You are here: / Child Not Yet Born When Father Neglected Siblings Was Properly Found to...

Search Results

/

Child Not Yet Born When Father Neglected Siblings Was Properly Found to Be Derivatively Neglected

The Second Department determined that a child who had not been born at the time father was found to have neglected two siblings was properly determined to be derivatively neglected by the father:

“In determining whether a child born after underlying acts of abuse or neglect should be adjudicated derivatively abused or neglected, the determinative factor is whether, taking into account the nature of the conduct and any other pertinent considerations, the conduct which formed the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect as to one child is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists'” … . If such a showing is made, ” the condition is presumed to exist currently and the respondent has the burden of proving that the conduct or condition cannot reasonably be expected to exist currently or in the foreseeable future'” … .

Here, the conduct which formed the basis for the Family Court's finding that the father neglected the subject child's two older siblings was “so proximate in time to [this proceeding] that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” …, and the father failed to complete the programs mandated by the prior order of disposition relating to the older siblings … . Thus, ACS [Administration for Child Services] demonstrated that the father derivatively neglected the subject child, and because the father ” failed to present any evidence to either rebut [ACS's] prima facie case or establish that the condition leading to [the] neglect finding as to the other child[ren] no longer existed,'” the derivative neglect finding was proper … . Matter of Madison B…, 2014 NY Slip Op 08991, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

Provisions in Personnel Handbook Refuted Petitioner’s Allegation that Respondent Failed to Follow the Disciplinary Procedures in the Handbook Prior to Terminating Petitioner/In Addition, Limitations on the Right to Terminate an At-Will Employee Will Not Be Inferred Solely from Policy Manuals or the Existence of an Internal Grievance Procedure

The Second Department determined that the provisions of the personnel handbook did not require the employer to follow a particular disciplinary procedure before terminating the petitioner.  Furthermore, the court noted that any limitation of the right to terminate an at-will employee will not be inferred solely from policy manuals or the existence of a grievance procedure:

“Absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party” … . “A disciplined or terminated employee may seek article 78 review to determine whether the employer contravened any of its own rules or regulations in taking . . . disciplinary action” … .

Here, the petitioner alleged that the respondents, who had employed him since June 2009, acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to follow certain disciplinary procedures set forth in their personnel handbook prior to terminating his employment on May 3, 2013. Accordingly, the petition states a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). However, the documentary evidence submitted by the respondents established a complete defense to the proceeding (see CPLR 3211[a][1]), as it “utterly refute[d]” the petitioner's factual allegations, “thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Specifically, the respondents' personnel handbook provided that “[t]he steps of the progressive discipline process are not guaranteed,” and that management reserves the right to decide what disciplinary action is appropriate, including whether to proceed immediately to termination. Hence, the very document relied upon by the petitioner defeated his contention that the respondents were required to strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures articulated in that document. Moreover, “[a] limitation on the employer's right to terminate at-will employment will not be inferred solely from the existence of policy manuals or the existence of an internal grievance procedure” … . Matter of Oliner v Sovereign Bank, 2014 NY Slip OP 09002, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ , ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion to Set Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Without a Hearing, Criteria Explained/Lower Court Properly Considered Issues Raised for the First Time in Plaintiff’s Reply Papers Because Defendant Availed Himself of the Opportunity to Oppose the Contentions at Oral Argument

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the stipulation of settlement without a hearing.  The court explained the analytical criteria.  (It is worth noting that the Second Department found that Supreme Court properly considered matters raised for the first time in plaintiff's reply papers because the defendant availed himself of the opportunity to oppose the contentions at oral argument.):

“Marital settlement agreements are judicially favored and are not to be easily set aside” … . However, because of the fiduciary relationship existing between spouses, ” [a] stipulation of settlement should be closely scrutinized and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unjust because of the other spouse's overreaching'” … .

“To rescind a separation agreement on the ground of overreaching, a plaintiff must demonstrate both overreaching and unfairness” … . ” [N]o actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the settlement is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other's overreaching . . . in its execution'” … . “[C]ourts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching” … . However, generally, if the execution of the agreement is fair, no further inquiry will be made … . “[W]hile evidence that one spouse was not represented by counsel is insufficient, standing alone, to find overreaching, it is a significant consideration when determining whether the parties entered into the stipulation freely and fairly” … . “[C]ourts have thrown their cloak of protection [over] separation agreements and made it their business, when confronted, to see to it that they are arrived at fairly and equitably, in a manner so as to be free from the taint of fraud and duress, and to set aside or refuse to enforce those born of and subsisting in inequity” … . Jon v Jon, 2014 NY Slip Op 08961, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

Petitioner, Who Was Not a Biological or Adoptive Parent of the Child, Was Adjudicated a Parent in a Support Proceeding Brought by the Respondent—Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Petitioner Was Deemed a Parent in a Subsequent Custody/Visitation Proceeding Brought by the Petitioner

The Second Department determined a determination that petitioner (Arriago) was the child's parent in a support proceeding precluded the respondent (Dukoff) from arguing petitioner was not the child's parent in a subsequent custody/visitation proceeding.  Arriago and Dukoff were domestic partners in a same-sex relationship.  Arriago was artificially inseminated and gave birth to the child.  After successfully seeking child support from Arriago because Arriago was a parent of the child, Dukoff argued that Arriago did not have standing, as neither the biological or adoptive parent, to bring the custody/visitation proceeding.  Family Court disagreed and awarded Arriago visitation:

Dukoff … argues that the court's conclusion that Arriaga had standing to commence this [custody/support] proceeding is contrary to the Court of Appeals' holdings in Debra H. v Janice R. (14 NY3d 576) and Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651). We disagree with Dukoff's contentions.

Domestic Relations Law § 70(a) provides, in part, that “either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and [the court] may award the natural guardianship, charge and custody of such child to either parent . . . as the case may require” (emphasis added). This statute has also been construed to grant standing to ” either parent'” to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to determine the issue of visitation rights … . In Debra H., the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its holding …  that the term “parent” in Domestic Relations Law § 70 encompasses only the biological parent of a child or a legal parent by virtue of adoption and that a “de facto parent” or “parent by estoppel” could not seek visitation with a child who is in the custody of a fit parent (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 590 [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]…). In Debra H., however, the Court analyzed the significance of the civil union the parties had entered into in Vermont prior to the child's birth. The Court determined that, under Vermont law, a child born during a civil union was a child of both partners. Thus, it concluded, Debra H. was the child's parent under Vermont law. As a matter of comity, the Court recognized her as the child's parent under New York law as well, thereby conferring standing for her to seek visitation and custody at a best interests hearing (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 601).

The Court of Appeals noted that recognizing Debra H. as a parent did not conflict with the public policy of New York and would not “undermine the certainty that Alison D. promises biological and adoptive parents and their children,” since “whether there has been a civil union in Vermont is as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption. And both civil union and adoption require the biological or adoptive parent's legal consent, as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 600-601). At the heart of the Court's reasoning in Debra H. was a desire to provide a bright-line rule affording certainty and predictability to parents and children. The Court expressed concern that an equitable estoppel hearing would create protracted litigation on the issue of standing.

In this proceeding, Arriaga asserts that she has standing as a parent of the child pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Under that doctrine, ” a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … .

The concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals in Debra H. are not implicated in the present case, where Arriaga invoked the doctrine of judicial estoppel, not equitable estoppel. No hearing was required to decide whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in this case, nor did the determination involve a “complicated” or “nonobjective test” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 594). Just as in Debra H., whether Arriaga was adjudicated a parent of the child was “as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption” (id. at 600).

Moreover, just as in second-parent adoptions, the adjudication of Arriaga as a parent of the child required the biological mother's affirmative legal consent, “as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (id. at 600-601). Indeed, here, Dukoff was the party who sought to have Arriaga adjudicated a parent. Although Dukoff did not consent to adjudicating Arriaga a parent of the child for the purposes of visitation rights, the biological mother in Debra H. also did not do so.  Matter of Arriaga v Dukoff, 2014 NY Slip Op 08990, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders

In the course of affirming the finding that appellant was a dangerous sex offender who must be civilly confined, the Second Department noted that Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which applies to “detained sex offenders,” applies equally to lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders.  The court went on to briefly describe the relevant analytical criteria and proof burden:

The appellant's contention that this proceeding was “jurisdictionally flawed” because he did not meet the definition of a detained sex offender is without merit. The appellant was incarcerated upon his conviction of attempted sodomy in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 110.00 and former Penal Law § 130.50 at the time that this proceeding was commenced (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[g][1]). The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not distinguish between lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders … . * * *

A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e]). The State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). Matter of State of New York v Abdul A, 2014 NY Slip OP 09006, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

Documents Explaining Reason for Mail-Watch Order Re: Inmate Exempt from Disclosure Pursuant to Public Officers Law

The Third Department determined the petitioner-inmate was not entitled to documents explaining why a mail-watch order was issued by the Department of Corrections mandating that the petitioner's mail be monitored for two months.  The requested documents were exempt from disclosure as “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions:”

…[T]he withheld document constitutes inter- or intra-agency deliberative material, “i.e., communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions” (…see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]…). The withheld document is a mail watch request and consists of “predecisional evaluations, recommendations and conclusions,” and is accordingly exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) … . Matter of Ward v Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip OP 08931, 3rd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ , ,

Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department, in the context of a legal malpractice action, explained the requirements for common law indemnification and contribution.  The motions to dismiss at issue were brought by the third-party defendant law firm (M & S) against the third-party plaintiff law firm (Danna).  The Second Department determined Danna's common law indemnification cause of action should have been dismissed because Danna's alleged liability was not purely vicarious and Danna's contribution action properly survived dismissal because Danna alleged M & S's legal malpractice contributed to plaintiff's damages:

“The principle of common law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “Common-law indemnification is warranted where a defendant's role in causing the plaintiff's injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious” … . “Thus, a party which has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification” … . Here, the plaintiffs' claims against the Danna defendants in the instant legal malpractice action are based upon the Danna defendants' representation of the plaintiffs in an accounting proceeding they commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey proceeding). * * * …[T]he documentary evidence submitted by M & S in support of its motion conclusively established that any liability on the part of the Danna defendants for legal malpractice was not solely passive and purely vicarious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of M & S's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action for common-law indemnification in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

As to the contribution cause of action, ” [i]n determining whether a valid third-party claim for contribution exists, the critical issue is whether the third-party defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff which was breached and which contributed to or aggravated plaintiff's damages'” … . ” [T]he remedy may be invoked against concurrent, successive, independent, alternative and even intentional tortfeasors'” … . “A defendant attorney may seek contribution from a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent that the subsequently retained attorney's negligence may have contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff's injuries” … . Contrary to M & S's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the contribution cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, since the defendants third-party plaintiffs properly stated a cause of action alleging that M & S's legal malpractice contributed to the plaintiff's damages, and documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a complete defense to that cause of action… . Bivona v Damma & Assoc PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08947, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ , ,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the brother of plaintiff's decedent was defendants' employee or an independent contractor.  Defendants are the owners of a single family home who hired plaintiff's decedent's brother and plaintiff's decedent to cut down a tree on the property. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when he was thrown head-first into a tree during the tree-felling process. Plaintiff's decedent sued defendants under negligence, violation of Labor Law sections 200 and 240, and wrongful death theories.  Plaintiff's decedent sought to hold defendants liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (as the employer of decedent's brother, who negligently performed his work, causing plaintiff's decedent's death). Plaintiff's decedent and his brother were hired by the defendants at the suggestion of a mason, Cano, who worked for the defendants.  Cano relayed defendants' instructions concerning the tree removal to plaintiff's decedent's brother:

“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration” … . Whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … .

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence they submitted in support of their motion did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the deposition transcript of the decedent's brother, who testified that the defendant Sean Jencik, in addition to specifying which trees were to be removed, provided instructions as to how the work was to be performed so that the trees would not fall on to the roadway, which were conveyed to him in Spanish through Cano. Moreover, the decedent's brother testified that the defendants gave the money to pay him and the other workers involved with the tree removal to Cano, who then paid them. Sirignano v Jencik, 2014 NY Slip Op 08977, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/

If the Accident Was Staged by the Insured, the Insurer Would Not Be Required to Cover a Party Injured In the Collision, Even If that Party Was Not Involved in the Staging

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined that the insurer could disclaim coverage if the accident was staged by the insured (Robinson), even with respect to a party not shown to have been involved in the staging (Pontoon).  Here Robinson's vehicle side-swiped the vehicle in which Pontoon was a passenger:

Robinson's vehicle was covered under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the proposed additional respondent Government Indemnity Company (hereinafter GEICO). Pontoon sought coverage for the incident from GEICO. GEICO disclaimed coverage on the ground, inter alia, that the collision was staged, and thus resulted from an intentional act. Pontoon then sought arbitration under the uninsured motorist provision of Nelson's policy, which was issued by Nationwide General Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide). Nationwide initiated this proceeding under CPLR article 75 seeking to permanently stay the arbitration on the ground that GEICO was required to provide coverage for Pontoon's injuries, and thus Robinson was not “uninsured.” * * *

The referee incorrectly concluded that GEICO was required to submit evidence that Pontoon was involved in staging the collision in order to support a disclaimer of coverage. Contrary to the referee's conclusion, if GEICO can prove that the collision was staged by Robinson, its insured, it would not be obligated to provide coverage under the policy regardless of whether Pontoon was an innocent third party … . Nationwide Gen Ins v Pontoon, 2014 NY Slip OP 09001, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349

The Second Department determined that the insurer's (Quincy's) failure to notify the insured of a change in a the coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy (in violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) supported a cause of action for deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349. Quincy had notified the insured's broker of the change, but not the insured:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349 are that the defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented, and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deceptive act or practice … . ” Intent to defraud and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not elements of the statutory claim” … . Conduct has been held to be sufficiently consumer-oriented to satisfy the statute where it constituted a standard or routine practice that was “consumer-oriented in the sense that [it] potentially affect[ed] similarly situated consumers” … .

Here, Quincy's submissions failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that its failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Insurance Law § 3425(d) did not constitute a deceptive business practice. Quincy, in its submissions, admitted that it sought to change and reduce coverage by eliminating a particular endorsement to its New York homeowners' insurance policies, including the plaintiffs' insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs' renewal of the policy, Quincy eliminated the endorsement, but failed to notify those insureds of that change in the manner prescribed by the Insurance Law. Moreover, the plaintiffs, who continued to seek full replacement costs in relation to the fire that destroyed their home, were clearly injured by the lack of notice that they were underinsured. Valentine v Quincy Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08984, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

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