You are here: / DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been assessed risk-factor points based on a theory which defendant was unable to respond to because it was raised for the first time at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. The matter was remanded:

… [T]he court should have found that the People acted improperly in raising, for the first time at the hearing, as the basis for scoring defendant 15 points for inflicting physical injury under risk factor 1, a new reason or theory that differed from the basis for that scoring specified in the Board’s case summary and in the People’s prehearing submissions. This deprived defendant of the proper advance, informative notice of “the reasons” and “basis” for the People seeking the 15-point determination to which he was entitled under Correction Law § 168-n (3) and due process, so as to afford him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment … People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05043, First Dept 10-5-23

Practice Point: If the People present a new risk-assessment theory at the SORA hearing, the court must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond before issuing a ruling.

 

/ ,

​ A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION NO LONGER STOPS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action no longer stops the running of the statute of limitations:

… [T]he six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt in July 2011, when the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest commenced the 2011 action and elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage … . The instant action was commenced in October 2017, more than six years later (see CPLR 213[4] …). Under the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (L 2022, ch 821, § 8 [eff Dec. 30, 2022]), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action did not “in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute” (CPLR 3217[e]; see CPLR 203[h] … ). Under these new legal principles, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether enforcement of the mortgage loan is barred by the statute of limitations. CIT Bank, N.A. v Byers, 2023 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (2022) the bank can no longer stop the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the foreclosure action.

 

/ , , , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was immune from a lawsuit stemming from a COVID-19-related death pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services” as long as three conditions were met: the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and the services were arranged or provided in good faith … . The health care services covered by the immunity provision included those related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19; the assessment or care of an individual with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19; and the care of any other individual who presented at a health care facility or to a health care professional during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration … . Mera v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04975, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), the defendant health care facility was immune from a lawsuit premised upon admission, treatment and death from COVID-19.

 

/ ,

THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY OPTED OUT OF THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT REQUIRED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA); THEREFORE THE SUPPORT PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the separation agreement did not include the required language indication the parties agree to opt out of the level of child support required by the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

“Parties to a separation agreement are free to ‘opt out’ of the provisions of the CSSA so long as their decision is made knowingly” … . “To ensure that waivers of the statutory provisions of the CSSA are truly knowingly made, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(h) requires that, in order to be valid, a stipulation must recite that the parties have been made aware of the CSSA, and that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount. Where the stipulation deviates from the basic child support obligation, it must specify what the presumptive amount would have been and the reason for the deviation” … .

Here … the provisions in the parties’ separation agreement relating to the child support obligations with respect to one child did not contain the specific recitals mandated by the CSSA, and the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff’s agreement to said provisions was made knowingly. … [T]he provisions are not enforceable … . Sayles v Sayles, 2023 NY Slip Op 04968, Second Dept 9-4-23

Practice Point: Parties to a separation agreement can “opt out” of the level of child support required by the Child Support Standards Act (CSAA). But if the agreement doesn’t include recitals which make it clear the parties knowingly opted out, the agreement is not enforceable.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO SEE IF DEFENDANT QUALIFIED FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL PRIOR TO ISSUING THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the order of commitment in this matrimonial case, noted that defendant faced possible jail time for civil contempt stemming from a failure to pay child support. Therefore defendant had a right to assigned counsel if found indigent. The judge should have have ascertained defendant’s financial condition:

“In general, the respondent in a civil contempt proceeding who faces the possibility of the imposition of a term of imprisonment, however short, has the right to the assignment of counsel upon a finding of indigence” … . “Moreover, a parent has the statutory right to counsel in a proceeding in which it is alleged that he or she has willfully failed to comply with a prior child support order” … .

Here, the defendant informed the Supreme Court on multiple occasions that he could not afford to retain an attorney. Therefore, prior to issuing an order of commitment, the court should have inquired into the defendant’s current financial circumstances to determine whether he had become eligible for assigned counsel … . Hoffman v Hoffman, 2023 NY Slip Op 04959, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was found in civil contempt for failure to pay child support. Because the judge was going to order jail-time, defendant had the right to assigned counsel if he could not afford an attorney. The judge should have conducted an inquest to determine defendant’s financial condition before issuing the order of commitment.

 

/ , , , , ,

BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the condominium (Cherry Tower) premised on the failure to install window guards should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ five-year-old daughter fell from the fifth floor window and died. Defendants submitted the deed to the condominium in support of their motion to dismiss. Because plaintiffs owned the condo unit, the defendants had no duty to install window guards. However, the cause of action alleging defendants’ failure to give notice of the window-guard requirements in the NYC Administrative Code properly survived dismissal:

“The characteristics of condominium ownership are individual ownership of a unit, an undivided interest in designated common elements, and an agreement among unit owners regulating the administration and maintenance of property” … . Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the documentary evidence submitted by the Cherry Tower defendants, including the deed demonstrating that the unit owners purchased the subject apartment in 2007 and the condominium bylaws placing the responsibility to install and maintain window guards on the unit owners, conclusively demonstrates that the Cherry Tower defendants had no duty to install window guards in the subject apartment (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2043.1[a]; Real Property Law § 339-ee[1] …).

However, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the Cherry Tower defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as was based on their failure to provide the plaintiff with notice of the window guard requirements. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the Cherry Tower defendants failed in their responsibility to deliver the required notice to the subject apartment (see Administrative Code § 17-123[b]). Kwan v Kuie Chin Yap, 2023 NY Slip Op 05005, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: The individual owners of condominium units are responsible for the installation of window guards. Therefore the condominium itself has no duty to do so. However, in New York City, the condominium must provided the individual owners with notice of the window-guard requirement in the NYC Administrative Code.

 

/ , ,

CLAIMANT ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY TWO NAMED COUNSELORS FROM 1976 – 1978; THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim sufficiently stated a Child Victims Act cause of action stemming from claimant’s time in foster care from 1976 to 1978:

In August 2021, the claimant commenced this claim pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against the defendant, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The claim alleged that the claimant, who had been placed in a group home for foster children when she was a child, was sexually abused by two named counselors at the facility from approximately 1976 to 1978. * * *

Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires a claim to specify: “(1) the nature of the claim; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … . These statutory requirements are “strictly construed,” and a failure to comply with any of those requirements “constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal” … . The purpose of the pleading requirements is to provide “a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim” so that the defendant can “investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . “However, absolute exactness is not required, so long as the particulars of the claim are detailed in a manner sufficient to permit investigation” … .

Contrary to the Court of Claims’ determination, the claim set forth the nature of the claim with sufficient detail to allow the defendant to investigate the claim in a prompt manner and to assess its potential liability … . Brown v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: To state a cause of action pursuant to the Child Victims Act, the claim need only provide sufficient detail to allow a prompt investigation. Here the claimant alleged sexual while in foster care from 1976 – 1978 by two named counselors. The claim should not have been dismissed.

 

/ , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHO HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact which precluded summary judgment in favor of defendants in this intersection traffic accident case. Although plaintiffs’ car was struck when attempting a left turn across defendant’s oncoming lane, there was conflicting evidence about which party had the green light and whether defendant failed to see what should have been seen:

Susan [plaintiff] testified at her deposition that she entered the subject intersection to turn left when a traffic arrow controlling the left turn was green in her favor. In contrast, Peter [defendant] testified at his deposition that the traffic light was green in his favor as he approached the subject intersection from the opposite direction. In addition, Peter testified that there was nothing obstructing his view of the intersection as he began to drive through it, and it is undisputed that he then struck the plaintiff’s vehicle on the middle portion of the passenger side door. Thus, although the defendants submitted some evidence that Susan failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendants’ vehicle at the intersection in apparent violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Peter entered the intersection against a red traffic light in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) or, if the traffic light was green in his favor, failed to exercise reasonable care notwithstanding the invitation to proceed by the green light facing him … . Accordingly, the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that Susan’s failure to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that the defendants were themselves free from fault … . Schmitz v Pinto, 2023 NY Slip Op 04983, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of a traffic accident. Although plaintiff was struck making a left turn across defendant’s lane, there were questions of fact about who had the green light, and, if defendant had the green light, whether he should have seen what was there to be seen (plaintiff’s car was struck in the middle of the passenger door).

 

/ ,

TO CONSIDER A LATE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES MUST FIRST BE PUT ON NOTICE THE MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the post answer motion to dismiss should not have been heard because there was no notice the motion would be treated as a summary judgment:

By summons and complaint dated July 8, 2021, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover approximately $360,000 in unpaid counsel fees. Defendant answered on or about August 18, 2021 and asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. On September 1, 2022, defendant moved under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s post-answer motion to dismiss was not timely (CPLR 3211 [e] …). Thus, the motion could not be properly considered unless the parties were given adequate prior notice that the motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 or unless an exception to the notice requirement applied (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). Because defendant does not argue that adequate notice was given or that an exception to the notice requirement applied, we reverse and remand for consideration after the parties are given the requisite notice …   Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP v 3 W. 16th St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04952, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: A late (post answer) motion to dismiss should not be considered unless the parties have been notified the motion will be treated as a summary judgment motion, or unless some exception to the notice requirement applies.

 

/ ,

A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS OF THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED A TRIAL TO RESOLVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a conflict between two provisions of the postnuptial agreement which could only be resolved by a trial:

“When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” … . If a contract’s provisions are subject to more than one or conflicting reasonable interpretations, the agreement will be considered ambiguous, requiring a trial on the parties’ intent … . Here, the language of the agreement allows for more than one reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intentions when they entered into the agreement. The language regarding distribution of the parties’ assets is specifically contingent on the occurrence of the operative event otherwise without force or effect. This conflicts with further language that requires the wife to assume certain debt within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. These interrelated provisions are ambiguous as they are “reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, the parties’ intent underpinning these conflicting provisions must be addressed at trial. Bich v Bich, 2023 NY Slip Op 04918. First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Practice: Conflicting provisions in an agreement render the agreement ambiguous requiring a trial.

 

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