You are here: / Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected...

Search Results

/ ,

Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected Under “Ministerial Exception”

The First Department determined a minister who brought a wrongful termination action was, according to the terms of the personnel manual, an at will employee.  In addition the claim was barred by the ministerial exception under which a church’s decisions concerning the employment of a minister are constitutionally protected:

…[T]he ministerial exception also bars plaintiff’s claim, which primarily involves intra-church matters. “Under the ministerial exception’ …, a church’s decision to hire, to fire, and to prescribe the duties of its minister are commonly held to be constitutionally protected” … . Mills v Standing Gen Commn on Christian Unity & Interreligious Concerns, 2014 NY Slip Op 03437, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

/ ,

Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal In a Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) was the least restrictive dispositional alternative in a juvenile delinquency proceeding:

An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have been the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection … . This was appellant’s first offense. She admitted the allegations of the petition but asserted, as did her mother, that the incident resulted from her having been bullied by the complainant with no corrective action taken by appellant’s school. While appellant had truancy issues at school, at the time of the disposition she was employed, was being treated for depression, and was generally making progress. Based on all these factors, there is no reason to believe that appellant needed any supervision beyond that which could have been provided under an ACD. It should also be noted that under the terms of an ACD, the court could have required the Probation Department to monitor appellant, and her observance of a curfew and other requirements. Matter of Clarissa V, 2014 NY Slip Op 03431, 5-13-14

 

/ ,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Appropriate to Ensure Residential Supervision

The First Department determined Family Court had properly adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent, despite the relatively minor offense, because the appellant was in need of residential supervision:

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent. Although the underlying offense was not serious, appellant was in need of a residential, nonsecure placement under the Close to Home Initiative program. The court properly declined to adjudicate appellant a person in need of supervision … , particularly since appellant had already demonstrated, following a prior proceeding brought by her mother, that such a disposition would not control appellant’s behavior. Accordingly, a juvenile delinquency adjudication was necessary to ensure appellant’s compliance with residential treatment. “[T]he irony is presented that while the court may direct the PINS youth not to abscond, the statutory authority constraining the court essentially precludes an effective remedy should the youth abscond” … . Matter of Amari D, 2014 NY Slip Op 03452, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

/ ,

Facts Did Not Support Family Court’s Dismissal of a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights of Both Parents—Permanent Neglect Finding Was Warranted by the Facts

The First Department reversed Family Court, based on the appellate division’s own findings of fact, and found that neither parent had made realistic plans for the child’s future, constituting clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect:

There is no dispute that the agency has met the threshold requirement in a permanent neglect proceeding of showing it discharged its statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationships (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]…). However, contrary to the findings by Family Court, there is clear and convincing evidence, the standard of proof required …, that despite the agency’s diligence, neither parent has, “for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out of the most recent twenty-two months following the date [the] child came into the care of an authorized agency,” shown sufficient planning for the child’s future, as described in the Social Services Law, to warrant continuing parental rights (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]…).

Planning for the future of the child under the Social Services Law requires that the parent take “necessary [steps] to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time which is reasonable”; at the very least, the parent must take steps to “correct the conditions” that resulted in the initial removal of the child from the home … . Matter of Selvin Adoph F v Thelma Lynn F, 2014 NY Slip Op 03432, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

/ ,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s Mental Health Records Without an In Camera Review

The First Department determined Family Court should not have denied father’s request for his son’s mental health records without first conducting and in camera review of the records and applying a balancing test required by Family Court Act section 1038 (d). There was no evidence of the alleged abuse except the child’s testimony, so the child’s credibility was the central issue:

Respondent father moved to subpoena the eldest child’s (the child) mental health treatment records. The Family Court, without conducting an in camera review of the requested records, denied the motion. Pursuant to Family Court Act (FCA) § 1038(d), the court must conduct a balancing test … . The statute requires that the court weigh “the need of the [moving] party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case” against “any potential harm to the child [arising] from the discovery.” Here, the Family Court should have reviewed the child’s mental health records in camera to determine if the records are relevant to the central issue of the child’s credibility before making its disclosure ruling.

The record contains no physical evidence of the alleged abuse and the case against respondent relies almost entirely on the credibility of the child, placing a great amount of weight on the child’s testimony… . Matter of Dean T Jr (Dean T Sr), 2014 NY Slip Op 03430, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

/ ,

Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the statutory “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b), not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the actions of the driver of a town truck..  The driver, Grzybek,  was using a plow to remove water and debris from a service road.  The water sprayed onto the windshield of the truck, obstructing the driver’s vision and causing the driver to cross into an oncoming lane, striking plaintiffs’ vehicle. Because the driver was not assigned the task of removing water and debris from the road, the dissenters argued the driver was not engaged in “work” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) and, therefore, the ordinary negligence standard, not the “reckless disregard” standard of section 1103 (b), applied:

…[T]he statute exempts “all [municipal] vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . from the rules of the road” … . The statute does not state that it exempts only those vehicles engaged in “assigned” work. Plowing water and debris from a road is work, and that work is within the scope of Grzybek’s duties. Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise. Rather, their contention is that the statute applies only when the vehicles are “performing their assigned work” and that Grzybek was not assigned to plow water and debris from the service road on the day of the accident. In our view, interpreting the statute as the dissent and plaintiffs suggest improperly adds language to the statute by qualifying the word “work.” It is not the function of this Court to usurp the power of the legislature and rewrite a clear and unambiguous statute. Aside from statutory exceptions not relevant herein, all municipal vehicles actually engaged in work are exempt from the rules of the road. Inasmuch as Grzybek’s vehicle was actually engaged in work, albeit unassigned work, the reckless disregard standard of care set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies as a matter of law. * * *

…[W]e conclude that plaintiffs, in opposition to defendants’ cross motion, submitted evidence from which a jury could find that Grzybek “had intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk “that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” and [did] so with conscious indifference to the outcome’ ” … . Gawron v Town of Cheektowaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 03051, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ ,

Causes of Action Against County Personnel Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision Should Not Have Been Dismissed–Plaintiff’s Decedent Was Killed at the Hands of Her Mother and Half-Brother—Complaint Alleged County’s Negligence in Failing to Protect Plaintiff’s Decedent

In a lawsuit alleging county personnel, including deputy sheriffs, were negligent resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent at the hands of her mother and half-brother, the Fourth Department determined: (1) governmental immunity could not be determined at the pleading stage because whether the government’s actions were discretionary (and therefore immune) was a question of fact; (2) absent a local law to the contrary, a sheriff can not be held vicariously responsible for the actions of deputy sheriffs under the doctrine of respondeat superior; (3) the causes of action for negligent hiring, training and supervision of county personnel should not have been dismissed; (4) the notices of claim were sufficient to notify the county of the negligent hiring, training and supervision causes of action; and (5) the notice of claim was not defective for failing to name the sheriff in his official capacity.  Mosey v County of Erie, 2014 NY Slip Op 03041, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ ,

Corporate Integrity Documents Privileged Under Education Law 6527 (3)

The Fourth Department determined corporate integrity documents sought by plaintiffs in a fraud and dental malpractice action were privileged under the Education Law and did not have to be disclosed:

We conclude that the court erred in determining that the requested corporate integrity documents were not privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3). [Defendant] met its burden of establishing that the corporate integrity documents sought by plaintiffs were related to the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program” … . Specifically, [defendant] established that the corporate integrity documents were prepared pursuant to state and federal corporate integrity agreements, which set forth procedures for the review and monitoring of the quality of care of the dental clinics. Thus, [defendant] established” that it has a review procedure and that the [corporate integrity documents] for which the [privilege] is claimed [were] obtained or maintained in accordance with that review procedure’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, there is nothing in the language of section 6527 (3) limiting applicability of the privilege to agencies located in New York or records prepared in the state… . Matter of Small Smiles Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 03080, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/

Homeowners’ Association Had Power to Direct Property Owners to Remove Chickens

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff homeowners’ association acted properly when it directed defendants to remove two chickens from their property.  The “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions…” gave the board “the absolute power to prohibit a pet from being kept on the Properties…”:

“It is well settled that, [s]o long as the [B]oard [of directors of a homeowners’ association] acts for the purposes of the [homeowners’ association], within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for [that of] the [B]oard[ ]’ ” … . The Declaration provides that plaintiff’s Board “shall have the absolute power to prohibit a pet from being kept on the Properties, including inside residences constructed thereon.” Here, plaintiff established that its Board was acting for the purposes of the homeowners’ association and within the scope of its authority when it directed defendants to remove the chickens from the property. In addition, there is no evidence that defendants were ” deliberately single[d] out . . . for harmful treatment’ ” inasmuch as no other residents of the subdivision had chickens or were in violation of the applicable restrictive covenant …, and defendants otherwise ” failed to present evidence of bad faith . . . or other misconduct’ ” … . Preserve Homeowners’ Assn Inc v Zahn, 2014 NY Slip Op 03047, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ , ,

Low-Income Families’ Challenges to Child Care Copayment Regulation Rejected

The Fourth Department rejected challenges to a copayment regulation by low-income families who are eligible for child care assistance but who are required to pay more than 10% of their gross incomes for the care.  The families alleged that the co-payment regulation, 18 NYCRR 415.3 (e), violated Social Services Law 410-x because it did not provide for a single sliding fee scale, the existing sliding fee scales are not based upon the family’s ability to pay, and the regulation failed to provide equitable access to child care as required by statute.  The families further alleged the copayment regulation violated the families’ right to travel within the state and their right to equal protection of the law.  With respect to the sliding scale aspect of the argument, the court wrote:

Plaintiffs …contend that the copayment regulation violates Social Services Law § 410-x (6) because it does not provide for a single sliding fee scale, as required by statute, and instead allows each of the 58 social services districts to set its own sliding fee scale. We reject that contention as well. “It is well settled that the Legislature may authorize an administrative agency to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation’ ” … . “In so doing, an agency can adopt regulations that go beyond the text of that legislation, provided they are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes” … . An agency’s interpretation of a governing statute will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .

Here, section 410-x (6) delegates regulatory authority to the Office of Children and Family Services, of which defendant is Commissioner, by providing that, “[p]ursuant to department regulations, child care assistance shall be provided on a sliding fee basis based on the family’s ability to pay.” The statute does not expressly require defendant to adopt a single state-wide sliding fee scale, and we do not consider it unreasonable or irrational for defendant to adopt a regulation that gives flexibility to social services districts to choose a multiplier between 10% and 35% to use in calculating an eligible family’s share of child care costs. Williams v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 03044, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

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