You are here: / Family Court Should Not Have Directed that Visitation With the Father Be...

Search Results

/

Family Court Should Not Have Directed that Visitation With the Father Be Only to the Extent Agreed Upon by the Parties Without Holding a Hearing—There Is a Presumption Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is In the Best Interests of the Child, Even Where the Noncustodial Parent Is Incarcerated—Absent Exceptional Circumstances, Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is Always Appropriate

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have held that father’s visitation with the children should only be to the extent agreed upon by the parties without first conducting a hearing to determine what visitation arrangement was in the best interests of the children.  The Second Department noted that (1) absent exceptional circumstances visitation with a noncustodial parent is always appropriate, (2) visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child, even when the father is incarcerated, and (3) the presumption must be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence:

Family Court erred in, without a hearing, awarding the father visitation only to the extent as agreed upon by the parties. “Absent exceptional circumstances, some form of visitation with the noncustodial parent is always appropriate” … . Visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the best interests of a child, even when that parent is incarcerated … . That presumption may be rebutted, however, by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “under all the circumstances visitation would be harmful to the child’s welfare, or that the right to visitation has been forfeited” … . Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed determination as to the children’s best interests so as to render a hearing unnecessary on the issue of the father’s visitation. Matter of Bell v Mays, 2015 NY Slip Op 03524, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/ ,

Family Court Did Not Follow Statutory Procedure Before Ruling the New York Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction in a Proceeding to Modify a New Jersey Custody and Visitation Order—A Proceeding to Modify the Custody and Visitation Order Was Pending In New Jersey at the Time the New York Proceeding Was Brought

The Second Department determined Family Court failed to follow statutory procedure when it determined the New York court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding to modify a New Jersey custody and visitation order.  At the time the New York proceeding was brought there was a pending proceeding in New Jersey to modify the custody and visitation order. Before determining the jurisdiction issue, Family Court was required to (but did not) make a record of its communications with the New Jersey court, provide the record to the parties, and give the parties the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments (Domestic Relations Law 75-i, 76-b, 76-e). The case was remanded for that purpose:

A court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state “unless . . . [t]he court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction . . . or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-b[1]…). ” Where a different state possesses exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, New York cannot take jurisdiction unless the foreign state declines, even [if] the parties clearly no longer have a significant connection with that state'” … .

Furthermore, “a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction . . . if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this article, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1]). “If the court [of this state] determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]; see Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[1]). “If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this article does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]).

With limited exceptions not applicable here, “a record must be made” of the communication between the two courts and “[t]he parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[4]). Furthermore, “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[2]). Matter of Frankel v Frankel, 2015 NY Slip Op 03530, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/ ,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied the juvenile’s motion for issuance of an order making specific findings that would allow her to petition the United State Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The court determined the record supported the child’s motion and noted that the Federal government retains control of the immigration determination of whether the child receives SIJS, which cannot be decided by Family Court. The case was remitted to Family Court for a hearing to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador, and for a new determination on the child’s motion. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

A child may request that the Family Court issue an order making certain specific findings that will enable him or her to petition the USCIS, an agency within the United States Department of Homeland Security, for SIJS … . The findings required to support a petition for SIJS include: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of the State or an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her country of nationality or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i], [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]…). Once those specific findings have been issued, the eligible child may seek the consent of “the Secretary of Homeland Security” to receive special immigrant juvenile status (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]…).

Here, the child is under the age of 21 and unmarried, and has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual . . . appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) … . Further, based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from the child, fully supports her contention that reunification with her father is not a viable option, due to abandonment … . Matter of Pineda v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 03540, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

/ ,

Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the building owners failed to demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the defect in the elevator door which caused plaintiff’s injury. The denial of the owners’ motion for summary judgment was therefore proper.  Supreme Court erred, however, when it denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the owners’ contractual-indemnification cross claim.  The contract with the elevator maintenance company, Dunwell, provided the company would indemnify the building owners for damages that did not arise solely and directly out of the owners’ negligence. Dunwell failed to raise a question of fact about whether the owners had actual knowledge of the defect and whether the injury arose “solely and directly” from the owners’ negligence. With regard to indemnification, the court wrote:

A party’s right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the relevant contract … . The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances … . Under the full-service elevator maintenance contract at issue here, Dunwell assumed responsibility for the maintenance, repair, inspection, and servicing of the elevators, including the electrical systems or devices that operated the opening and closing of the elevator doors. Dunwell also agreed to indemnify the building defendants for any claim arising out of the performance of its work, regardless of whether it was negligent in its performance, unless the claim arose “solely and directly out of” the building defendants’ negligence. Goodlow v 724 Fifth Ave. Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03501, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

/ , ,

Questions of Fact Whether Hospital Liable for Independent Actions of Its Employees Under Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring/Retention Theories

In finding that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case was properly denied, the Second Department explained that the hospital can be liable for the independent actions of its own employees, despite the involvement of a non-employee attending physician, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as well as under a negligent hiring/retention theory.  The court explained the relevant law:

In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself … . Thus, “a hospital may not be held liable for injuries suffered by a patient who is under the care of a private attending physician chosen by the patient where the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital merely carry out the orders of the private attending physician, unless the hospital staff commits independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” … . A hospital may also be liable on a negligent hiring and/or retention theory to the extent that its employee committed an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment, where the hospital was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act… .  Seiden v Sonstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03517, Second Dept 4-29-15

 

 

 

/ , ,

Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace

Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator as he was in a trench directing the operation of the excavator.  The Second Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200/common-law negligence, and Labor Law 240(1) causes of action was properly granted.  But the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, based upon an Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR 23-9.5(c)) prohibiting close proximity to an excavator, should not have been dismissed. Labor Law 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace and requires compliance with the Industrial Code. The Labor Law 200/common-law negligence causes of action were defeated by the city’s demonstration that it did not have the authority to control, direct or supervise the method or manner in which the relevant work was performed.  The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the injury was not the result of an elevation-related incident. The court explained the operative principles re: Labor Law 200 and Labor Law 241(6) causes of action:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to exercise due care in providing a safe place to work … . Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories, namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed … .

The instant case did not involve a dangerous or defective premises condition. “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … .

Here, the City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, asserted against them, by demonstrating that they did not have the authority to control, direct, or supervise the method or manner in which the work was performed. * * *

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide a safe workplace to workers, and applies to “all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed.” Pursuant to that duty, owners, contractors, and their agents must comply with those provisions of the Industrial Code that set forth specific requirements or standards … . The City defendants contend that, since the injured plaintiff was a member of the “excavating crew,” as that term is employed in 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(c), he was authorized to be within range of the moving excavator bucket … , and they submitted an expert’s affidavit in support of that contention. However, a person authorized pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 to operate or be within the range of an excavator’s bucket may, contrary to the City defendants’ contention, still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-4.2(k) … . Torres v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03519, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/

Evidence of General Cleaning Practices, As Opposed to Evidence When the Area of the Slip and Fall Was Last Inspected and Cleaned, Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined the lessee’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied.  The lessee, Ban Do, was responsible for snow and ice removal in the area of the fall.  In support of its motion for summary judgment, Ban Do presented only evidence of its general cleaning practices and did not specifically demonstrate when the area was last inspected and cleaned. Therefore Ban Do was unable to demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the icy condition:

Ban Do failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice of the ice condition alleged by the plaintiff. Ban Do failed to present evidence establishing when it had last cleaned or inspected the area of the walkway where the plaintiff slipped and fell, relative to the time of the accident … . The affidavit of Ban Do’s principal established nothing more than Ban Do’s general cleaning practices in relation to the walkway at the rear entrance to its store, which was insufficient to demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the ice condition on which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … . Sartori v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 03516, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/ , ,

Attorney-Defendants Demonstrated the Dismissal of the Complaint Was an Error Which Would Have Been Corrected Had the Plaintiffs Appealed—Therefore There Was No Question of Fact Whether the Actions of the Attorneys Constituted the Proximate Cause of the Damages Alleged

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment to the attorney defendants.  The defendants demonstrated that plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the cause of action against the hospital in the underlying medical malpractice action (the defendants had agreed to discontinue the action against the hospital). And the defendants demonstrated that Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute was an error which would have been corrected had the plaintiffs appealed.  Therefore there was no question of fact whether the actions of the defendant attorneys proximately caused the alleged damages:

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the merits of their underlying medical malpractice action insofar as asserted against the Hospital, regardless of whether the defendants consented to the discontinuance … . The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the Hospital staff involved in the underlying medical procedures properly carried out the directions of the attending private physicians and did not engage in any independent negligent acts … . …

The defendants also established, prima facie, that their alleged negligence in failing to prosecute the action was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged in the complaint since the plaintiffs chose not to appeal from the order that dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants. The failure to pursue an appeal in an underlying action bars a legal malpractice action where the client was likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action … . The Court of Appeals has stated that this “likely to succeed” standard “obviate[s] premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow[s] attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients’ unfavorable result” (Grace v Law, 24 NY3d at 210). By establishing that an appeal would likely have been successful, a defendant in a legal malpractice action can establish that the alleged negligence did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s damages (see id.).

Here, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the court in the underlying action dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . As the defendants correctly contend, that order would have been reversed on appeal since it was error, as a matter of law, to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 where no 90-day demand had been served and where a note of issue had previously been filed and remained in effect … . Furthermore, the defendants adequately demonstrated that dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 was inapplicable since the case was not “marked off or stricken from the trial calendar” … . Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs were likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action and that the asserted malpractice in failing to prosecute the action was a not a proximate cause of the alleged damages … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Buczek v Dell & Little, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 03492, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/

Court Properly Accepted Defendant’s Consent to the Determination He Is a Sex Offender Requiring Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)—The Relevant Statute Does Not Mandate a Hearing

The Second Department determined the court properly accepted defendant’s consent to the determination he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). On appeal defendant argued that the statute required a hearing and the court should not have accepted his consent. The statute, Mental Hygiene Law 10.07 [f], states only that “[t]he parties may offer additional evidence, and the court shall hear argument … “. That language did not mandate a hearing:

Mental Hygiene Law article 10, the main component of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, “establishes the standards and procedures governing the civil management of sex offenders” … . Mental Hygiene Law article 10 provides that where, as here, it is determined that a person is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, “the court shall consider whether the [person] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring [SIST]” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). The statute further provides that, at this phase of the proceeding, “[t]he parties may offer additional evidence, [*2]and the court shall hear argument, as to that issue” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] [emphasis added]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the statute does not mandate a dispositional hearing. Thus, it was not improper for the Supreme Court to accept the appellant’s decision to not offer additional evidence and to accept his consent to a determination that he is a sex offender requiring SIST … . Matter of State of New York v Wayne J., 2015 NY Slip Op 03545, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

/ ,

Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)

The Second Department determined the property owner, Murphy, was entitled to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale because he was not properly served.  The summons was not served at Murphy’s primary residence in Manhattan (Reade Street), where Murphy had always received correspondence about the subject property (a vacation home referred to as the Noyack property) and where Murphy had requested all correspondence regarding the subject property be sent.  Rather the summons was served on someone other than Murphy (who was not identified) at the Noyack property and was mailed there as well. The court determined the service was invalid because it did not comply with the two prongs of CPLR 308(2):

CPLR 308 sets forth the different ways in which service of process upon an individual can be effected in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction over that person. CPLR 308(2) provides, in pertinent part, that personal service upon a natural person may be made “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by . . . mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence” (emphasis added). “Jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308(2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been strictly complied with” … . It “is a two-step form of service in which a delivery and a mailing are both essential” (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:3).

Since, under the circumstances of this case, the Noyack property, although Murphy’s vacation home, could properly be characterized as his dwelling place or usual place of abode … , we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff satisfied the first prong of CPLR 308(2) by a fair preponderance of the evidence by serving process upon a person of suitable age and discretion at the Noyack property … .

However, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof that its mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to that same address satisfied the second prong of CPLR 308(2). The undisputed evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff received notice from Murphy that the Reade Street address was to be used with respect to all notices concerning the Noyack property. Thereafter, from 2003 through December 2008, a period of time extending beyond the date of the mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to the Noyack property, the plaintiff actually utilized the Reade Street address to send Murphy all correspondence and notices relating to the Noyack property, including those referable to the mortgage statements and Murphy’s default thereunder. The only documents that the plaintiff mailed to the Noyack property were the summons and complaint, despite its knowledge that Murphy had given notice in accordance with the terms of the mortgage that his residence was the Reade Street address, and that it was at that address that he was to receive all mail. Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03520, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

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