You are here: / No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence...

Search Results

/ ,

No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect

The First Department determined the defendant Housing Authority could not be held liable for a criminal attack inside plaintiff’s apartment building absent proof the entry door lock was defective (and defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect) or that defendant knew the door could be opened without a key:

While an assault on a young victim is most disturbing, a possessor of land is not an insurer of the safety of those who come onto its premises … . It remains that plaintiff’s injuries were the immediate and proximate result of a criminal attack committed by third parties, for whose actions the landlord is not responsible absent a failure to provide “even the most rudimentary security” of an entry door lock … . In the absence of proof that the Housing Authority contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff, a visitor to its premises, by failing to timely repair a “visible and apparent” defect in its front-door lock, no liability can be imposed … .  Batista v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05502, 1st  Dept 7-30-13

 

/

Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing

In annulling the determination because the inmate’s behavior did not warrant his removal from the hearing, the Third Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[a]n inmate has a fundamental right to be present during a prison disciplinary hearing unless he or she is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” … . Here, petitioner objected to the continuation of the hearing after the prior Hearing Officer’s recusal.  It appears that the Hearing Officer became frustrated with petitioner’s unwillingness to move forward and warned him that he could be removed. Petitioner then ceased objecting, entered his pleas of not guilty to the charges and stated that he wished to put “a lot” on the record.  However, he then twice asked a question that the Hearing Officer apparently deemed irrelevant, and was abruptly removed from the hearing.  Under these circumstances, we do not find that petitioner’s conduct rose to the level of disruption that warranted excluding him from the remainder of the hearing… . Matter of German v Fischer, 515746, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

/

Criteria for Expungement Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s annulment of the determination and grant of a new hearing because the recording of the proceeding was incomplete, the Third Department noted that the criteria for expungemet had not been met:

It is well settled that “[e]xpungement will be ordered only where there has been a showing that ‘(1) the challenged disciplinary determination is not supported by substantial evidence . . .; (2) there has been a violation of one of the inmate’s fundamental due process rights, as enunciated in Wolff v McDonnell (418 US 539 [1974]); or (3) other equitable considerations dictate expungement of the record rather than remittal for a new hearing'”… None of the foregoing situations is implicated here.  Matter of Barnes v Fischer, 515146, 3rd Dept 7-25-13 

 

/ ,

Depraved Indifference Murder of Child Count Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based On the Grand Jury Evidence In Spite of Difficulty of Proving the Count at Trial

The Third Department determined the trial court should not have dismissed the count of the indictment which charged defendant with depraved indifference murder of a child.  While acknowledging the prosecution may have difficulty proving the charge at trial, the court determined that a logical inference from the grand-jury proof was that the injuries defendant inflicted on the child were immediately and obviously very serious and defendant callously delayed getting help while minimizing his conduct and the seriousness of the injuries.  In explaining the general criteria for the sufficiency of grand jury evidence, the court wrote:

In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and determine only whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’… .  “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes” … .  “[I]f the prosecutor has established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … .  People v Waite, 105416, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

/ ,

Method of Service of Citation Should Be Calculated to Provide Notice Based Upon Facts Known To Court

The Second Department determined a decree (admitting decedent’s will to probate) issued by Surrogate’s Court should have been vacated on the ground that decedent’s daughter (Ross) was never properly served with the citation and, therefore, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction over her.  The Second Department explained that Surrogate Court should have fashioned a method of service, based upon the unique facts of the case known to the court, that was best calculated to notify Ross:

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections”… . In making a determination as to whether notice is “reasonably calculated,” the unique information about an intended recipient must be considered, “regardless of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case” … . Here, given that the Surrogate’s Court was aware that Ross and her family would be away from her home in Sloatsburg until sometime in late September 2008, and was vacationing in Long Beach Island during that time, and given that there was no indication that Ross’s address in Long Beach Island was unavailable, in order for notice of the probate proceeding to be reasonably calculated to reach Ross, the Surrogate’s Court should have at least directed that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Long Beach Island, instead of solely directing that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Sloatsburg.  Matter of Skolnick, 2013 NY Slip Op 05463, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ ,

Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial

The Second Department determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to introduce at trial statements made by the defendant in plea negotiations (the error was deemed harmless however):

The defendant and the People executed an agreement, whereby they agreed that the People could introduce those statements against the defendant at a trial, inter alia, “to rebut any evidence” offered by him or on his behalf. At the trial, the Supreme Court found that the defendant had triggered this provision of the agreement and permitted the People to introduce the subject statements.

Statements made during the course of plea negotiations can be used against a defendant only if the People specifically bargained for that…. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly found that the defendant’s trial attorney offered evidence and raised factual issues which triggered the agreement… .  People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05473, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ , ,

Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution

The Second Department determined Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, which held an attorney’s failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, should not be applied retroactively under the New York Constitution:

In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213, cert denied sub nom. New York v Utter, 454 US 1162), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a new rule should be retroactively applied under the New York Constitution. It recognized three factors a court should weigh to determine whether to retroactively apply a new rule: (1) the purpose to be served by the new standard, (2) the extent to which law enforcement authorities relied upon the old standard, and (3) the effect a retroactive application of the new standard would have on the administration of justice (see id. at 220). The Court of Appeals explained that “the extent of the reliance and the nature of the burden on the administration of justice are of substantial significance only when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself” (id.). Thus, a new rule that goes “to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence” will be retroactively applied “where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice” (id. at 221). However, a new rule which is “only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial” (id.), will have only prospective application. Although the Supreme Court in Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to inform their clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, this new rule, rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution … .

Retroactive application of Padilla is also not warranted under the second and third Pepper factors. With regard to law enforcement reliance, prior to Padilla, a defendant could prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim only if it was established that counsel rendered incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby … . The failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel …, and such failure to advise did not “affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction” (CPL 220.50[7]). Thus, under the old standard, prosecutors could recommend acceptance of plea allocutions even where the defendant had not been advised of the immigration consequences of entering into the plea …. As to the third factor, retroactive application of the Padilla rule would potentially lead to an influx of CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the convictions of defendants whose guilty pleas were properly entered and accepted by courts under the old standard …, thus adversely affecting the criminal justice system. Accordingly, we further find that under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases like this one where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.  People v Andrews, 2013 NY Slip Op 05469, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ ,

Where There Are Sharp Factual Disputes, Forensic Evaluations Are Required for a Guardianship Determination

In a case with sharp factual disputes, the Second Department determined Family Court should not have decided the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations:

The Family Court erred in deciding the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada. Although forensic evaluations are not always necessary, such evaluations may be appropriate where there exist sharp factual disputes that affect the final… . Under the circumstances of this case, the record is inadequate to determine the best interests of the child, particularly as there was no expert assessment of the psychological impact of separating Jada from Shanika. In addition, given Stephanie’s allegations of alcohol abuse by Shanika, and Shanika’s allegations of alienation by Stephanie and Stephanie’s current partner, forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada are proper to aid in the resolution of these factual issues.  Matter of Shanika M v Stephanie G, 2013 NY Slip Op 05460, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ ,

Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report

The Second Department determined mother did not stipulate to the order of reference (referring the custody and visitation proceeding to a referee) in the manner required by CPLR 2104.  Therefore, although the order of reference authorized the referee to “hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody … and visitation…,” absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the referee only had the power to hear and report.

…[T]he mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge… .

Accordingly, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective petition and cross petition regarding custody and visitation…. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee’s decision … must be deemed a report (see CPLR 4320[b]), and the matter must be remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 4403 before a judge of the Family Court.  Matter of McClarin v Valera, 2013 NY Slip Op 05461, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/

Father’s Petition to Relocate to North Carolina Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Family Court had properly denied father’s petition for permission to relocate to North Carolina.  A prior consent order had awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father.  The father, who is in the military, was transferred from West Point to Fort Bragg in North Carolina.  The court explained the applicable (relocation) considerations as follows:

“Relocation may be allowed if the custodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is in the child’s best interests”…. When evaluating whether a proposed move is in the child’s best interest, “the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements” … . Although a multitude of factors may be considered, “ the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern’”…. Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz, 2013 NY Slip Op 05457, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

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