You are here: / Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle...

Search Results

/ ,

Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle & Traffic Law 388) Was Not Overcome by Testimony of Vehicle Owner and Her Daughter—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Awarded on that Ground

The Second Department noted, in the context of a summary judgment motion, the testimony of the vehicle owner, Varela, and her daughter, an interested witness, was not sufficient to rebut the presumption that another was driving the vehicle with Verela’s consent (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388):

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Varela’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “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 express or implied 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'” … . The question of consent is ordinarily one for the jury … . Blassberger v Varela, 2015 NY Slip Op 04796, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ , , ,

The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined the medical examiner, who conducted an autopsy of plaintiffs’ 17-year-old son after his death in a car accident, was under no statutory or ministerial duty to inform plaintiffs he had removed plaintiffs’ son’s brain for further examination and testing, nor was he under a duty to return the brain. Plaintiffs therefore did not have a “negligent infliction of emotional distress” or “violation of right of sepulcher” cause of action against the city. (Plaintiffs had been awarded significant damages at trial:)

When the Legislature enacted statutes granting medical examiners (and others) the authority to conduct autopsies and dissections (see Public Health Law §§ 4209; 4210), it acknowledged through the enactment of section 4215 (1) that there would be situations where the decedent’s body may not be buried or incinerated within a reasonable time after the decedent’s death, as per section 4200 (1)’s directive. Thus, section 4215 strikes a balance permitting the lawful dissection of a body, while concomitantly ensuring that once the lawful purposes have been accomplished the body will be buried, incinerated or properly disposed of as per section 4200 (1), and that the penalties for the interference or injuries to the body would “apply equally to the remains of the body after dissection . . .”

When section 4200 (1) and section 4215 (1) are read in tandem, there is no language that would cause a medical examiner to divine from section 4215 (1) that he or she is required to return not only decedent’s body, but the organs and tissue samples that the medical examiner is legally permitted to remove. Similarly, our right of sepulcher jurisprudence does not mandate that a medical examiner return decedent’s organs and tissue samples. Thus, because there was no governing rule or statutory command requiring a medical examiner to turn over organs and tissue samples, it could not be said that he or she has a ministerial duty to do so. At most, a medical examiner’s determination to return only the body without notice that organs and tissue samples are being retained is discretionary, and, therefore, no tort liability can be imposed for either the violation of the common-law right of sepulcher or Public Health Law § 4215 (1). Once a medical examiner returns a decedent’s body sans the organs and tissue samples, the medical examiner for all intents and purposes has complied with the ministerial duty under section 4215 (1). Absent a duty to turn over organs and tissue samples, it cannot be said that the medical examiner has a legal duty to inform the next of kin that organs and tissue samples have been retained. * * *

There is simply no legal directive that requires a medical examiner to return organs or tissue samples derived from a lawful autopsy and retained by the medical examiner after such an autopsy. The medical examiner’s obligations under both the common-law right of sepulcher and Public Health § 4215 (1) are fulfilled upon returning the deceased’s body to the next of kin after a lawful autopsy has been conducted. If the Legislature believes that next of kin are entitled to notification that organs, tissues and other specimens have been removed from the body, and that they are also entitled their return prior to burial of the body or other disposition, it should enact legislation delineating the medical examiner’s obligations in that regard, as it is the Legislature that is in the best position to examine the issue and craft legislation that will consider the rights of families and next of kin while concomitantly taking into account the medical examiner’s statutory obligations to conduct autopsies. Shipley v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04791, CtApp 6-10-15

 

/ ,

Because Prior Mortgage Foreclosure Action Had Been Abandoned Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Dismissal of the Instant Action Pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) (Which Prohibits More than One Such Action at a Time)

The Second Department determined Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) did not require dismissal of plaintiff’s foreclosure action.  Although the statute prohibits more than one action to recover a mortgage debt at a time, the pending action had been abandoned (although not formally discontinued). Therefore plaintiff’s action was viable:

RPAPL 1301(3) provides that “[w]hile [an] action is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of this statute is to protect the mortgagor “from the expense and annoyance” of simultaneously defending against two independent actions to recover the same mortgage debt … . Courts have recognized that this statute “should be strictly construed since it is in derogation of a plaintiff’s common-law right to pursue the alternate remedies of foreclosure and recovery of the mortgage debt at the same time” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant John Conlin was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to RPAPL 1301(3). The record supports the conclusion that the plaintiff’s assignor, the former mortgagee, effectively abandoned its prior action to foreclose the mortgage because its status as a junior mortgagee made it improbable that foreclosure would satisfy the underlying debt. Although the foreclosure action was not formally discontinued, the effective abandonment of that action is a “de facto discontinuance” which militates against dismissal of the present action pursuant to RPAPL 1301(3) … . Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Conlin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04826, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ , ,

Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Read, determined a catheter left in plaintiff’s heart after surgery in 1986 (when plaintiff was three years old) was a “foreign object.”  Therefore the statute of limitations did not start to run until the presence of the catheter was “discovered” in 2008.  Plaintiff’s complaint, brought within one year of discovery, was therefore timely.  The issue was whether the catheter could be considered a “fixation device” because it was intentionally inserted. If so, the one-year-from-discovery “foreign object” statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-a) would not have applied and the complaint would have been untimely. The Court of Appeals held that the catheter (which was to temporarily monitor heart function after surgery) was not a “fixation device” because, although it was intentionally inserted, it was not inserted to serve a “postsurgery healing function” and it was to be removed a few days after insertion. Thus the catheter was different in kind from a “fixation device,” such as a “stent” or a “suture,” deliberately inserted to serve a “healing function:”

Here, the catheter inserted in the left atrium of plaintiff’s heart performed no securing or supporting role during or after surgery. As explained by plaintiff’s expert, and uncontroverted by defendants, the catheters functioned like a sentinel, allowing medical personnel to monitor atrial pressure so that they might take corrective measures as required; the catheters were, in the words of plaintiff’s expert, “a conduit for information from [plaintiff’s] cardiovascular system.” Because the catheters under the facts of this case are therefore not fixation devices (or chemical compounds or prosthetic aids or devices), they are not categorically excluded from the foreign object exception in CPLR 214-a.

The question then becomes whether the catheters are analogous to tangible items like … clamps … or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure. We conclude that they are … .  Walton v Strong Mem. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04786, CtApp 6-10-15

 

/

Denial of an Area Variance for a Parking Lot, Based Solely on the Subjective/Aesthetic Objections of Residents, Was Arbitrary and Capricious—Statutory Factors Not Applied to the Decision-Making Process

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA’s) denial of an area variance (re: a parking lot for residents of a cooperative),based solely upon the subjective objections of town residents, was arbitrary and capricious. The ZBA’s decision did not address the statutory factors applied to area variances:

Pursuant to General City Law § 81-b, in determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board must weigh the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted … . This inquiry also includes a consideration of whether (1) granting the area variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible to the applicant, other than an area variance; (3) the requested area variance is substantial; (4) granting the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created (see General City Law § 81-b[4][b]…).

Here, while it was rational for the ZBA to conclude that the requested variance was substantial, its determination to deny the variance was otherwise conclusory and lacked an objective factual basis. In particular, no evidence was adduced which demonstrated that the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community would be detrimentally affected by the granting of the requested variance … . Rather, the ZBA was merely presented with the subjective objections and general community opposition of neighboring property owners, most of whom expressed their subjective opinions as to the negative aesthetics of a parking lot. Further, the ZBA did not provide an objective basis upon which to conclude that the petitioner had a feasible alternative to the requested variance, and there was no evidence that the situation was self-created. In light of the current condition of the property, the legality of using the lot as a small parking lot, and the fact that the lot is fenced so as to block ground-level water views, the ZBA failed to explain how the expansion of the number of spaces in the lot would change the character of the neighborhood.

Accordingly, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the ZBA’s determination denying the proposed area variance … . Since the ZBA’s determination was irrational and arbitrary and capricious, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition, annulled the ZBA’s determination, and remitted the matter to the ZBA for the issuance of the requested area variance. Matter of Marina’s Edge Owner’s Corp. v City of New Rochelle Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 04851, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ , , ,

No “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Vehicle Stop—Revocation of License for Refusal of Chemical Test Reversed

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ ,

Conflicting Interests Prevented Attorney from Representing Both the Driver and Passenger in a Stopped Car Which Was Rear-Ended

The Second Department determined, once a counterclaim was made against the driver of the car which was stopped and rear-ended, a conflict of interest arose prohibiting an attorney from representing both the driver and the passenger (Earl):

The general rule is that an attorney is not entitled to a fee in a personal injury action if the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (12 NYCRR 1200.0) by representing both the driver of an automobile involved in a collision and a passenger in that vehicle … provides, in pertinent part, with respect to conflicts of interests involving current clients, that a lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that “the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[a][1]) . Pursuant to rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) the potential conflict may be waived if the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against the other in the same litigation, and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. In the instant case, there was no written confirmation of informed consent to the potential conflict.

[The attorney] contends that since Earl was a passenger in a stopped vehicle which was struck in the rear, the driver of the stopped vehicle was clearly not at fault, and there was no conflict of interest … . However, once the defendant asserted a counterclaim, the pecuniary interests of the driver conflicted with those of the passenger… . Shelby v Blakes, 2015 NY Slip Op 04839, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ ,

Administrator’s Delay In Seeking to Be Substituted for the Decedent In a Lawsuit Justified Dismissal of the Complaint with Prejudice

The Second Department determined the estate’s administrator’s more than five-year delay in seeking to be substituted for the decedent as plaintiff in a lawsuit (CPLR 1021), together with the administrator’s failure to provide an excuse for the delay and demonstrate the action had merit, warranted the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice:

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that if the event requiring the substitution of a party “occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate.” CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … . The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit … .

Here, the administrator’s failure to effect the required substitution until more than 6 ½ years after the decedent’s death and nearly 5 ½ years after he was appointed administrator of the decedent’s estate evinced a lack of diligence on the part of the administrator in prosecuting this action, which had been pending for nearly 8 years at the time the administrator sought substitution … . The administrator failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, which he did only after the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint … . Furthermore, the administrator failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action through the submission of admissible evidence, and did not rebut the defendants’ allegations of prejudice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice…  Alejandro v North Tarrytown Realty Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04792, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/

Reverse-Batson Challenge to the Peremptory Challenge of a White Woman by Defense Counsel Properly Sustained/Judge’s Failure to Inform and Seek the Input of the Parties Re: a Jury Note Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly sustained the prosecutor’s “reverse-Batson” challenge to a peremptory challenge to a white woman by defense counsel.  Defense counsel’s proffered reason, that the juror had her head down and would be a “wall flower” following others on the jury, was deemed pretextual.  The proffered reason was entirely subjective and was not based upon the voir dire.  Reversal of the conviction was warranted, however, because the trial judge did not inform and seek the input of the parties in response to a jury.  Preservation of the error was not required because the record did not reflect that defense counsel was made aware of the contents of the note prior to the judge’s answering it in the jury’s presence:

“Although not entirely insulated from review, the determination of whether an explanation [of the exercise of a peremptory challenge to a a juror in response to a reverse-Batson challenge by the prosecutor] is merely pretextual is generally a matter for the Trial Judge, whose findings are entitled to great deference” … . This is particularly true where, as here, the reason for challenging a prospective juror is based upon certain nonverbal responses and reactions of the prospective juror, which the trial court had the opportunity to observe … . However, “[a]lthough a proffered race- [or gender-] neutral explanation for the exclusion of a potential juror need not rise to the level required to challenge a venireperson for cause,’ . . . the burden cannot be met by merely claiming good faith and denying discriminatory purpose” … . Here, the reason proffered by defense counsel for exercising the peremptory challenge against the subject prospective juror was that, during voir dire, “[s]he had her head down the entire time and was kind of looking down through this process,” from which counsel concluded that she was “going to be a wall flower[ ] and just kind[ ] of go with the flow.” This explanation was purely intuitive and based on counsel’s subjective impression rather than upon facts adduced at voir dire … . To accept the defendant’s bare assertion, unsupported by any factual basis, that the prospective juror was neutral and would not be a strong juror for the defense would be, in effect, to accept no reason at all … . There is nothing in the record to support defense counsel’s purported conclusion that this prospective juror—a 68-year-old sales associate who had previously sat on a jury, did not know anyone in law enforcement, and, unlike many of the prospective jurors, had not been the victim of a crime—would be a weak juror for the defense. * * *

… [T]he jury advised: “We have one juror that feels she cannot make a decision based on the evidence presented to us.” Instead of marking the note as an exhibit and reading it aloud on the record to the parties prior to calling in the jury, the court read the note on the record for the first time in front of the jurors, and then immediately responded by issuing a truncated Allen charge …, encouraging continuing deliberations. This jury note “called for a substantive response that required careful crafting after hearing argument from both the People and the defense” … . Yet there is no indication that the court provided notice to defense counsel and the prosecutor of the contents of the note or “a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses” … . “[B]y depriving the defendant of meaningful notice of the communication [and] a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the court’s response,” the court failed to fulfill its “core responsibility” under CPL 310.30, thereby committing an error affecting “the mode of the proceedings” … . Such an error “need not be preserved, and prejudice manifestly results” … . Thus, despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the Supreme Court’s handling of the jury’s notes, reversal is required … .

The People are correct that a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where defense counsel had “knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” … . However, while the record shows that a discussion was held off the record at the sidebar immediately before the Supreme Court directed the court officer to “bring them in,” it is not evident from the record that defense counsel had knowledge of the contents of the note or how the court would respond to the note. Rather, as far as the record reveals, defense counsel first learned of the court’s response at the same time the jury heard it … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04860, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

/ , ,

Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress jewelry taken from his pocket after pat-down search on the street should have been granted.  At the suppression hearing, the People did not argue that the officer who stopped the defendant had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time of the pat-down search.  Therefore, the Second Department noted, that argument could not be raised by the People on appeal. At the suppression hearing, the People argued that the jewelry was admissible under the “inevitable discovery” exception to the warrant requirement. However, the “inevitable discovery” exception does not apply to “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search:”

At the suppression hearing, the People expressly disclaimed reliance on the theory that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the jewelry from his pants pocket was justified because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the moment he was stopped, and the hearing court did not address that theory. Thus, the People may not assert this theory on appeal … . Instead, the People argued that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered, and the Supreme Court relied on that theory in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry. The court properly determined that the record does not support a finding that the police officer legitimately believed that the jewelry might be some kind of weapon … . However, as the People now correctly concede, the court erred in its determination that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered through normal police procedures, as the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to primary evidence, that is, “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search,” such as the jewelry at issue here … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry should have been granted. People v Henagin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04864, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

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