You are here: / Review of Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted by Change of Circumstances/Seriousness...

Search Results

/

Review of Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted by Change of Circumstances/Seriousness of Mother’s Alcohol-Related Behavior Increased

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a change in mother’s alcohol-related behavior warranted a review of the custody arrangement set out in a stipulation:

When parties enter into stipulations resolving custody issues, those stipulations will not be modified unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation, and unless modification of the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child[]” … . Here, although the father admittedly was aware of the mother’s issues with alcohol at the time that he agreed to share custody with her, evidence of the mother’s continuing and escalating problems in this regard, coupled with her subsequent alcohol-related arrests and the indicated child protective services reports, “was sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances requiring a review of the existing custody arrangement in order to determine whether [such arrangement] continued to be in the child’s best interests” … . Accordingly, Supreme Court should have undertaken a best interests analysis. Matter of Kiernan v Kiernan, 515662, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Terms in Separation Agreement

The Third Department explained how ambiguity in the terms of a separation agreement is to be handled by the courts:

Ambiguity in a separation agreement is resolved, as with any contract, by determining the parties’ intent from within the instrument’s four corners, if possible, and otherwise from extrinsic evidence … . In doing so, “[t]he court is not limited to the literal language of the agreement, but should also include a consideration of whatever may be reasonably implied from that literal language”… . Matter of Apjohn v Lubinski, 516326, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

/

Family Court Improperly Delegated Its Responsibility to Set the Terms of Father’s Supervised Visitation

The Third Department determined Family Court improperly relinquished its authority to dictate the terms of father’s supervised visitation to the petitioner (grandmother):

…[W]e find merit to the father’s contention that Family Court erred in granting visitation subject to conditions of supervision set at the sole discretion of petitioner. Family Court is required to determine the issue of visitation in accord with the best interests of the children and fashion a schedule that permits a noncustodial parent to have frequent and regular access … . In doing so, the court may not delegate its authority to make such decisions to a party … . Here, in light of the father’s apparent history of domestic violence and failure to submit to a substance abuse screen, the court did not err in requiring that the father be subject to supervised visitation.However, inasmuch as the court granted complete authority to petitioner to determine the father’s access to the children and under what conditions that access may occur, the court impermissibly abdicated its responsibility to ensure that the father has regular and meaningful visitation with the children and, therefore, the matter must be remitted for a hearing and redetermination in this regard… . Matter of Aida B v Alfredo C, 515713, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

/

“Presumption of Compensability” Applied

The decedent was working, driving a truck, when his truck struck a toll booth. There was evidence the decedent had a stroke, either just before or after the accident. In affirming the validity of the claim, the Third Department explained the application of the “presumption of compensability:”

…[W]e reject the employer’s assertion that claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing a casually related death. “Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), a presumption of compensability exists where, as here, an unwitnessed or unexplained injury occurs during the course of the affected worker’s employment”… . As relevant here, the statutory presumption is applicable where either a stroke occurs during work … or where the onset of stroke symptoms occurs during work … . If the presumption is applicable, a claimant is not required “‘to come forward, in the first instance, with prima facie medical evidence of a causal relationship between’ [the] injury and [the] employment” … . * * *Inasmuch as decedent clearly had an accident while working, and it was either the stroke that caused the accident or the accident that caused the stroke, the Board properly applied the presumption that decedent’s injury was causally related to his employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 [1]…). Matter of Stevenson v Yellow Roadway Corporation…, 516077, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

/ ,

No Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecutors Told the Grand Jury that the Witness Defendant Asked the Grand Jury to Call Would Not Provide Relevant Evidence/Prosecutor’s Role in Grand Jury Explained in Some Detail

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the prosecutors did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings by suggesting a witness the defendant asked the grand jury to subpoena would not provide relevant testimony. The court explained the prosecutor’s role in the grand jury:

CPL article 190 governs the conduct of the grand jury and the parties which appear before that body, and it requires that all grand jury proceedings remain secret to protect the essential functions of those various actors (see generally CPL 190.05; 190.25 [4] [a]). Under this statutory regime, the exclusive “legal advisors of the grand jury are the court and the district attorney” (CPL 190.25 [6]), and their decision to present certain items of evidence and to exclude others is for the most part limited only by the rules of evidence applicable at trial (see CPL 190.30 [1]…).  In the same vein, the prosecutor enjoys “broad powers and duties, as well as wide discretion in presenting the People's case” to the grand jury … . Indeed, the prosecutor “determines the competency of witnesses to testify,” and he or she “must instruct the jury on the legal significance of the evidence” … .

Notably, though, due process imposes upon the prosecutor a “duty of fair dealing to the accused and candor to the courts,” thus requiring the prosecutor “not only to seek convictions but also to see that justice is done” … . This duty extends to the prosecutor's instructions to the grand jury and the submission of evidence … . The prosecutor also cannot provide “an inaccurate or misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry” …, nor can the prosecutor accept an indictment that he or she knows to be based on false, misleading or legally insufficient evidence … .

Even under those principles, “[a] Grand Jury proceeding is not a mini trial, but a proceeding convened primarily to investigate crimes and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a citizen of a crime and subject him or her to a criminal prosecution” … . That being so, the prosecutor need not tread too lightly in pressing the People's case or rebutting the defendant's assertions. For example, where the defendant chooses to testify, the prosecutor may, within limits, ask probing or even skeptical questions of the defendant about issues raised by his or her testimony … . Similarly, in the role of legal advisor, the prosecutor need not instruct the grand jury on the full extent of its investigatory and deliberative powers … . The prosecutor may decline to instruct the grand jury about a variety of defenses, and he or she need not disclose certain forms of exculpatory evidence or reveal to the grand jury the circumstances surrounding the authorities' investigation of the case … . These examples illustrate that, in occupying a “dual role as advocate and public officer” … , the prosecutor is not obligated to present the evidence or make statements to the grand jurors in the manner most favorable to the defense. People v Thompson, 10, CtApp 2-20-14

 

/ ,

Deception Used By Interrogators Rendered Confession Involuntary As a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, as a matter of law, defendant’s confession had been coerced by impermissible deception. The confession was suppressed and a new trial ordered. The interrogators told the defendant (1) his wife would be arrested if he did not confess to responsibility for injuries to their child and (2) disclosure of the circumstances of the injury was necessary to allow the doctors to save the child’s life (the child already had been declared brain-dead):

It is the People's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements of a defendant they intend to rely upon at trial are voluntary … . To do that, they must show that the statements were not products of coercion, either physical or psychological …, or, in other words that they were given as a result of a “free and unconstrained choice by [their] maker” … . The task is the same where deception is employed in the service of psychologically oriented interrogation; the statements must be proved, under the totality of the circumstances … — necessarily including any potentially actuating deception — the product of the maker's own choice. The choice to speak where speech may incriminate is constitutionally that of the individual, not the government, and the government may not effectively eliminate it by any coercive device. It is well established that not all deception of a suspect is coercive, but in extreme forms it may be. Whether deception or other psychologically directed stratagems actually eclipse individual will, will of course depend upon the facts of each case, both as they bear upon the means employed and the vulnerability of the declarant. There are cases, however, in which voluntariness may be determined as a matter of law — in which the facts of record permit but one legal conclusion as to whether the declarant's will was overborne … . This, we believe, is such a case. What transpired during defendant's interrogation was not consonant with and, indeed, completely undermined, defendant's right not to incriminate himself — to remain silent. People v Thomas, 18, CtApp 2-20-14

 

/

In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant Not Liable

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the action based upon injury from a falling conduit should have been dismissed because the device which failed was not a safety device:

Labor Law § 240 (1) … requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection to those working on a construction site … . It imposes absolute liability where the failure to provide such protection is a proximate cause of a worker's injury … .In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240 (1) “falling object” case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute “and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being “hoisted or secured” …, or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . Contrary to the dissent's contention, section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; “a plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device … of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

The Appellate Division … in denying summary judgment to defendants … , because they established as a matter of law that the conduit did not fall on plaintiff due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device.

The compression coupling, which plaintiff claims was inadequate, is not a safety device “constructed, placed, and operated as to give proper protection” from the falling conduit. Its only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly. The coupling had been installed a week before the incident and had been serving its intended purpose until a change order was issued and plaintiff dismantled the conduit/pencil box assembly. Fabrizi v 1095 Avenue of the Americas…, 15, CtApp 2-20-14

 

/ , , ,

Public Trust Doctrine Re: Allowing a Restaurant in a Public Park/License and Lease Characteristics Compared

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that a the city’s allowing a restaurant to operate in a public park did not violate the public trust doctrine and the arrangement between the city and the restaurant was a valid license, not a lease (which would have required approval by the legislature):

Under the public trust doctrine, dedicated parkland cannot be converted to a non-park purpose for an extended period of time absent the approval of the State Legislature … . * * * … [A]lthough it is for the courts to determine what is and is not a park purpose, … the Commissioner enjoys broad discretion to choose among alternative valid park purposes. Observing that restaurants have long been operated in public parks, we [in 795 Fifth Ave Corp v City of New York, 15 NY2d 221] rejected plaintiffs' public trust claim, holding that they could show only a “difference of opinion” as to the best way to use the park space and that this “mere difference of opinion [was] not a demonstration of illegality”… . * * *

We have stated that parkland cannot be leased, even for a park purpose, absent legislative approval … . * * *

A document is a lease “if it grants not merely a revocable right to be exercised over the grantor's land without possessing any interest therein but the exclusive right to use and occupy that land” … . It is the conveyance of “absolute control and possession of property at an agreed rental which differentiates a lease from other arrangements dealing with property rights” …. . A license, on the other hand, is a revocable privilege given “to one, without interest in the lands of another, to do one or more acts of a temporary nature upon such lands” … . That a writing refers to itself as a license or lease is not determinative; rather, the true nature of the transaction must be gleaned from the rights and obligations set forth therein. Finally, a broad termination clause reserving to the grantor “the right to cancel whenever it decides in good faith to do so” is strongly indicative of a license as opposed to a lease … . Union Square Park Community Coalition Inc v New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 17, CtApp 2-20-14

 

/

Revocation of Day-Care License “Shocking to One’s Sense of Fairness”

The Third Department determined revocation of petitioner’s day-care license was too severe a penalty for a situation in which two children were left unsupervised for 20 to 30 minutes. The children, ages 11 and 13, had a cell phone and were never in any imminent danger of harm:

Although petitioner violated a regulation, the penalty of revocation is too disproportionate to this isolated violation that was the result of extenuating circumstances. An administrative penalty “must be upheld unless it is ‘so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness'” …, “thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” … , * * *Based on the children’s ages and their possession of a cell phone that they used to contact petitioner, the children were not put in danger by this incident, despite the potential danger that existed from children being left unsupervised …. . Although the regulation makes clear that it is not appropriate to leave children unsupervised (see 18 NYCRR 417.8 [a]), petitioner did not violate the regulation intentionally, as she had established a plan for the supervision of the children in her absence, and the violation occurred as “the result of extenuating circumstances”… . Matter of Lewis v NYS Office of Children and Family Services, 516650, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

/ ,

“Common Law Arbitration” Explained/”Common Law Arbitration” Waived by Seeking Relief in a Counterclaim

The Second Department explained “common law arbitration,” i.e., an oral agreement to arbitrate, and determined defendant had waived the agreement to arbitrate by raising a counterclaim which related to the subject of the agreement to arbitrate:

Although there was no written agreement to arbitrate in this case, where one party demands arbitration, and the other party accepts the demand, an oral agreement to arbitrate may be formed … . Oral agreements to arbitrate are not covered by CPLR article 75, and are referred to as “common-law arbitration” agreements… . * * *However, the defendants, by their conduct in this lawsuit, waived arbitration. As this Court explained in Reynolds & Reynolds Co., Automotive Sys. Div. v Goldsmith Motor Corp. (251 AD2d 312, 313),”[t]here is no inflexible or mechanical rule as to what constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Rather, determination of the issue depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case . . . Among the factors to be considered are the extent of the party’s participation in litigation and conduct inconsistent with the assertion of a right to arbitrate, the delay in seeking arbitration, and whether the other party has been prejudiced”… . Willer v Kleinman, 2014 NY Slip Op 01164, 2nd Dept 2-19-14

 

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