You are here: / Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic...

Search Results

/

Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic Court’s Denial of Father’s Application for Return of the Child

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed father’s petition for custody, despite a Dominican Republic court-ruling denying father’s application for return of the child. The application for return of the child was made pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention). The father’s petition for custody in New York was deemed proper under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.  The New York custody petition was not preempted by the court ruling in the Dominican Republic:

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) governs a New York State court’s jurisdiction in international child custody matters (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-d). Domestic Relations Law § 76, which establishes initial child custody jurisdiction, provides, inter alia, that a court of this Sate has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). “Home state” is defined [*2]as the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]). While “state” is defined as a “state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law 75-a[15]), pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, a “court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[1]).

The Convention, “done at The Hague on October 25, 1980, establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights” (42 USC § 11601[a];[4]). “The Convention seeks to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State and to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States” … . The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of rights of custody must be returned to his or her country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply … . Return is not required, for example, if the abducting parent can establish that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose him or her “to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation” … . A decision under the Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence … .

Here, it is undisputed that the United States was the child’s country of habitual residence, and that, at the time the petition was filed, New York was the child’s “home state.” Thus, the Family Court had jurisdiction to determine the father’s petition for custody (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). Moreover, the denial, by the court in the Dominican Republic, of the father’s application for a return of the child pursuant to the Convention, did not preempt his custody proceeding … . Accordingly, the Family Court erred in dismissing the father’s petition. Matter of Katz v Katz, 2014 NY Slip Op 03841, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

/ ,

English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York

The First Department determined a judgment rendered in England was enforceable by New York courts without any need to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter or the ownership of property in New York.  In addition, the court noted that the imposition of post-judgment interest on the foreign judgment by New York courts was found appropriate:

…New York adopted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act as CPLR article 53 …, which was intended to codify and clarify existing case law applicable to the recognition of foreign country money judgments based on principles of international comity, “and, more importantly, to promote the efficient enforcement of New York judgments abroad by assuring foreign jurisdictions that their judgments would receive streamlined enforcement here” … .

Generally, a foreign country judgment is “conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money” (CPLR 5303), “unless a ground for nonrecognition under CPLR 5304 is applicable” … . CPLR 5304(a) provides that “[a]; foreign country judgment is not conclusive if the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” (subd [1]) or “the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (subd [2]). CPLR 5304(b) permits nonrecognition on eight other grounds. Significantly, “in proceeding under article 53, the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function of recognizing the foreign country money judgment and converting it into a New York judgment” … . Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, 2014 NY Slip Op 03767, 1st Dept 5-27-14

 

/ ,

Sufficient Evidence Supported Finding that Sole Shareholder, Who Did Not Oversee the Day to Day Operations of a Corporation, Was a “Responsible Person” Who Could Be Held Personally Liable for the Failure to Pay Corporate Sales and Use Taxes

The Third Department determined that petitioner, who was the sole shareholder of a corporation, was a “responsible person” personally liable under Tax Law 1131 and 1133 for outstanding sales and use taxes.  Petitioner did not oversee the day to day operations of the corporation, did not sign checks, hire or fire employees, or assist in the preparation of tax returns.  However, she had the capacity to appoint officers and directors, had appointed her husband as the sole director, co-signed an alcoholic beverage license, , and alone signed an application for registration as a sales tax vendor:

Tax Law § 1133 (a) imposes personal liability on any person who is responsible for collecting tax under Tax Law article 28 … . A person required to collect tax includes “any officer, director or employee of a corporation . . . who . . . is under a duty to act for such corporation . . . in complying with any requirement of [Tax Law article 28];” (Tax Law § 1131 [1]). Moreover, a person who is not an officer, director or employee of a corporation is required to collect tax if he or she “possessed all the indicia of control that would impose liability upon an officer, director or employee of a corporation” … . Whether a person has a duty to act for a corporation and is responsible for collecting sales tax is a factual determination to be made on a case-by-case basis … . Such determination turns on a variety of factors, including the status of a stockholder, the authority to hire and fire employees and responsibility for the corporation's management … . In this regard, an important consideration is “petitioner's authority and responsibility to exercise control over the corporation, not his [or her]; actual assertion of such authority” … . Matter of Luongo v Tax Appeals Trib of the State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03714, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

/

Professional Photographer Deemed Employee of New York Post

The Third Department determined the claimant photographer demonstrated she was an employee of the New York Post, and therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits:

The existence of an employer-employee relationship presents a factual question for the Board to resolve … . Where, as here, “professionals are involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the purported employer retains overall control of important aspects of the services performed” … . Accordingly, “[a]; determination identifying professional workers as employees will be upheld if substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the employer had control over important aspects of the services performed, even if the worker[]; retain[ed]; control over the[]; work product and the means of crafting it” … .

Following an initial interview and completion of a trial photography session, which was designed “to see if she was good enough to receive assignments” from NYP, claimant consistently received assignments from NYP by telephone or email and worked a “pretty set schedule” of four days each week. According to an NYP representative, these assignments were distributed based upon NYP’s “view of [claimant’s]; suitability for a particular story or picture situation,” and NYP set claimant’s daily rate of pay. Claimant testified that she was given specific instructions for her assignments “most of the time,” which on occasion included “really specific directions about what kind of picture [NYP]; wanted.” Additionally, claimant was required to call in at the beginning and end of her assignments and “couldn’t just go home” if she finished an assignment early. Although claimant admittedly provided her own equipment, NYP specified — in a March 2006 memorandum — the type of camera lens that claimant was required to use, as well as the quantity and selection of photographs that she was to submit. Similarly, while claimant retained the copyright to her photographs, she was precluded from granting rights to those pictures to any newspaper located within a 75-mile radius of New York City without NYP’s prior express approval. Finally, NYP reimbursed claimant for certain of her expenses.

Such proof, in our view, supports the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship as to claimant and others similarly situated … . Matter of Nance…, 2014 NY Slip Op 03720, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

/ ,

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Which Consents to Settlement of Third Party Action Is Entitled to Exercise Its Credit Against the Settlement-Recovery Upon Its Consent

The Third Department determined, where the workers’ compensation carrier has consented to claimant’s settlement in a third-party action, the carrier is entitled to exercise its credit against the recovery when the consent is given:

When a workers’ compensation carrier consents to the settlement of a claimant’s third-party action, the carrier shall have a lien on the proceeds of the recovery equal to the amount of benefits already paid, and may also assert the right to offset future compensation benefits paid until the proceeds of the recovery are exhausted (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [1], [4]…). The issue before us again on this appeal is the point at which a carrier is entitled to exercise its credit. As we observed previously in this matter, “there is no reference in the statute as to when the credit shall commence” (104 AD3d at 1014; see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [4]). Cognizant of the fact that the statute in question was enacted in substantial part to prevent a claimant from receiving a double recovery …, we agree with the carrier that its right to exercise its credit must be available, if provided for in the consent letter, at the point at which the carrier provides its consent. To hold otherwise would result in payments made by the carrier that are not subject to either lien or credit rights, i.e., those payments made between the date of consent — at which point the amount of the carrier’s lien is fixed — and the date of actual settlement. This resulting double payment to the claimant would be contrary to the intent of the statute.  Matter of Williams v Lloyd Gunther El Serv Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03740, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

/ ,

The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is a Substantive, Not a Procedural, Issue—The Law in the State Where the Corporation Is Chartered Controls

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined the law surrounding a corporation’s refusal to answer a pre-suit discovery demand in a purported shareholder derivative action is a matter of substantive law, not procedural law.  Therefore, under New York choice of law rules, the law of Delaware, where the corporation was chartered, applied.  Under Delaware law “plaintiffs in a derivative sure are not entitled to discovery to assist their compliance with the particularized pleading requirement … in the case of a demand refusal.”  The motion to compel discovery was properly denied and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was properly granted.   Lerner v Prince, 2014 NY Slip Op 03763, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Reformation of a Deed (Removing a Restrictive Covenant) Not Met

The Third Department explained the criteria for reformation of a document, in this case a deed.  The court determined that the plaintiff, who was seeking to have a restrictive covenant removed from a deed, did not demonstrate the criteria for reformation of the deed.  The criteria were described as follows:

“A party seeking reformation must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the writing in question was executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud” … . The burden is on the proponent of reformation to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the relief is warranted … .

Here, it is undisputed that the deed’s restrictive covenant was not set forth in the contract of sale and Salenger testified that he first became aware of it when he received the deed after the closing. Thus, plaintiff established the existence of a unilateral mistake regarding whether the restrictive covenant was intended to be included as a condition of the sale. Nonetheless, plaintiff’s proof fell short of establishing fraud on decedent’s part, which requires “‘a misrepresentation that is false and that the defendant knows is false, made to induce the other party to rely on it, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the other party, and injury'” … . Timber Rattlesnake LLC v Devine, 2014 NY Slip Op 03718, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

/ ,

Loss of Small Portion of Stenographic Record Did Not Require Reversal

The First Department noted that the loss of some of the stenographic minutes of a trial did not require reversal. The trial court had conducted a reconstruction hearing:

The loss of a relatively small portion of the stenographic record does not require reversal of defendants’ convictions … . The court conducted a reconstruction hearing at which various participants in the trial presented their recollections, to the extent possible, of the brief portions of the trial for which minutes are not available. When viewed in light of the presumption of regularity (id. at 796), the facts adduced at the reconstruction hearing regarding the missing pages support an inference that the missing minutes would not have revealed any significant appellate issues. People v Negron, 2014 NY Slip Op 03752, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

/

Verdict Properly Set Aside—Theory of Liability Alleged at Trial Altered the Theory of Liability Alleged in Notice of Claim

The First Department determined a plaintiff’s verdict was properly set aside because the theory of liability advanced at trial differed from that described in the Notice of Claim:

The trial court correctly set aside the jury’s verdict because the evidence presented at trial substantially altered the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim. While the change of location of the accident was not itself substantive, we find the additional testimony, i.e., that the decedent’s injuries were caused by Lewis’ failure to stop at a stop sign or a blinking red light, was not alleged in the notice of claim, and thereby substantially altered the nature of the claim. Further, plaintiff’s time to amend the notice of claim to assert that theory has expired (see General Municipal Law § 50-i[1]…). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants were not required to demonstrate that their investigation was prejudiced, because plaintiff never sought to amend her notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6)… . Davis v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 03743, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

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