You are here: / Where There Has Been a Failure of a Material Condition of a Judicial Instrument...

Search Results

/ ,

Where There Has Been a Failure of a Material Condition of a Judicial Instrument of Surrender (of Guardianship and Custody of a Child), the Parent May Bring an Action to Revoke the Surrender Instrument

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined, where a parent agrees to surrender guardianship and custody of a child pursuant to a judicial instrument of surrender, a substantial failure of a material condition of the instrument allows the parent to bring an action to revoke the instrument.  In this case the persons specified in the surrender would not adopt the child:

In Matter of Christopher F. (supra), we were presented with a biological parent’s application to revoke a judicial instrument of surrender. We concluded that, although no procedures beyond notification of the parent were set forth in the statute at that time (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [former (c)], as added by L 1990, ch 479, § 2), “based upon our common-sense interpretation of the applicable statutory framework,” the failure of the provision of the surrender instrument conditioning the biological parent’s surrender on adoption of the child by the person specified in the surrender “permitted [the biological parent] to revoke her consent to the adoption” … . Accordingly, we granted the parent’s application for revocation of the judicial surrender. “‘The Legislature is . . . presumed to be aware of the decisional and statute law in existence at the time of an enactment'” … . Since the subsequent statutory amendments did nothing to abrogate or replace the relevant portions of our holding in Matter of Christopher F. (260 AD2d at 99-101), we conclude that, when there has been a substantial failure of a material condition of a judicial instrument of surrender, the procedure we endorsed in Matter of Christopher F. (supra) remains the appropriate procedure. In such a circumstance, the surrendering parent may bring an application before the court — either by petition or by motion — for revocation of the instrument (see id. at 101). Matter of Bentley XX, 2014 NY Slip Op 05222, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding that Allowing a Child to Wander Away Near a Four-Lane Highway Constituted Maltreatment

The Third Department determined the Commissioner of Children and Family Services properly denied a petition to have a report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment amended to be unfounded and expunged.  Petitioner called law enforcement because her grandchild had wandered away from her front yard and was found unharmed about 200 yards away.  There was no fence and the home faced a four-lane highway:

Substantial evidence supports the finding of maltreatment. In order to establish maltreatment, the agency was required “to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that ‘the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition ha[d] been impaired or [was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the [caregiver’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care'” in providing the child with appropriate supervision … . Upon review of such an administrative determination, “this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence” … . A determination is supported by substantial evidence “when reasonable minds could adequately accept the conclusion or ultimate fact based on the relevant proof” … .

Although petitioner’s home is at the end of a dead-end street, testimony by respondent Michelle Kelley, a caseworker for the Saratoga County Department of Social Services, and photographs introduced into evidence established that the home also faces a four-lane divided highway with a speed limit ranging from 45 to 55 miles per hour. Notably, the same evidence showed that there is no fence, or any similar physical barrier, directly between petitioner’s front yard and this highway. Matter of Cheryl Z v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 05226, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

As a Matter of Discretion, the Court Can Grant a Separate Property Credit for Property Which Was Originally Separate But Which Was “Transmuted” into Marital Property (Overruling Precedent)—the Credit Was Properly Denied Here

The Third Department determined that, under the facts of the case, Supreme Court properly denied the wife a credit for the marital home which originally was her separate property.  The wife subsequently put the property in both her and her husband’s names and the property was used to consolidate the debts of both husband and wife.  However, the Third Department took the opportunity to explain that property which is originally separate but which is then “transmuted” to marital property can be the basis of a separate-property credit, overruling a case relied upon by Supreme Court to deny the credit.  The credit can be applied as a matter of discretion:

…[T]o the limited extent that Campfield [95 AD3d 1429] may be read to limit a court’s discretion to award a separate property credit to a spouse, like the wife, who transmutes separate property into marital property without changing the nature of the property itself, it should no longer be followed. As we have subsequently noted without reference to the way in which a marital asset was acquired, credits are often given for the value of the former separate property (see Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). We have also subsequently explained that the decision to award a separate property origination credit in such a situation is a determination left to the sound discretion of Supreme Court (see Alecca v Alecca, 111 AD3d at 1128; Murray v Murray, 101 AD3d at 1321). Therefore, our own jurisprudence subsequent to Campfield indicates that such credit is not precluded as a matter of law when separate property has been transmuted into marital property. Myers v Myers, 2014 NY Slip Op 05228, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Judges Not Entitled to Retroactive Monetary Damages Re: Legislature’s Failure to Enact Cost of Living Increases Since 2000

The First Department, with concurring and dissenting opinions, affirmed Supreme Court’s declining to award the plaintiffs-judges retroactive monetary damages based upon the legislature’s failure to enact cost of living increases since 2000.  In his concurring opinion, Justice Tom determined that the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Maron v Silver, 14 NYU3d 230 (2010), did not authorize the courts to award such damages, rather the Court of Appeals left it to the legislature to remedy the problem:

There is no lingering question whether the legislature acted properly during the time period when judges’ salary remained stagnant for years – it did not – nor was there any serious controversy regarding the merits of an increase in judicial compensation. Now that the legislature has acted, the issue presented is whether the pay increases that were authorized were themselves constitutionally deficient. However, plaintiffs are conflating an understandable lack of satisfaction with the financial outcome with an analysis more properly relegated to the constitutionality of the process. Relatedly, we are constrained by the text of the Court of Appeals decision, in Maron, which analyzed the prior process in terms of the conflict between the legislature’s constitutional prerogatives, and its budgetary policies that are outside the purview of those boundaries. * * *

In the final analysis, however, the viability of the remedy which plaintiffs seek is solely governed by the existing Court of Appeals ruling. The decision did not directly define the outer boundaries of judicial power should the legislature not provide for retroactive compensation, but seemingly left the nature and extent of compensation with the legislature. Thus, I do not find that the legislature, having abandoned its constitutionally offensive policy of linkage when recently increasing judicial salaries, has constitutionally offended by acting only prospectively, nor do I see a basis to conclude that the directives of the Court of Appeals were transgressed.  Larabee v Governor of the State of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 05246, 1st Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based upon allegations of spoliation of evidence.  In response to plaintiff’s counsel’s initial request, 84 seconds of videotape depicting plaintiff’s slip and fall were preserved. Subsequently plaintiff’s attorney requested video of the six hours preceding the accident.  By that time, however, the tapes had been automatically erased:

On a motion for spoliation sanctions, the moving party must establish that (1) the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” which may include ordinary negligence; and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to the moving party’s claim or defense … . In deciding whether to impose sanctions, courts look to the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party, and whether a particular sanction is necessary as a matter of elementary fairness … . The burden is on the party requesting sanctions to make the requisite showing … . * * *

While it is true that a plaintiff is entitled to inspect tapes to determine whether the area of an accident is depicted and “should not be compelled to accept defendant’s self-serving statement concerning the contents of the destroyed tapes” … , this principle does not translate into an obligation on a defendant to preserve hours of tapes indefinitely each time an incident occurs on its premises in anticipation of a plaintiff’s request for them. That obligation would impose an unreasonable burden on property owners and lessees.   Duluc v AC & L Food Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05243, 1st Dept 7-10-14

 

/ , ,

Party Moving for Summary Judgment May Not Submit Expert Affidavits With the Identity of the Expert Redacted

In the summary judgment context, the Third Department determined the moving party in a medical malpractice action, unlike the non-moving party, could not submit affidavits from experts with the names of the experts redacted:

In order to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendants were required to “tender[] sufficient, competent, admissible evidence demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact” … . Among other submissions, defendants provided an affidavit from a medical expert whose identity was redacted and who opined on the appropriateness of plaintiff’s medical care and the adequacy of the warnings given to plaintiff.efendants also submitted an unredacted version of the affidavit for Supreme Court’s in camera review. Because defendants were the movants for summary judgment, their submission of an anonymous expert affidavit was incompetent evidence not proper for consideration upon the motion … .

While the Legislature has allowed for some protection from disclosure of the identities of medical experts during “[t]rial preparation” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and, consistent with this intention, courts have found it appropriate to allow nonmovants in the summary judgment context to also withhold experts’ identities from their adversaries upon the reasoning that such parties did not choose to abandon the disclosure protections provided during trial preparation …, the Legislature has shown no broad intention of protecting experts from accountability at the point where their opinions are employed for the purpose of judicially resolving a case or a cause of action. Further, we see no compelling reason to allow for such anonymity that would outweigh the benefit that accountability provides in promoting candor … . Requiring a movant to reveal an expert’s identity in such circumstances would allow a nonmovant to meaningfully pursue information such as whether that expert has ever espoused a contradictory opinion, whether the individual is actually a recognized expert and whether that individual has been discredited in the relevant field prior to any possible resolution of the case on the motion … . Further, any expert who anticipates a future opportunity to espouse a contradictory opinion would be on notice that public record could be used to hold him or her to account for any unwarranted discrepancy between such opinions … . For these reasons, we will not consider the incompetent affidavit of defendants’ medical expert. Rivera v Albany Med Ctr Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05236, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ , ,

Jury’s Finding a Party Was at Fault But Such Fault Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Should Not Have Been Set Aside as Inconsistent and Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should not have been granted.  Plaintiff was injured when he dove to catch a ball in an area which had poles sticking up out of the ground.  The plaintiff, who was 10 years old at the time, knew the poles were there.  The jury found that the property owner was at fault but that such fault was not the proximate cause of the accident.  The Second Department held that the verdict was not inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . ” [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view'” … . Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the conclusion that the infant plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Henry v Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05157, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/

Surrogate’s Court Properly Declined to Suspend the Fiduciaries’ Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship Pending a Hearing to Determine the Contested Facts

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly declined to suspend the fiduciaries’ letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship pending the outcome of an accounting proceeding.  Although allegations of comingling property would support such a suspension, the allegations were contested and it would be an abuse of discretion to order the suspension without a hearing:

The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 and 719 is equivalent to “a judicial nullification of the testator’s choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established” … .

Nevertheless, pursuant to SCPA 719(7), “letters [issued to a fiduciary] may be suspended, modified or revoked, or a lifetime trustee removed or his powers suspended or modified, without process. . . . [w]here he mingles the funds of the estate with his own or deposits them with any person, association or corporation . . . in an account other than as fiduciary” (SCPA 719[7] [emphasis added]). Fiduciary letters also may be suspended without process “[w]here any of the facts provided in 711 are brought to the attention of the court” (SCPA 719[10]).

However, as noted in Matter of Duke (87 NY2d 465),

“[w]hile the Surrogate is clearly granted the exceptional authority to summarily remove executors without the formality of commencing a separate proceeding, the authority to exercise the ultimate sanction summarily is not absolute. The Surrogate may remove without a hearing only where the misconduct is established by undisputed facts or concessions, where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge, or where facts warranting amendment of letters are presented to the court during a related evidentiary proceeding” (Matter of Duke, 87 NY2d at 472-473 [internal citations omitted; emphasis added]).

Thus, revoking a fiduciary’s letters without a hearing pursuant to SCPA 719 will constitute an abuse of discretion “where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy” … .

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the allegations in this case are sharply disputed and give rise to conflicting inferences regarding the Fiduciaries’ alleged misconduct. Matter of Mercer, 2014 NY Slip Op 05186, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/ , ,

Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When Decedent Was Shot

The Second Department determined that an off-duty corrections officer (Maldonado) was not acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed a man:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . However, an employer may not be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if, at the time of the underlying incident, the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business … .

Here, the claimant’s decedent was shot by an off-duty New York State Corrections Officer, Emilio Maldonado, after a dispute. The record showed, inter alia, that Maldonado was assaulted by the claimant’s decedent and his brother following a traffic dispute. At the time of the incident, Maldonado was driving his personal vehicle, and was accompanied by family members. He was carrying his own privately-owned weapon as well as a badge. * * *

Although Maldonado testified in a related criminal action that he intended or planned to “cuff” and detain the assailants, it is undisputed that he never took any affirmative steps toward effecting a detention. In particular, he did not order the assailants to halt, and he did not physically attempt to handcuff or detain them. It is also undisputed that after the shooting, Maldonado did not attempt to detain the fleeing assailants. Under these circumstances, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Maldonado acted within the scope of his official duties… . Wood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05173, 7-9-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause of Damages—Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Defendants—Elements of Attorney Malpractice Action Explained

The Second Department determined that any deficiencies in the attorney’s motion papers, seeking to vacate a default, were not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ damages, therefore the malpractice action was properly dismissed.  The court explained the elements of an attorney malpractice action:

To sustain a cause of action alleging legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the attorney “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession,” and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages … .

Even if a plaintiff establishes the first prong of a legal malpractice cause of action, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the action but for the attorney’s negligence … . “[A]s to [this] second prong, the plaintiff must plead and prove actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney’s negligence” … .

“To obtain summary judgment dismissing a complaint in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of [his or her] legal malpractice cause of action”… . Di Giacomo v Langella, 2014 NY Slip Op 05150, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

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