You are here: / Family Court Did Not Inform Respondent of His Rights and Did Not Conduct...

Search Results

/

Family Court Did Not Inform Respondent of His Rights and Did Not Conduct an Adequate Colloquy—PINS Adjudication Reversed

The Third Department reversed respondent’s adjudication as a PINS because Family Court did not advise respondent of his rights and the colloquy prior to Family Court’s acceptance of the consent finding was inadequate:

Family Court erred by failing to advise respondent of his rights. Pursuant to statute, at the initial appearance and at the commencement of any hearing concerning a PINS petition, Family Court must advise the respondent and his or her parent of the respondent’s rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel of his or her choosing or an assigned attorney (see Family Ct Act § 741 [a]…). Here, the court did not mention these rights at the first appearance on the PINS petition, at which time the court accepted respondent’s consent to a PINS finding, nor at the dispositional hearing. The court’s failure to advise respondent of these rights constitutes reversible error … . Additionally, the court’s colloquy prior to accepting that consent finding was inadequate; respondent merely answered “[y]es” when asked if he had a basic understanding of the proceeding and if he consented to a PINS finding, without any further discussion. To ensure that a PINS admission is knowingly and intelligently entered into, in a proper colloquy “[t]he respondent should at least state and admit the precise act, or acts, which constitutes the admission, and should be made aware on the record of the consequences, the dispositional alternatives, and the waiver of specific rights,” as well as give an assurance of the lack of coercion and that he or she consulted with counsel (Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 741 at 98…). Due to the inadequate colloquy and lack of advisement of rights, reversal is required, respondent’s adjudication as a PINS is vacated and the matter is returned to the preadmission stage. Matter of Aaron UU …, 2015 NY Slip Op 01505, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

/ , ,

Under the Criteria Recently Announced by the Court of Appeals, the Proof Was Not Sufficient to Justify Placing the Respondent Under Strict and Intensive Supervision in the Community

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, applied the criteria recently announced by the Court of Appeals and determined the state had not presented sufficient proof to justify placing the respondent, a sex offender who had served 33 years in prison, under strict and intensive supervision (SIST) in the community.  The opinion is very detailed and defies summary.  Some of the main points follow:

The State of New York brought this Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) article 10 proceeding seeking civil commitment of respondent as a dangerous sex offender. This proceeding, however, preceded the recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (24 NY3d 174 [2014]). In Donald DD., the Court of Appeals limited the evidence that can be used to civilly commit a convicted sex offender, and clarified that a sex offender cannot be subject to civil commitment solely because the individual is diagnosed as suffering from an abnormality that predisposes him to commit sexual offenses. In so doing, the Court of Appeals clarifies the line between civil commitment and penal commitment. In this case, we heed this clarification by dismissing this MHL article 10 proceeding on the ground that the State has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has or will have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. * * *

…[T]he jury found that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality qualifying him for civil management under MHL article 10. Following a dispositional hearing where the State experts and respondent testified, Supreme Court found that respondent is not a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement, and ordered instead that he submit to strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) in the community. * * *

…[T]he statute requires that all offenders subject to civil management, including SIST, must be found to have a mental abnormality as a threshold qualification. MHL § 10.03(i) defines a mental abnormality as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.”

Article 10 authorizes civil confinement only of those sex offenders whose “mental abnormality” involves such a strong disposition to commit sexual misconduct and an inability to control behavior that the person is dangerous to society (MHL §§ 10.03[e], 10.07[f]). MHL article 10, as written, is also designed to provide courts with a mechanism for deciding whether the mental condition of a sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality is so extreme that the more restrictive alternative of confinement is warranted or whether, on the other hand, the least restrictive option, namely SIST, is permitted (see MHL § 10.07[f]).

…[I]n Donald DD. …, the Court of Appeals clarified that the State must prove, separate from a finding of mental abnormality required for civil commitment, that the defendant has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, the State must demonstrate that as a result of the “serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder,” a person also would have serious difficulty controlling his behavior if released (24 NY3d at 187, 189).  Matter of State of New York v Frank P, 2015 NY Slip Op 01551, 1st Dept 2-19-15

 

munity

/

Presumption Tenants-In-Common Share Equally Can Be Rebutted

The First Department noted that the presumption that tenants-in-common share equally in the common tenancy, that presumption can be rebutted:

“While there is a presumption that tenants-in-common share equally in their common tenancy, such a presumption may be rebutted if the facts show that they hold the tenancy in unequal shares. A court acting in equity may take into account the amounts invested in the property by the respective tenants in determining the shares to which they are entitled” … . Here, the court properly considered defendant’s undisputed testimony that she alone contributed all of the funds utilized to purchase and maintain the property, and that she resided in the home since its purchase.  Ampratwum v Appiah, 2015 NY Slip Op 01533, 1st Dept 2-19-15

 

/ , , ,

Lease Provision Allowing the Landlord to Recover Attorney’s Fees in an Action Against the Tenant Triggered the Tenant’s Reciprocal Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees Against the Landlord Pursuant to Real Property Law 234 Should Tenant Prevail in the Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera,  determined that a provision in a lease which allowed the landlord to recover attorney’s fees in a successful action against the tenant for failure to cure a default triggered the tenant’s right to attorney’s fees under Real Property Law 234 should the tenant prevail in the action:

Under Real Property Law § 234,

“Whenever a lease of residential property shall provide that in any action or summary proceeding the landlord may recover attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred as the result of the failure of the tenant to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such lease, or that amounts paid by the landlord therefor shall be paid by the tenant as additional rent, there shall be implied in such lease a covenant by the landlord to pay to the tenant the reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred by the tenant as a result of the failure of the landlord to perform any covenant or agreement on its part to be performed under the lease or in the successful defense of any action or summary proceeding commenced by the landlord against the tenant arising out of the lease.”

In order for the tenant to be eligible for attorneys’ fees under this section, the parties’ lease must permit the landlord, in any action or summary proceeding, to recover attorneys’ fees as a result of the tenant’s breach. Where a lease so provides, the court must interpret the lease to similarly permit the tenant to seek fees incurred as a result of the landlord’s breach or the tenant’s successful defense of a proceeding by the landlord. Here, we hold that paragraph 15 provides the basis for the tenant’s claim for reciprocal rights to attorneys’ fees within the meaning of Real Property Law § 234.

Paragraph 15 of the lease, titled “Tenant’s default”, sets forth the landlord’s remedies and the tenant’s liabilities upon the tenant’s failure to comply with a term or rule in the lease. According to this paragraph, where a properly notified tenant fails to cure a default the landlord may cancel the lease and retake possession of the premises, if necessary, by way of an eviction proceeding or other lawsuit. Upon cancellation of the lease and the landlord’s repossession of the premises the tenant is liable for rent for the unexpired term. The landlord’s rights to attorneys’ fees are set forth in clause D. (3) of this paragraph, which states, in part,

“D. If this Lease is cancelled, or Landlord takes back the Apartment, the following takes place:. . . .

“(3) Any rent received by Landlord for the re-renting shall be used first to pay Landlord’s expenses and second to pay any amounts Tenant owes under this Lease. Landlord’s expenses include the costs of getting possession and re-renting the Apartment, including, but not only reasonable legal fees, brokers fees, cleaning and repairing costs, decorating costs and advertising costs.”

Thus, clause D. (3) anticipates that after a tenant’s default leads to the reletting of the premises, the landlord is entitled to collect attorneys’ fees incurred in gaining possession. Under these circumstances, clause D. (3) complies with the requirements of Real Property Law § 234 that the lease provide “in any action or summary proceeding” for the landlord’s recovery of attorneys’ fees “incurred as the result of the failure of the tenant to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such lease.” Graham Ct Owner’s Corp v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 01482, CtApp 2-19-15

/ ,

Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency Exception Described—The Court Noted that One of the Criteria, i.e., that the Police Not Be Primarily Motivated by Intent to Arrest and Seize Evidence, No Longer Applies to Claims Under the US Constitution and May Only Apply to Claims Under the New York Constitution

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, the Second Department explained the application of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement.  The court noted that there is now a question whether one of the criteria for a valid warrantless search pursuant to the emergency exception, i.e., that the police are not primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize evidence, no longer applies under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and may only apply to claims under the New York Constitution:

“[Al]though warrantless entries into a home are presumptively unreasonable'” …, a warrantless search and seizure in a protected area may be lawful, under some circumstances, pursuant to the emergency doctrine (see People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178…). The exception applies where the police (1) have “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property,” (2) are “not . . . primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence,” and (3) have a “reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” (People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d at 177-178…).

The United States Supreme Court has held that the subjective intent of the police is not relevant in determining the reasonableness of police conduct under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403). Consequently, the second prong of Mitchell is now relevant, if at all, only to claims raised under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 12). We need not determine in this case whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution … , because we conclude that the actions of the police officers were permissible under both Brigham City and Mitchell … . People v Loucks, 2015 NY Slip Op 01471, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

County (Nassau) Must Indemnify Special Districts for Ad Valorem Tax Refunds Paid by the Special Districts

The Second Department determined that special districts (sanitation and garbage) which were obligated to refund ad valorem taxes wrongly collected from the New York Water Service Corporation were entitled to be reimbursed by the county:

… “[P]ursuant to the County Guaranty, the County is liable for refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes” … . We have also held that “special ad valorem levies are not assessments for benefit’ within the meaning of former Nassau County Administrative Code § 6-26.0(b)(3)(a)-(b) and, thus, they cannot be charged back to the special districts in the following tax year” … . …[T]he County entities must indemnify the special districts for any refunds paid by the special districts … . New York Water Serv Corp v Supervisor of Town of Oyster Bay, 2015 NY Slip Op 01431, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined

The Second Department explained the concept of “equitable subrogation” re: paying the debt of another:

The doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter, so long as the payment was made either under compulsion or for the protection of some interest of the party making the payment, and in discharge of an existing liability” … . Bank of NY v Penalver, 2015 NY Slip Op 01406, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/

“Special Exception Permit” Defined

In affirming the denial of an application for a “special exception permit,” the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

A “special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . The burden on an owner in seeking a special exception permit is, therefore, “considerably less” than the burden on an owner seeking a use variance … . An applicant for a special exception permit need only show that it has complied with every legislatively imposed condition on the permitted use … . If the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions set forth in the ordinance, the zoning authority may deny the application … . Matter of Nathan v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 01457, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ ,

Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of action for a constructive trust.  Plaintiff alleged she was 50% owner of rental property ostensibly owned by the defendant, her uncle, based upon her uncle’s sharing the rent with plaintiff’s father (now deceased).  The Second Department noted that there was no allegation of a promise running from the uncle to the plaintiff, an essential element of a constructive trust.  The court further noted that plaintiff’s claim she inherited her father’s 50% interest in the property must be adjudicated as part of her father’s estate proceedings:

In general, a constructive trust may be appropriate in situations ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The necessary elements for imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance on that promise, and (4) unjust enrichment … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s complaint, as amplified by her affidavit, does not adequately plead a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the … property. While a confidential relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant as uncle and niece, the complaint does not allege the existence of a promise between the plaintiff and the defendant, or a transfer in reliance upon a promise between them.

Further, … the plaintiff’s allegations in support of a theory that she should be deemed a 50% owner of the … property do not adequately plead the elements of a constructive trust. Her claim of entitlement is based on the laws of inheritance, and must be pursued by the executor or administrator of her father’s estate … . Igneri v Igneri, 2015 NY Slip Op 01419, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff Breached Contract By Not Being Ready on the Time-of-the-Essence Date and Was Therefore Not Entitled to a Return of the Downpayment/Plaintiff’s “Tortious-Interference-with-Contract” Cause of Action Against Brokers Dismissed Because Sellers Did Not Breach the Contract

In finding plaintiff was not entitled to return of her downpayment because she was not ready to close on the “time-of-the-essence” date, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria, as well as the elements of a tortious interference with contract cause of action:

The sellers established, prima facie, that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the plaintiff lacked a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, the sellers established that they did not breach the contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the return of her down payment … . …

The plaintiff alleged that the brokers tortiously interfered with the contract between the plaintiff and the sellers. The elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract are (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract; and (4) damages … . Here, the brokers established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the third-party, i.e., the sellers, did not breach the contract; rather, the plaintiff breached the contract when she did not appear on the time-of-the-essence closing date. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Iacono v Pilavas, 2015 NY Slip Op 01418, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

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