You are here: / Out of State Visitation for All School Breaks and Three-Day Weekends (In...

Search Results

/

Out of State Visitation for All School Breaks and Three-Day Weekends (In Addition To Summers) Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Family Court correctly awarded visitation with the father in Kentucky for the entire summer, but should not have awarded visitation with the father in Kentucky for school breaks and three-day weekends throughout the year:  In remitting the matter for re-working the The visitation, the court wrote:

The provision of the visitation schedule which, in addition to the summer visitation, awards the father visits in Kentucky during school breaks for “every Thanksgiving, Christmas, winter, mid-winter, spring, and Easter,” effectively deprives the mother “of any significant quality time” with the children, and is therefore “excessive… . While that provision takes into account the children’s need to spend time with the father and his family, it does not take into account the importance of their relationship with the mother and her extended family, in that it deprives the children of contact “during times usually reserved for family gatherings and recreation” … . We note that the court-appointed forensic evaluator recommended that the parties share parenting time during major holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. There was no contrary evidence that awarding all parenting time during these holidays to the father furthers the children’s best interests. The opinions of experts “are entitled to some weight” …, and, under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court should have awarded equal parenting time to the parties for these school breaks. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court to set forth a new visitation schedule regarding “Thanksgiving, Christmas, winter, mid-winter, spring, and Easter” that apportions those school breaks equally between the parties.  Matter of Felty v Felty, 2013 NY Slip Op 05454, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ ,

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, the Second Department determined the wife’s allegations against her husband did not demonstrate the family offense of disorderly conduct.  The wife alleged the husband tried to push her down stairs, twisted her arm and pushed her against a wall. Under the Penal Law, disorderly conduct requires an intent to cause or the reckless creation of a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.  However, Family Court Act section 812 provides: “For purposes of this article, disorderly conduct included disorderly conduct not in a public place.”  The Second Department determined that, even in the context of a family offense proceeding, the “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” element must be proven:

We … hold that, even where the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred in a private residence, in order for a petitioner to meet his or her burden of establishing the family offense of disorderly conduct, there must be a prima facie showing that the conduct was either intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The intent to cause, or recklessness in causing, public harm, is the mens rea of the offense of disorderly conduct … . The plain language of the subject provision of Family Court Act § 812, in contrast, provides only that the conduct need not occur in a public place (see Family Ct Act § 812). The plain language of Family Court Act § 812 therefore pertains only to the actus reus of the offense—specifically, the place where it is committed—and does not speak to the mens rea of the offense. Indeed, since Family Court Act § 812 does not specify an alternative culpable mental state, if the mens rea provided for in the Penal Law were not applicable in family offense proceedings, it is unclear what the mens rea of this family offense would be. * * *

One can certainly contemplate conduct occurring in a private residence that is intended to cause, or evinces a reckless disregard of causing, public harm. Such conduct might include, for example, a loud fight, or a loud argument with disturbing content, occurring in an apartment building late at night, or under other circumstances where the public may reasonably be expected to hear or see the altercation. As the Court of Appeals has observed, “the risk of public disorder does not have to be realized,” in order to infer that an individual intended to cause, or recklessly disregarded the risk of causing, such a threat… . Matter of  Cassie v Cassie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ , ,

E-Mail Met All Criteria for a Stipulation of Settlement Including the “Subscribed Writing” Requirement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, the Second Department determined an e-mail message satisfied the criteria of CPLR 2104 as a binding and enforceable stipulation of settlement.

The e-mail, written by plaintiff’s counsel, read:

“Per our phone conversation today, May 3, 2011, you accepted my offer of $230,000 to settle this case. Please have your client executed [sic] the attached Medicare form as no settlement check can be issued without this form.

“You also agreed to prepare the release, please included [sic] the following names: Xerox Corporation, Gelco Corporation, Mitchell G. Maller and Sedgwick CMS. Please forward the release and dismissal for my review. Thanks Brenda Greene.”

The court determined the phrase “Thanks Brenda Greene” rendered the e-mail a subscribed writing:

…[W]e hold that where, as here, an email message contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature, such an email message may be deemed a subscribed writing within the meaning of CPLR 2104 so as to constitute an enforceable agreement. Forcelli v Gelco Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05437, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

/ ,

Major Capital Improvement Rent Increase Should Not Have Been Denied in Its Entirety

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR’s) complete denial of a rent increase for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) to an apartment building was arbitrary and capricious.  In the past, DHCR had denied an MCI rent increase only with respect to a small percentage of all the apartments in the improved building which were experiencing problems (like water damage) after the improvement was complete.  Here the DHCR had denied the increase in its entirety (for all apartments) based upon problems in a small number of apartments.  In noting that the DHCR determination was not supported by any relevant precedent (one aspect of a court’s “arbitrary and capricious” review under Article 78), the First Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[j]udicial review of administrative determinations is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion… . Further, the Court of Appeals has held that an administrative agency’s determination is arbitrary and capricious when it ” neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts'”… . “[A]n agency that deviates from its established rule must provide an explanation for the modification so that a reviewing court can determine whether the agency has changed its prior interpretation of the law for valid reasons, or has simply overlooked or ignored its prior decision'” … .

When a party mounts an attack upon a decision by DHCR as inconsistent with prior determinations, our task is to examine DHCR’s precedent in similar situations. In those cases where the DHCR has denied an exterior renovation (waterproofing and pointing) MCI rent increase outright in the first instance, this Court has upheld such determinations where the owner failed to prove that the work was necessary and comprehensive… . There is, however, no evidence that the DHCR has ever had a specific policy to deny a rent increase outright in the first instance in the type of situation, as here, where defects (water damage) relating to the improvement are found in a relatively small number of the building’s apartments. Nor does DHCR present any evidence of such policy.  Matter of 20 Fifth Ave, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05434, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

/ , ,

Dismissal of Complaint Was Too Severe a Sanction for Spoliation

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) sued a security company and others based upon a fire that apparently was started by a cigarette carelessly thrown into a wastebasket.  During discovery defendants requested the surveillance video.  Plaintiff had reviewed the video and apparently had deleted portions of it considered unnecessary.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3126 (spoliation of evidence) was granted and the complaint was dismissed.  The First Department determined dismissal of the complaint was too severe a penalty and ordered that plaintiff be precluded from using the video as evidence.  The court explained:

As a threshold issue, NYCHA unconvincingly argues that no sanction is appropriate because litigation was not pending when the video was edited. For a spoliation sanction to be applicable, there need only be the “reasonable anticipation of litigation” … . The day after the fire, [NYCHA] was already viewing and editing the video, identifying images he thought would be relevant to determine how the fire started. These actions indicate that NYCHA may have been contemplating litigation, or at least wanted to identify the culpable person, and therefore the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” … . For the purposes of a spoliation sanction, “[a] culpable state of mind . . . includes ordinary negligence”… .

Although NYCHA should be sanctioned for the destruction of portions of the surveillance video, the dismissal of the complaint was too harsh a remedy. Dismissing an action is “usually not warranted unless the evidence is crucial and the spoliator’s conduct evinces some higher degree of culpability” … . It is a “drastic sanction” and should only be done when a party has destroyed key evidence… .

The record does not support defendants’ contention that dismissal is required because the unredacted video is key evidence without which they will be “substantially prejudiced”… . New York City Hous Auth v Pro Quest Sec, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05429, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

/

Janitorial Schedule Alone Not Enough to Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice

In a slip and fall case, over a dissent, the First Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a wet substance on the stairway of defendant’s apartment building.  Although the defendant produced evidence of a janitorial schedule, the defendant did not present any evidence the schedule was followed on the day of the accident:

…[D]efendant submitted the deposition testimony of its superintendent about the building’s regular janitorial schedule. However, it offered no evidence that the schedule was followed on the day of the accident … . Moreover, constructive notice remains an issue in this case because defendant made no showing as to when the stairway was last inspected before plaintiff’s accident… . Gautier v 941 Intervale Realty, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05432, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

/ ,

Trivial Defect in Sidewalk Not Actionable/First Floor Tenant Abutting Sidewalk Not a Proper Defendant

In a sidewalk slip and fall case, over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined “a three-quarter-inch expansion joint, which was not filled to grade level, coupled with a one-fourth-inch height differential between slabs … was “trivial” and therefore not actionable as a matter of law…”.  Although there was evidence the width of the expansion joint exceeded the Department of Transportation construction specifications, the First Department noted there was no evidence the sidewalk was constructed with the defect.  The First Department also dismissed the action against the first-floor commercial tenant of the abutting building on the ground that the tenant was not an owner within the meaning of section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.  Fayolle v East W Manhattan Portfolio LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05431, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

/ ,

Court in Contract Action Does Not Have Power to Vary 9% Interest Rate

In a case with counterclaims sounding in contract and Labor Law 191-c (1) (re: payment of earned sales commissions after a contract is terminated), the Fourth Department noted that the court does not have discretion to vary the statutory 9% interest rate in a contract action:

…[W]e conclude that the court lacked discretion to vary the statutorily-prescribed interest rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004). As this Court has previously recognized, interest at the rate of 9% per annum is mandatory for “sum[s] awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract” (CPLR 5001 [a]…).  Polyfusion Electronics, Inc v Promark Eletronics, Inc…, 635.1, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

/ , ,

Agent Owed No Special Duty to Insured; No Duty to Advise Insured of Unpaid Premiums for Policy Assigned to Insured

The Fourth Department dismissed a negligence cause of action as time-barred and a contract cause of action because the defendant insurance agent owed no special duty to advise the plaintiff.  The plaintiff asked for and received an assignment of a workers’ compensation policy which had been held by nonparty API. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff at the time of the assignment, API owed unpaid premiums. In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations for the negligence cause of action started when the assignment of the workers’ compensation insurance policy to plaintiff was signed, not when plaintiff learned of the unpaid premiums, and the contract between plaintiff and the defendant insurance agent did not impose a special duty on the agent to advise the plaintiff about the unpaid premiums:

…[U]pon the execution of the assignment, which shifted liability for arrears in policy premiums from API to plaintiff, plaintiff’s damages were “sufficiently calculable to permit plaintiff to obtain prompt judicial redress of that injury” and plaintiff therefore had a “complete cause of action” …. The fact that plaintiff may not have learned of the amount owed … on the date on which NYSIF commenced the action against it [for the unpaid premiums], does not alter the analysis for statute of limitations purposes… .  * * *

“ ‘[A]n insurance agent’s duty to its customer is generally defined by the nature of the customer’s request for coverage’ ” ….  “ ‘Absent a specific request for coverage not already in a client’s policy or the existence of a special relationship with the client, an insurance agent or broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide[ ] or direct a client to obtain additional coverage’ ” …. “To set forth a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy” ….  “A general request for coverage will not satisfy the requirement of a specific request for a certain type of coverage”… .

Here, plaintiff requested only that defendant procure the “best policy value” for plaintiff’s workers’ compensation coverage.  This is “the very kind of request that has been repeatedly held to be insufficient” to trigger a special duty requiring defendant to advise plaintiff concerning its insurance coverage… . Defendant procured workers’ compensation coverage for plaintiff through the assignment of API’s policy.  …[T]he assignment itself indicated that plaintiff would be responsible “for the payment of any premiums or additional premiums . . . which may become due on account of this policy up to the effective date of this assignment of interest agreement.”  Plaintiff has thus failed to state a breach of contract cause of action because there was no specific request for coverage that defendant failed to meet… .  5 Awnings Plus, Inc v Insurance Group, Inc, 678, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

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