction) Should Have Been Resolved Before the Will Was Admitted to Probate—Matter Remitted to Surrogate’s Court

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, with a cautionary concurrence (describing the majority’s factual discussion as dicta, not binding on remittal), determined that there was an open question whether a 1996 will had been revoked. No will was found upon decedent’s death in 2010 and letters of administration were issued to decedent’s parents. Petitioner sought to revoke the letters and admit to probate a 1996 will which was drawn up when decedent was married to petitioner’s son. Petitioner had been named executor in the 1996 will. The 1996 will left all of decedent’s property to her then husband (petitioner’s son). Decedent and petitioner’s son divorced in 2007. Based upon the testimony of decedent’s ex-husband (petitioner’s son), the majority concluded it was possible there were four “duplicate original” 1996 wills, one of which had been in the possession of the decedent at her Clayton, New York, residence. Because that will was not found after a thorough search, a presumption arose that the 1996 will had been destroyed by the decedent and thereby revoked. The open questions concerning whether decedent was in possession of a “duplicate original” 1996 will (as opposed to merely a copy), and whether that will was revoked by destruction, should have been resolved before admitting the 1996 will to probate.  The matter was remitted to Surrogate’s Court to settle the open questions:

A will may, of course, be revoked not only by means of a writing executed in the manner of a will, but by the testator’s act of destroying it with revocatory intent (EPTL 3-4.1 [a] [2] [A] [i]), which act achieves the revocatory purpose even if there remain will duplicates outstanding (Crossman v Crossman, 95 NY 145, 152 [1884]). That a testator has in fact revoked a will by destruction is strongly presumed where the will, although once possessed by the testator, cannot be found posthumously despite a thorough search … . The presumption, once raised, “stands in the place of positive proof” … and must be rebutted by the will’s proponent as a condition of probate

Here, the facts of record, adduced in critical part through the testimony of petitioner’s son, supported inferences that decedent executed her 1996 will in quadruplicate, with each document having been meant to possess the force of an original instrument; that one of the will duplicates was kept at the Clayton, New York home where decedent resided after her divorce; and that, after a thorough search, no will was found there. Plainly, these circumstances sufficed to raise the presumption that decedent revoked her 1996 will by destroying it. It is equally plain that that presumption was not rebutted. None of the other duplicate wills was produced or otherwise accounted for. And, although petitioner now urges that the unproduced duplicates were merely copies, the uncertain status of the will duplicates, although commented upon by the Surrogate, was never resolved. We are left then with a will admitted to probate upon a record sufficient only to disprove it.

It is precisely to avoid such an incongruous outcome that the governing rule of proceeding has long been that “[a]s soon as it is brought to the attention of the surrogate that there are duplicates of a will presented to him for probate, it is proper that he should require [the] duplicates to be presented, not for the purpose of admitting both as separate instruments to probate, but that he may be assured whether the will has been revoked, and whether each completely contains the will of the testator” (Crossman, 95 NY at 152…). Here, it is manifest that the Surrogate’s attention was drawn to the existence of will duplicates, but the consequently arising issues as to the will’s validity were not resolved as they should have been in accordance with Crossman’s instruction. Petitioner was required not merely to exclude the possibility, but to rebut the legal presumption of revocation, sufficiently raised by the ex-husband’s testimony as to the existence of will duplicates, one of which had been kept, but was not found after decedent’s passing, at her post-divorce residence.  Matter of Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04674, CtApp 6-4-15

 

/ ,

Testimony by the Vehicle Owner that His Vehicle Was “Missing” at the Time of the Accident Did Not Overcome the Statutory Presumption the Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent at the Time of the Accident

The Second Department determined the evidence at a framed issue hearing was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that Woodley’s vehicle was being driven with the owner’s consent at the time of the accident.  The driver of the Woodley vehicle at the time of the accident was not known.  Woodley testified only that the vehicle was “missing” at the time of the accident.  Woodley also testified that only he and his wife had keys to the vehicle and the keys were found in the vehicle after the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission … . “The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use” … .

Although evidence that a vehicle was stolen at the time of the accident may overcome the presumption of permissive use …, under the particular circumstances present here, the vehicle owner’s testimony that the vehicle was missing at the time of the accident, without more, was insufficient to overcome the presumption. Matter of State Farm Ins Co v Kathleen Walker-Pinckney, 2014 NY Slip Op 04018, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/ ,

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Did Not Have the Authority to Promulgate “Health Care Rules” and Mandate Deductions from Taxi Fares to Pay for Healthcare Services and Disability Coverage for “Medallion” Taxi Cab Drivers

The First Department determined the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it promulgated “Health Care Rules” and determined six cents per taxi-fare could be deducted for the purpose of providing healthcare services and disability coverage for “medallion” taxi cab drivers.

TLC’s “expansive mandate to develop and improve taxi and limousine service” notwithstanding …, we find that TLC exceeded its authority in promulgating the Health Care Rules … .

First, the record demonstrates that, in its attempt to establish a cost-effective structure for promoting driver health, TLC, motivated by broad “economic and social concerns,” was making policy, and therefore was “operating outside of its proper sphere of authority” … . Second, TLC manufactured a “comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” … . TLC has certain delineated powers to ensure that drivers are capable of driving safely (see New York City Charter § 2300; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 19-505[b][3], [d], [h], [l]; 19-512.1[a]). However, nothing in the Charter or the enabling Code provisions contemplates the establishment and outsourcing of a miniature health insurance navigation and disability insurance department. Third, no expertise in the field of health care services or disability insurance was involved in the development of the rule (indeed, this is not TLC’s area of expertise), a fact highlighted by the lack of technical discussion at the hearings on the proposed rule amendments … . Matter of Ahmed v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04733, 1st Dept, 6-4-15

 

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