You are here: / Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support...

Search Results

/ ,

Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support Standards Act

The Third Department determined the parties’ separation and modification agreements did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA).  The court explained the flaws:

If an agreement or stipulation entered into between the parties “deviates from the basic child support obligation, the agreement or stipulation must specify the amount that such basic child support obligation would have been and the reason or reasons that such agreement or stipulation does not provide for payment of that amount. Such provision may not be waived by either party or counsel” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]…).

Here, the original separation and settlement agreement indicated that the parties had been advised of the provisions of the CSSA and that the amount of child support calculated in compliance therewith would be presumptively valid; the agreement further set forth the applicable statutory percentage for three children (29%) and the parties’ respective incomes and indicated that the husband’s child support obligation would be adjusted upon the cessation of the agreed-upon maintenance payments (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]). The agreement did not, however, indicate what the presumptive amount of child support would be, nor did it set forth the reasons for deviating therefrom. Similar deficiencies exist with respect to the provisions governing the parties’ pro rata share of childcare and medical expenses and, to our analysis, none of the foregoing deficiencies was cured by the subsequent modification agreement. Although the modification agreement acknowledged a departure from the presumptive pro rata share of each party’s childcare expenses and purported to explain the basis for the deviation therefrom, the agreement was silent as to what the presumptive pro rata percentages would be under the CSSA and failed to set forth the income and other financial data supporting the basis for such deviation. Malone v Malone, 2014 NY Slip Op 08281, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ , , ,

Commissioner, Due to His Prior Involvement with Discipline of the Petitioner, Should Have Disqualified Himself from Review of the Hearing Officer’s Disciplinary Recommendation and from the Rendering a Final Judgment

In a detailed decision addressing many aspects of administrative law rarely mentioned in the case law (and not described here), the Third Department determined the commissioner of accounts for the city, because of his involvement in earlier related proceedings concerning the petitioner, should have disqualified himself from reviewing the hearing officer’s final determination and rendering a final judgmet in a disciplinary action against the petitioner:

We do … find merit to petitioner’s claim that the Commissioner — having investigated petitioner’s initial allegations of preferential assessment treatment, concluded that such allegations were unfounded, preferred the resulting charges of misconduct and insubordination against petitioner and testified at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing in support of such charges — should have disqualified himself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and rendering a final determination in this matter. Regardless of whether disciplinary charges are pursued in the judicial or administrative realm, “[t]he participation of an independent, unbiased adjudicator in the resolution of disputes is an essential element of due process of law, guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions” … . Although a particular individual’s involvement or participation in the disciplinary process does not automatically compel his or her recusal, the case law makes clear that “individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges” … . Accordingly, “when an officer institutes charges of misconduct and testifies at [the] ensuing hearing, that officer, in the interest of fairness, must disqualify [himself or] herself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations and rendering a final determination” … . Matter of Zlotnick v City of Saratoga Springs, 2014 NY Slip Op 08289, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment in a Tax Foreclosure Proceeding—30-Day Statute of Limitations in the Tax Law Applied

The Third Department determined that a proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment was actually seeking to open a default judgment in a tax foreclosure proceeding, subject to a 30-day statute of limitations.  The action was dismissed as untimely:

A tax debtor’s motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought more than one month after entry of the judgment'” … . Although the complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the foreclosure is a nullity and does not expressly seek an order vacating the default judgment, it is apparent that the relief that plaintiff now seeks is analogous to that which is demanded in an application to reopen a judgment entered on default and it is, therefore, subject to the timing requirements of RPTL 1131. As the action was commenced more than one month after the default judgment of foreclosure was entered and plaintiff has not demonstrated “either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense,” dismissal of the complaint was warranted … . Goodfriend v Village of Jeffersonville, 2014 NY Slip Op 08279, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Procedure for Determining a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Where the Defendant Submits Evidence Explained/Elements of Gross Negligence Explained

The Second Department, in finding the complaint adequately pled gross negligence (re: packing and transporting an art collection), explained the analytical criteria for dealing with a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) where evidence is submitted by the defendant:

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences” … . The court is limited to “an examination of the pleadings to determine whether they state a cause of action,” and the “plaintiff may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . “The test of the sufficiency of a pleading is whether it gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments'” … .

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)” …, and, if it does so, “the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” … .

Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others” … . “Stated differently, a party is grossly negligent when it fails to exercise even slight care or slight diligence” … . Ordinarily, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact … . Dolphin Holdings Ltd v Gander & White Shipping Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08316, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ , ,

Proper Jury Instructions in False Imprisonment Case Based Upon Detention During the Execution of a Search Warrant Explained

The Second Department set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on liability and damages because the jury was not properly instructed.  The plaintiff was detained at gunpoint while the police executed a search warrant based upon (apparently wrong) information provided by a confidential informant. The issues which should have been presented to the jury were whether the presumption of probable cause for the search warrant was rebutted and whether the “limited authority” to detain during a search was exceeded:

The Supreme Court erred when it instructed the jury to, in effect, apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine the validity of the search warrant. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, as applied in a criminal prosecution, where probable cause is predicated in whole or in part upon the hearsay statements of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the informant is reliable and had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge … . By contrast, in a trial on the issue of liability for false imprisonment, there is a presumption of probable cause for the detention which the plaintiff must rebut with evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer … .* * *

The Supreme Court should have instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of probable cause by establishing that the NYPD presented “false or unsubstantiated statements” to the Criminal Court Judge to procure the issuance of the warrant … . * * *

We further note that police officers executing a search warrant have “limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” …, and are “privileged to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention of the occupants of the place to be searched” … . Accordingly, if warranted by the evidence presented at the new trial, the Supreme Court should direct the jury to determine, in the context of evaluating whether [plaintiff’s] confinement was privileged, whether the police officers, even if they possessed probable cause to enter the apartment initially, exceeded the scope of their limited authority to detain the occupants of the apartment… . Ali v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08310, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Anonymous Tip Alone, In the Absence of “Predictive Information,” Sufficient to Provide “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying a Vehicle Stop

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision followed by lengthy concurring/dissenting opinions, determined that anonymous tips were sufficient to justify a vehicle stop in two cases (tips alleged possession of a weapon), but insufficient in a third case (tip alleged driver was sick or intoxicated). The concurring/dissenting opinions dealt with whether the “Aguilar-Spinelli” test or the “totality of the circumstances” test should be applied where reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) was required to justify a vehicle stop, and whether an anonymous tip alone, in the absence of so-called “predictive information,” could be sufficient to justify a vehicle stop.  The significance of the decision is that an anonymous tip alone was found sufficient, under both the “Aguilar-Spinelli” and “totality of the circumstances” tests, in two of the three cases:

Regardless of whether we apply a totality of the circumstances test or the Aguilar-Spinelli standard (see Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]), there is record support for the lower courts’ findings that the stops were lawful in People v Argyris and People v DiSalvo. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants’ vehicle based on the contents of a 911 call from an anonymous individual and the confirmatory observations of the police. Specifically, because sufficient information in the record supports the lower courts’ determination that the tip was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, satisfied the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test for the reliability of hearsay tips in this particular context and contained sufficient information about defendants’ unlawful possession of a weapon to create reasonable suspicion, the lawfulness of the stop of defendants’ vehicle is beyond further review. Furthermore, under these circumstances, the absence of predictive information in the tip was not fatal to its reliability … .

In People v Johnson, whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established. The caller’s cursory allegation that the driver of the car was either sick or intoxicated, without more, did not supply the sheriff’s deputy who stopped the car with reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated (see generally People v DeBour …) . Although the deputy observed defendant commit a minor traffic infraction, this did not authorize the vehicle stop because he was outside his geographical jurisdiction at the time of the infraction (see CPL 140.10 [2] [a]), and defendant’s actions in committing the violation did not elevate the deputy’s suspicion sufficiently to justify the stop of defendant’s car. People v Argyris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08220, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/

Defendant’s Inability to Articulate a Reason for the Withdrawal of His Plea Was a Proper Basis for Refusal of His Request for An Adjournment of Sentencing to Consider Withdrawal of the Plea

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing to consider whether he should withdraw his plea was properly denied (despite the absence of prejudice to the People) because defendant was unable to articulate a reason for withdrawing the plea:

Whether to grant an adjournment is within Supreme Court’s discretion … . Based upon the colloquy at sentencing, defendant had more than a fair amount of time to speak with counsel regarding his interest in withdrawing his plea. Although defendant was out of custody for two months, having been released on his own recognizance following his plea allocution, the record reflects that he only contacted defense counsel the day before sentencing in order to discuss his plea concerns. Despite defense counsel’s inability to meet with defendant that day, defense counsel stated during sentencing that she had spoken with defendant that morning. People v Spears, 2014 NY Slip Op 08221, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/ ,

Indictment Rendered Duplicitous By Trial Evidence Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error Must Therefore Be Preserved by an Objection to Be Raised on Appeal

Resolving a split among the appellate division departments, the Court of Appeals determined that an indictment rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence is not a “mode of proceedings” error and the error must therefore be preserved in order to raise it on appeal. The indictment charged one count of attempted murder.  But the evidence presented two different occurrences to which the single count could apply:

The [1st] and [2nd] Departments have held that where it is claimed that the trial evidence has rendered a count duplicitous, the issue must be preserved for review … . The [4th] Department, however, has held that duplicity created by trial evidence violates a defendant’s right to be tried and convicted only of the crimes and theories charged in the indictment, which is a fundamental and non-waivable right, and that such error also violates a defendant’s right under CPL 310.80 to a unanimous verdict, and that preservation is unnecessary … .

As we held in People v Alvarez (20 NY3d 75, 81 [2012], cert denied — US &mdash, 133 S Ct 1736 [2013]), in relation to the constitutional right to a public trial, “preservation of public trial claims is still required. Bringing a public trial violation to a judge’s attention in the first instance will ensure the timely opportunity to correct such errors” … . Therefore, defendant’s argument that he need not preserve an issue that has constitutional significance is unconvincing.

Any uncertainty could have easily been remedied with an objection during opening statements, the witness testimony, or to the jury charge. Requiring preservation will prevent unnecessary surprise after the conduct of a complete trial. Accordingly, we hold that issues of non-facial duplicity, like those of facial duplicity, must be preserved for appellate review. People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 08222, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/ , , ,

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that a corporation created by the Seneca Nation for the operation of a golf course (Lewiston Golf) was not entitled to sovereign immunity and, therefore, could be sued by the company with which the Seneca Nation contracted to build the golf course.  The contractor brought suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien:

Indian tribes possess the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers, unless waived. In Matter of Ransom, we set out several factors for courts to [*6]use to determine whether an entity, such as a corporation or agency, that is affiliated with an Indian tribe has the right to claim sovereign immunity against suit.

“Although no set formula is dispositive, in determining whether a particular tribal organization is an ‘arm’ of the tribe entitled to share the tribe’s immunity from suit, courts generally consider such factors as whether: [1] the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; [2] the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; [3] the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; [4] the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; [5] tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and [6] the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether [7] the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether [8] a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether [9] the subentity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the subentity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559-560 [internal quotation marks, citations, and square brackets omitted; numbering added].) * * *

…[T]he primary purpose of creating the golf course in Lewiston was to act as a regional economic engine and thereby serve the profit-making interests of the Seneca Nation’s casino operations in the area. While this may result in more funds for government projects on the Seneca Nation’s reservations and elsewhere that benefit members of the tribe, … the purposes of Lewiston Golf were sufficiently different from tribal goals that they militate against Lewiston Golf’s claim of sovereign immunity. However, the purposes factor of Ransom is not determinative… . While some of the remaining Ransom factors favor the conclusion that Lewiston Golf is protected by sovereign immunity, the most important ones strongly support the opposite conclusion. Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Corporation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08218, CtApp 11-25-14

 

/ , ,

Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the children in two families who were successive tenants of the same apartment were restricted to recovery for exposure to lead paint to a single policy limit, and not multiple policy limits based upon annual policy renewals.  The two families’ recoveries were limited to the single $500,000 policy limit:

In September 1991, Allstate Insurance Company issued a policy of liability insurance to the landlord of a two-family house in Rochester. The policy was renewed annually for the years beginning September 1992 and September 1993. It stated on the declarations page a $500,000 limit for “each occurrence,” and contained the following noncumulation clause:

“Regardless of the number of insured persons, injured persons, claims, claimants or policies involved, our total liability under the Family Liability Protection coverage for damages resulting from one accidental loss will not exceed the limit shown on the declarations page. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.”

Felicia Young and her children lived in one of the two apartments in the house from November 1992 until September 1993. In July 1993, the Department of Health notified the landlord that one of the children had been found to have an elevated blood lead level and that several areas in the apartment were in violation of State regulations governing lead paint. The Department listed the violations and directed the landlord to correct them. The landlord made some repairs, and the Department advised him in August 1993 that the violations “have been corrected.”

After the Young family moved out of the apartment in September 1993, Lorenzo Patterson, Sr. and Qyashitee Davis moved in with their two children. Again a child was found to have an elevated blood lead level, and the Department of Health sent another letter saying that violations had been found and instructing the landlord to correct them. (This letter was sent in December 1994, but the parties seem to assume that the elevated readings resulted at least in part from events on or before September 29, 1994, the last day of Allstate’s coverage.) * * *

Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were exposed to the same hazard, lead paint, in the same apartment. Perhaps they were not exposed to exactly the same conditions; but to say that the “general conditions” were not the same would deprive the word “general” of all meaning. Nesmith argues that, because the landlord made an effort to correct the problem after Young’s children were exposed and before Nesmith’s grandchildren moved in, the “conditions” that injured her grandchildren must have been new ones. But she makes no claim, and the record provides no basis for inferring, that a new lead paint hazard had been introduced into the apartment. The only possible conclusion from this record is that the landlord’s remedial efforts were not wholly successful, and that the same general conditions — the presence of lead paint that endangered children’s health — continued to exist. Because Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were injured by exposure to the same general conditions their injuries were part of a single “accidental loss,” and only one policy limit is available to the two families. Nesmith v Allstate Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08217, CtApp 11-25-14

 

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