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

 

/ ,

Cross-Examination About the Omission of Exculpatory Information from a Statement Made to Police Is Not the Same as Cross-Examination About the Exercise of the Right to Remain Silent

The First Department noted that defendant was properly cross-examined about the omission of exculpatory information provided in his direct testimony from the statement he had given to police. “After receiving Miranda warnings, and agreeing to provide a statement to the police, defendant made statements that omitted significant exculpatory matter that he included in his trial testimony. Under the circumstances, this was an unnatural omission, and a permissible basis for impeachment…”.  People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 03469, 1st Dept, 4-28-15

 

/ ,

The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the police officer’s observations of the defendant’s actions (head turning both ways) in a “high narcotics area” justified his approach of the defendant, who was sitting in a car (founded suspicion/common-law right of inquiry).  Asking the defendant what was in his pocket after the defendant pulled his hand from his jacket was also justified. However, the officer’s “tapping” of an object in defendant’s pocket was not justified.  The intrusion (tapping the pocket) and the subsequent frisk of the defendant were not supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime or by the need to ensure the officer’s safety. The arrest was invalid and the motion to suppress all seized items, as well as the statements made by the defendant, should have been granted:

Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police at approximately 9 p.m. in a “high narcotics area.” As an officer approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he noticed defendant’s “head turning both ways and a lot of . . . movement coming from the area of the front passenger seat.” As he reached the passenger side window, he saw defendant, who appeared nervous, “pulling his hand from his jacket, from the fold of his jacket.” When the officer asked defendant what he “put in [his] jacket,” defendant “mumbled something unintelligible or really didn’t say much.” The officer then reached into the car, “tapped” the pocket of defendant’s jacket with the flashlight he was holding, and felt “something hard.”

The officer’s observations, up until the time he arrived at the passenger window, gave rise to founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, and so justified his question regarding what defendant had put in his pocket, which constituted a common-law inquiry … . However, we find that the physical intrusion of tapping defendant’s pocket was unauthorized. The circumstances did not give rise to the reasonable suspicion required to authorize a frisk. Nor was the officer’s conduct justifiable as a “minimal self-protective measure”…, which is permissible in furtherance of the common-law right of inquiry, where sufficient concerns for personal safety are present … . The circumstances, viewed as a whole, did not suggest any need for the officer to take such a precaution. At the time of the officer’s intrusion, defendant was not reaching for an area where a weapon might be located, there was no suggestion that a weapon was present or that violence was imminent, and there was no other basis for a self-protective intrusion.

Because the ensuing frisk outside the car, and the resulting arrest, depended on the initial improper intrusion, they were invalid as well. In any event, we also find that the search of the plastic bag following defendant’s arrest was not supported by exigent circumstances … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 03458, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

/ , ,

“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney Does Not Apply If the Relevant Litigation Is a “Sham”—Here Sufficient “Sham Litigation” Allegations Were Made—Slander Per Se Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed

In finding plaintiff had stated a cause of action for slander per se, the First Department explained that the privilege for statements made by an attorney which pertain to on-going litigation does not apply if the litigation is a “sham.”  The plaintiff, an attorney, sued Finkelstein, also an attorney, for statements alleged to have been made by Finkelstein to plaintiff’s former client, Harrison. Plaintiff alleged that Finkelstein told Harrison plaintiff had taken Harrison’s money and that Finkelstein was the source of the false allegations in Harrison’s complaint against plaintiff.  Disagreeing with Supreme Court, the First Department held that the complaint stated a cause of action because the complaint sufficiently alleged the lawsuit brought by Harrison was a “sham” to which the “statements pertinent to litigation” privilege would not apply:

… [A] statement that is pertinent to litigation is absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamation action. That principal of law was first stated by the Court of Appeals in Youmans v Smith (153 NY 214, 219 [1897]), and was recently reaffirmed by the Court in Front, Inc. v Khalil (24 NY3d 713 [2015]) . This Court has held that, where the privilege is invoked, “any doubts are to be resolved in favor of pertinence” … . Further, the test to determine whether a statement is pertinent to litigation is ” extremely liberal'” …, such that the offending statement, to be actionable, must have been “outrageously out of context” … .

This Court has recognized, however, that the privilege is capable of abuse and will not be conferred where the underlying lawsuit was a sham action brought solely to defame the defendant … , in which this Court declined to dismiss a defamation claim based on the pertinency privilege where the context in which the allegedly offending statement was made was a litigation that the plaintiffs filed but never prosecuted. The existence of this “sham litigation” exception has been confirmed (but not applied) in other cases in this Department… . Flomenhaft v Finkelstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03468, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

/

Summary Judgment Motion Served Within 60 Days of the Filing of the Note of Issue but Filed on the 61st Day Deemed Untimely

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, strictly enforced a Supreme Court “individual part rule” and deemed a summary judgment motion untimely.  The rule requires a motion for summary judgment to “filed” within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue.  Here the motion was served within the 60 days but was filed on the 61st day. Connolly v 129 E. 69th St. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03450, 1st Dept 4-28-30

 

/

Including “Statute of Limitations” in a Catch-All Paragraph Listing Many Affirmative Defenses Did Not Provide Plaintiff with Sufficient Notice—At a Bare Minimum, the Duration of the Relevant Statute of Limitations, Six Years Here, Should Be Pled

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, with an extensive concurrence, determined that the inclusion of the “statute of limitations” in a catch-all paragraph listing many affirmative defenses did not provide sufficient notice to the plaintiff.  In addition to failing to separately number and plead each affirmative defense (as required by the CPLR) the defendant failed to plead what the applicable statute of limitations (six years here) was. The court criticized a Court of Appeals case which said that simply mentioning the “statute of limitations” as an affirmative defense is sufficient notice—the First Department specifically suggested that the Court of Appeals revisit the issue. The court held that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the failure to plead the applicable (six-year) statute of limitations because the issue was not directly addressed during discovery as a result of the insufficient notice.  Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant was reversed on the merits (competing expert affidavits raised questions of fact). The defendant was allowed to replead the affirmative defense and the plaintiff was allowed further discovery on the issue:

The result of defendant’s failure to comply with CPLR 3014 is that its statute of limitations defense lay buried within a paragraph of mostly irrelevant, and conclusory, defenses. Although plaintiff could have moved to compel separate numbering …, it was not required to make such a motion because defendant’s answer did not necessitate a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3018; CPLR 3024). Thus, plaintiff cannot be forced to accept the defective answer simply because it declined to make a motion to compel separate numbering.

Further, we have no doubt that defendant was permitted to plead its affirmative defenses hypothetically — which it apparently attempted to do by “reserving” those defenses unto itself — but only insofar as those defenses were concise, separately numbered, and sufficiently stated (CPLR 3013; CPLR 3014). A permissive hypothetical pleading does not extend so far as to authorize a defendant to plead each and every affirmative defense that might exist without regard to its relevance to the cause(s) of action presented by the complaint. Permitting such conduct here would effectively sanction deception on the part of defendant, whether intentional or not, thereby avoiding the CPLR’s notice requirement. In other words, defendant’s formulation of its laundry list of defenses in hypothetical terms does not exempt it from the other requirements of CPLR 3014.

The question, therefore, becomes one of prejudice. That is, the CPLR directs us to construe a defendant’s answer liberally and disregard defects unless a substantial right of the plaintiff would be prejudiced (see CPLR 3026). This must be done in light of the overarching directive that the CPLR “be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every civil judicial proceeding” (CPLR 104). “[W]e must literally apply the mandate [to construe pleadings liberally] as directed and thus make the test of prejudice one of primary importance” … . * * *

It seems clear that a court cannot require a level of particularity beyond that outlined by the Official Forms; to do so would contravene CPLR 107’s command that pleadings that comply with the forms are sufficient as a matter of law … . Thus, the most that a court could require of a defendant pleading the statute of limitations is to state the applicable period of limitations, as set forth in Official Form 17. We acknowledge that Official Form 17 establishes a ceiling, not a floor. To be sure, a defendant whose answer pleads the “statute of limitations” and includes the applicable period of limitations will necessarily be in compliance with the official form, and courts must deem that pleading sufficient pursuant to CPLR 107 and CPLR 3013. Scholastic Inc. v Pace Plumbing Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03489, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

/ , ,

Special Proceedings, Here a Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim, Are Subject to the Same Standards and Rules as Motions for Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Should Not Have Considered New Evidence Presented for the First Time in Reply Papers

In finding that plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted (inadequate excuse for delay, misrepresentations made to the court), the First Department explained that Supreme Court should not have considered matters raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers.  The court noted that special proceedings are subject to the same standards and rules as those applied to summary judgment motions:

As a matter of procedure, the motion court erred in entertaining arguments advanced for the first time in petitioners’ reply papers and in accepting their offer of new proof, unnecessarily protracting summary proceedings. As succinctly stated by this Court:

“It is settled that a special proceeding is subject to the same standards and rules of decision as apply on a motion for summary judgment, requiring the court to decide the matter upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised'” … .

We further held that where, as here, a petition is unsupported by sufficient evidentiary proof, the petitioning party will not be entitled to remedy those deficiencies …, thereby extending a procedure providing for summary disposition through “unnecessary and unauthorized elaboration” … . We have consistently stated that in proceedings subject to summary determination, no consideration is to be accorded to novel arguments raised in reply papers … . That this Court may, in the exercise of discretion, entertain such arguments upon review … does not endorse the unnecessary extension of summary proceedings. Under these circumstances, it was improvident to excuse petitioners’ deceit and grant their application to serve a late notice of claim. Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03467, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

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