You are here: / Burden Is On Parent to Demonstrate Exception to Statutory Relief from Making...

Search Results

/

Burden Is On Parent to Demonstrate Exception to Statutory Relief from Making Reasonable Efforts to Reunite

The Second Department explained how the exception to Family Ct Act 1039-b[b], relating to making reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child, works. Once an enumerated condition which eliminates the need to make reasonable efforts to reunite is demonstrated, the burden switches to the parent to show that the exception should be applied:

Here …ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] established that the mother’s parental rights with respect to a sibling of the subject child had been terminated “involuntarily” …. In support of its motion, ACS submitted the judgments terminating the mother’s parental rights with respect to the child’s two elder siblings …. In opposition to ACS’s motion, the mother failed to prove that “reasonable efforts” [to reunite] should nonetheless still be required under the exception provided for in Family Court Act § 1039-b(b). We reject the mother’s contention that the statute places the burden on the social services official to establish the inapplicability of the exception, rather than on the parent to establish its applicability. …Given the text of the statute, as well as its structure, which make the exception applicable to all six enumerated circumstances, some of which involve egregious conduct by the parent, the only reasonable interpretation is that once the social services official establishes the existence of an enumerated circumstance, the burden shifts to the parent to establish the applicability of the exception. Matter of Skyler, 2013 NY Slip Op 03325, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

/ ,

Sexual Assault by Son of Homeowners Not an Insured “Occurrence” Under Homeowners’ Insurance Policy

The Second Department determined a sexual assault allegedly perpetrated by the son of the homeowners was not an insured “occurrence” within the meaning of the homeowners’ insurance policy:

Here, Joseph M. allegedly was insured under a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to his parents, which provided personal liability coverage for claims made against an insured for damages because of bodily injury caused by an “occurrence.” The policy defined the term “occurrence” as “an accident . . . which result[ed] in . . . bodily injury.”   The complaint in the underlying action alleged that the plaintiff in that action sustained bodily injury due to a sexual assault perpetrated by Joseph M. Since the bodily injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in the underlying action were inherent in the conduct that Joseph M. allegedly engaged in, the alleged sexual assault cannot be construed as an accident within the definition of “occurrence” for which the plaintiff’s policy affords coverage … . State Farm Fire and Cas Co v Joseph M, 2013 NY Slip Op 03318, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

/

Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk Raised

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether a property owner was liable to a pedestrian who allegedly fell because of the condition of the sidewalk.  Because the sidewalk was essentially part of the defendant landowner’s driveway, the sidewalk was subject to “special use” by the landowner which may impose liability for the condition of the sidewalk:

A landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk abutting the landowner’s premises unless the landowner either created the defective condition or caused it to occur because of some special use, or unless a statute or ordinance places the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon the landowner and expressly makes the landowner liable for injuries occasioned by the failure to perform that duty …. It is undisputed that the ordinance at issue in this case does not expressly make the landowner liable for injuries occasioned by a failure to perform the duty of maintaining sidewalks in good repair. Accordingly, the question to be determined is whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the individual defendants created the alleged defective condition or caused it to occur because of some special use.  A driveway can constitute a special use of a sidewalk …. Rodriguez v City of Yonkers, 2013 NY Slip Op 03315, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

SLIP AND FALL

/ ,

Property Owner’s Obligation to Remove Snow and Ice from Sidewalk​

The Second Department explained the obligation of the owner of an owner-occupied, two-family, residential house with respect to the removal of ice and snow from the abutting sidewalk:

Since the defendants’ property, a two-family house, was owner-occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes, the defendants were exempt from liability imposed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for negligent failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk …. Thus, the defendants may be held liable for a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk only if they undertook snow and ice removal efforts that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous or caused the defect to occur because of a special use …. Unless one of these factors is present, an abutting owner of a two-family residence may not be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner …. Rodrigo Texis Cuapio v Skrodzki, 2013 NY Slip Op 03293, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

SLIP AND FALL

/ ,

College Had No Duty to Supervise Fraternity “Pledging” Activities

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action brought by a student against his college alleging a failure to supervise a fraternity’s “pledging” activities (resulting in personal injuries).  The Court wrote:

“Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” …. The existence of a legal duty presents a question of law for the court … . “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level and colleges in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students'” …. A duty, however, may be imposed upon a college where it has encouraged its students to participate in an activity and taken affirmative steps to supervise and control the activity ….  * * * [T]he plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the University defendants’ involvement in the Fraternity’s initiation process was of a degree that gave rise to a duty… . Pasquaretto v Long Is Univ, 2013 NY Slip Op 03308, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

/ ,

Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 

The Second Department explained that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur makes out a prima facie case of negligence but the jury is not required to draw the permissible inference of negligence, even where the defendant offers no proof:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident, upon a plaintiff’s showing that the event is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence and was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, without any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff …. “The rule has the effect of creating a prima facie case of negligence sufficient for submission to the jury, and the jury may-but is not required to-draw the permissible inference” …. “[T]he use of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof” …. In a res ipsa loquitur case, the jury has great latitude; even when the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and the defendant has offered no proof, the jury nonetheless is entitled to find for the defendant …, subject, of course, to appellate review. Nikollbibaj v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03306, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

/ ,

Property Owner’s Liability for Snow and Ice on Sidewalk​

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case, the Second Department explained the controlling law with respect to ice and snow on a municipal sidewalk abutting private property as follows:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability from the City to the property owner for personal injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition (including the negligent failure to remove snow, ice, or other material from the sidewalk), with several exceptions not relevant here … .

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 does not impose strict liability upon the property owner, and the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that an owner is liable …. Thus, in support of a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, the property owner has the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it …. Gyokchyan v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03302, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

/ ,

Discrimination (Re Licensing) Based on Criminal Conviction Disallowed

The First Department annulled a determination denying petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license finding no rational basis for the denial. Petitioner had been convicted of participating in a kickback scheme.  The First Department noted that the equipment maintenance responsibilities of a stationary engineer were not implicated by the conviction.  The First Department wrote

[The actions underlying the conviction] bear no direct relationship to the equipment maintenance duties and responsibilities inherent in the stationary engineer license, and thus do not satisfy the first exception to the general prohibition of discrimination against persons previously convicted of criminal offenses (see Correction Law § 752[1]).The record further shows that respondent failed to afford petitioner the mandatory presumption of rehabilitation attendant to his certificate of relief from disabilities (see Correction Law § 753[2]), and appeared to have disregarded the additional evidence of rehabilitation submitted by petitioner. … We further find that respondent could not have rationally found petitioner to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety or welfare so as to satisfy the second exception to the general prohibition (see Correction Law § 752[2]). Petitioner disclosed his 2006 conviction, based on acts occurring in 2005 and earlier, on his license renewal applications from 2007 through 2010, all of which were granted. Matter of Dellaporte v NYC Dept of Buildings, 2013 NY Slip Op 03281, 1st Dept, 5-7-13

 

/ ,

Defense Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Amounted to Ineffective Assistance

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and granted defendant’s writ of coram nobis finding a conflict of interest on the part of defendant’s counsel, of which defendant was never made aware, amounted ineffective assistance.  Defendant’s appellate counsel had represented a co-defendant, Martin, who testified against the defendant at his trial.  During sentencing of Martin, counsel argued for leniency based upon his testifying against the defendant.  In appealing defendant’s conviction, counsel argued Martin was a liar and his testimony should be ignored.  The Court of Appeals wrote:

It is undisputed that appellate counsel represented defendant and his codefendant simultaneously, that appellate counsel argued at Martin’s sentencing hearing for leniency based on Martin’s trial testimony adverse to the defendant, and that defendant neither knew nor had the opportunity to waive any conflict arising from appellate counsel’s representation of defendant and Martin. Under these circumstances, an actual unwaived conflict existed.

An attorney may not simultaneously represent a criminal defendant and a codefendant or prosecution witness whose interests actually conflict unless the conflict is validly waived …. Simultaneous representation of two clients with conflicting interests means the lawyer “cannot give either client undivided loyalty” …. Counsel has the duty to inform the client and the court so that the court may ascertain the nature of the conflict and give the client an opportunity to waive it ….  People v Prescott, No 80, CtApp, 5-7-13

 

/

Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different Victims Named

In reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined a Superior Court Information (SCI) was not jurisdictionally defective because it named victims not identified in the felony complaint.  The defendant-respondent was charged with grand larceny based on his use of two persons’ identities to procure mortgages to purchase two properties.  Those “identity theft” victims were named in the felony complaint. The victims named in the SCI, however, were the two banks which issued the mortgages. The Appellate Division held the SCI was jurisdictionally defective because it didn’t name the same victims as the felony complaint. The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Lippman, held the defect was not jurisdictional because it was clear the felony complaint and SCI charged the same offenses:

Here, the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty is the same offense for which he was charged in the felony complaint, and adding the names of the victims in the SCI did not render the offense a different one. Though the felony complaint did not name the banks that provided the loans, the complaint identified the specific properties in Queens and Brooklyn on which defendant took out mortgages in Hector Sandoval’s name. … There was nothing inappropriate about adding the names of the victims as it did not change the offense alleged. … [T]here was no factual discrepancy between the felony complaint and the second SCI; the crimes were simply portrayed from a different perspective.  People v Milton, No 75, CtApp, 5-7-13

 

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