You are here: / Legal Criteria for Determining Visitation Rights of Incarcerated Father...

Search Results

/ ,

Legal Criteria for Determining Visitation Rights of Incarcerated Father Clarified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, held that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of a child’s visitation with an incarcerated parent and that denial of such visitation must be supported by “substantial evidence.” In order to clarify the law in this area, the court explained:

A rebuttable presumption that a noncustodial parent will be granted visitation is an appropriate starting point in any initial determination regarding custody and/or visitation. Moreover, the rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation applies when the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated. A parent who is in prison does not forfeit his or her visitation rights by being incarcerated. “[P]etitioner’s incarceration, standing alone, does not make a visitation order inappropriate,” but a demonstration “that such visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying such a request” …. In deciding whether the presumption is rebutted, the possibility that a visit to an incarcerated parent would be harmful to the child must be considered, together with other relevant facts. Visitation should be denied where it is demonstrated that under all the circumstances visitation would be harmful to the child’s welfare, or that the right to visitation has been forfeited. In speaking of the manner in which the presumption of visitation may be rebutted, the Appellate Division has frequently used the terms “substantial proof” and “substantial evidence.” “[T]he sweeping denial of the right of the father to visit or see the child is a drastic decision that should be based upon substantial evidence” … . This language is intended to convey to lower courts and practitioners that visitation will be denied only upon a demonstration “ that visitation would be harmful to the child “ that proceeds by means of sworn testimony or documentary evidence. Matter of Granger v Misercola, No 72, CtApp, 4-30-13

 

/ , ,

Pursuant to CPLR 5225, a Parent Bank Can Not Be Garnished Because a Judgment Debtor’s Assets Are Held in a Foreign Subsidiary Bank

The question before the Court of Appeals was whether a judgment creditor, pursuant to CPLR 5225, can obtain a turnover order against a bank to garnish the assets held by the bank’s foreign subsidiary. The plaintiff in this case, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, obtained two tax judgments against the tax debtors (the Millards) for over $18,000,000 each. The Millards left the commonwealth before the judgments were issued and settled in the Cayman Islands. The judgments were registered in the Southern District of Florida. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) had a branch in New York. The commonwealth sought to garnish CIBC under the theory that the Millards had accounts in subsidiaries of CIBC, namely First Carribean International Bank Limited (CFIB) or its affiliates in the Cayman Islands. In determining the commonwealth could not get at the Millards assets in the Cayman Islands through the parent Canadian bank, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, wrote:

Under CPLR article 52, a special proceeding for a turnover order is the procedural mechanism devised by the Legislature to enforce a judgment against an asset of a judgment debtor, held in the “possession or custody” of a third-party.* * * … [W]e interpret the omission of “control” from section 5225 (b) as an indication that “possession or custody” requires actual possession. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce …, No 58, CtApp, 4-30-13

 

/ , , ,

Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station

The First Department reinstated a verdict in favor of police officers who were injured in the course of making as arrest in a subway station. As the officer chased the suspect, he asked a New York City Transit Authority employee to call for police back up.  The theory of the case was that the employee negligently did not call for back up. The trial judge granted the Transit Authority’s motion for judgment finding the employee was under no duty to call for assistance.  In reversing, the First Department wrote:

Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) imposes liability upon the Transit Authority for the negligence of its employees in the operation of the subway system. Although it is a common carrier, the Transit Authority is held to a duty of ordinary care under the particular circumstances of each case …. In Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth. (68 NY2d 165 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid as they watched a gang of thugs fatally assault a passenger. As the Court stated, “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable” (id. at 170 [citation omitted]). The trial court held that Crosland had no application here because plaintiffs were police officers. This was error.

The broad definition of onlooker liability articulated by the Crosland Court does not lend itself to any exception based upon an injured party’s status as a police officer. To be sure, General Obligations Law § 11-106 gives police officers as well as firefighters, who are injured in the line of duty, a distinct right of action against tortfeasors that cause such injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is not barred by their status as police officers and the Transit Authority’s liability was established at trial. The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries. We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing. Filippo v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03025, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

 

/ , ,

Verdict for Negligent Design Upheld—1987 Car Did Not Have a Starter Interlock Device that Would Prevent Car from Starting When In Gear

The First Department determined a motion to set aside a verdict in a negligent design case was properly denied.  The jury found the car manufacture negligent in not installing a device (starter interlock device) such that the car (1987) car could not be started when it was in gear.  The First Department wrote:

The trial court properly instructed the jury that in determining the negligent design claim it first had to decide whether, from the evidence at trial, there was a general custom or practice by automobile manufacturers selling manual transmission vehicles in the United States in 1987. The proof adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the practice was fairly well defined in the car manufacturing industry. Plaintiffs were not required to prove universal application of the practice in order for the jury to consider this question … . The court further properly instructed the jury that if there was such a custom and practice, it could be considered along with all of the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether Volvo had exercised reasonable care … . From all of the evidence in the record, including the experts’ testimony, the jury reasonably concluded that defendants were negligent in failing to use a starter interlock device in its vehicle …. The trial court correctly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict because there was sufficient evidence supporting plaintiffs’ negligent design claim. Reis… v Volvo…, 2013 NY Slip Op 03024, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

/

Okay to Close Portion of Trial to Public to Protect Safety of Undercover Officers

As the Court of Appeals explained, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the issue and ruling:

“The primary issue in each of these buy-and-bust cases is whether the trial court properly closed the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of undercover officers. We conclude that the limited closures comported with Sixth Amendment public trial principles…”. In each of the three cases before the court, the trial judge closed the trial to the public when the undercover officers testified to protect the officers’ safety. Whether the officers’ safety would be jeopardized by testimony in open court must be demonstrated in a hearing. The court explained the applicable law and findings as follows: The United States Supreme Court has explained that a courtroom closure must satisfy a four-part standard to comport with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment: “[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure” (Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 [1984]). Only the first prong (overriding interest) and third prong (reasonable alternatives) are at issue in these cases. * * * …[T[he trial court in each instance held a … hearing and made a particularized finding that requiring the undercover officers to testify in open court would create a genuine risk to their physical safety. The trial courts limited the closures to the portions of the proceedings directly implicating the overriding interest — the undercover officers’ safety — by ordering the courtrooms closed only for the duration of the officers’ testimony. People v Echevarria, et al, Nos 59, 60, 61, CtApp, 4- 30-13

 

/ ,

Insufficient Foundation for Cross Examination About Witness’ Mental Health

In upholding the limits the trial court placed upon the cross-examination of a witness concerning the witness’ mental health history, the Fourth Department wrote:

A defendant may question a witness about his or her mental health or psychiatric history upon a showing that the witness’s “capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by a psychiatric condition” …or that “such evidence would bear upon [the witness’s] credibility or otherwise be relevant” … . Here, we conclude that defendant failed to make the requisite showing that the witness in fact had a history of mental illness or that such evidence would bear upon her capacity to perceive or recall the events at issue …. Defense counsel’s statement that the witness was “suffering from or being treated for some variety of mental health issue” was speculative…  People v Rivera, KA 08-01758, 203, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

/ ,

Questions About Whether Trial Judge Properly Handled Jury Notes Sent Out During Deliberations Required Reconstruction Hearing

In a writ of coram nobis proceeding, the issue was whether the trial court’s handling of notes sent out by the jury during deliberations violated Criminal Procedure Law 310.30.  Because the record did not clearly indicate the contents of some of the notes, and therefore it was impossible to determine whether the court’s “core responsibilities” were violated (requiring reversal), the matter was sent back for a reconstruction hearing (over two dissents).  The Fourth Department explained the “jury-note” requirements and procedures as follows:

In People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270)…, the Court of Appeals provided … detailed instructions for the handling of jury notes. The Court advised that, “whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel. Such a step would ensure a clear and complete record, thereby facilitating adequate and fair appellate review. After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses . . . [T]he trial court should ordinarily apprise counsel of the substance of the responsive instruction it intends to give so that counsel can seek whatever modifications are deemed appropriate before the jury is exposed to the potentially harmful information. Finally, when the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court so that the individual jurors can correct any inaccuracies in the transcription of the inquiry and, in cases where the communication was sent by an individual juror, the rest of the jury panel can appreciate the purpose of the court’s response and the context in which it is being made” .

In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that not all O’Rama violations constitute mode of proceedings errors [requiring reversal in the absence of preservation].The only errors that require reversal in the absence of preservation are those that go to the trial court’s “core responsibilities” under CPL 310.30, such as giving notice to defense counsel and the prosecutor of the contents of a jury note … .  People v Kahley, KA 08-02494, 74, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

/ ,

Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Was Authorized Under Both State and Federal Law to Prosecute a Case Stemming from the Provision of Federal Medicare Services

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fahey, the Fourth Department determined that the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit was authorized, pursuant to Executive Law 63, to prosecute the defendants, who provided federal Medicare services exclusively but received payment from both Medicare and Medicaid.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined that the federal statute which created the state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and which allows the state Medicaid Fraud Control Units to prosecute federal Medicare violations only where the prosecution as a whole is “primarily related to the state [Medicaid] plan,” did not preempt Executive Law 63 as it was applied in this case.  People v Miran, KA 12-01189, 319, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

/ ,

Failure to Inform Defendant of People’s Appeal of Trial Court’s Dismissal of His Indictment Required Grant of a Writ of Coram Nobis

On a writ of coram nobis, the Fourth Department determined the failure to inform defendant of the People’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment required that the writ be granted.  The Fourth Department wrote:

“It is well settled that criminal defendants are entitled under both the Federal and State Constitutions to effective assistance of appellate counsel” … . In addition, “defendants have important interests at stake on a People’s appeal” … . “Given the consequences of a reversal and the possible resumption of criminal proceedings, the defendant certainly has an interest in being informed that the People’s appeal is pending and continuing” (id. at 684-685). “Moreover, . . . other rights requiring protection upon the People’s appeal include the right to appellate counsel of the defendant’s own choice, the right to appear [pro se] on the appeal, and the right to seek appointment of counsel upon proof of indigency” … . However, due process does not require that a defendant be personally served with the People’s appellate briefs ….  There is no showing on this record that the court upon dismissing the indictment complied with 22 NYCRR 200.40 (a) (1) through (3) by advising defendant that the People had the right to take an appeal; that defendant had the right to counsel on the appeal or to appear pro se; and that defendant had the right to assigned counsel on the appeal if he was financially unable to retain counsel … . Nor is there any showing that the People or defense counsel advised defendant of those rights.  People v Forsythe, KA 10-01359, 368, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

/ , ,

Juvenile Delinquency Petition Jurisdictionally Defective; Insufficient Allegations that Pills Were a Controlled Substance

The Fourth Department determined a juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective because it included only the conclusory allegation that the juvenile possessed Adderall without any evidentiary facts to support it:

The petition alleged that respondent knowingly and unlawfully sold a controlled substance, i.e., Adderall (see Penal Law § 220.31).The Court of Appeals has made clear that “[s]tanding alone, a conclusory statement that a substance seized from a defendant was a particular type of controlled substance does not meet the reasonable cause requirement” … . Petitioner must provide factual allegations that establish a reliable basis for inferring the presence.  The petition here is supported by only the conclusory statements of respondent’s classmate and an officer that the substance was Adderall. Their statements are not “supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually[Adderall]” … .  Matter of Brandon A, CAF 12-01651, 231, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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