You are here: / IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING...

Search Results

/ ,

IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the declaratory judgment causes action should not have been dismissed because the motion for summary judgment did not seek that relief. Summary judgment on the CPLR Article 78 causes of action was properly granted, however:

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek to recover damages and declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … .

Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court erred in summarily disposing of the petitioner/plaintiff’s third through eighth causes of action. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for further proceedings on those causes of action … . Matter of Kelly v Farmingdale State Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 01895, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: In a hybrid Article 78 and declaratory judgment/damages action, a motion for summary judgment must be made for both. Here the motion only concerned the Article 78 causes of action so the court should not have summarily disposed of the declaratory judgment/damages causes of action.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene by Poloncarz was properly denied because the proposed answer was not included with the motion papers. but because Poloncarz made a showing warranting intervention, the motion should have been denied with leave to renew:

“A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made under CPLR 1012 or 1013, must include the proposed intervenor’s . . . complaint or answer (CPLR 1014)” … . “The court has no power to grant leave to intervene where, as here, the prospective intervenor[ ] did not include in [his] motion papers ‘a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought'” … . Here, Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive, failed to include his proposed answer in his motion papers. Nevertheless, he made a threshold showing that his defense and the Nassau action have a common question of law and fact, that he has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and that intervention will not unduly delay the determination of the Nassau action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party … . Accordingly, although the Supreme Court was “without the power to grant such relief inasmuch as [Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive,] has failed to comply with CPLR 1014,” the court should have denied the motion with leave to renew that branch of the motion which was for leave to intervene in the Nassau action on proper papers … . Landa v Poloncarz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01891, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: A court cannot grant a motion to intervene if the proposed complaint or answer is not submitted with the motion papers. Here, because a threshold showing intervention was appropriate was made, the denial should have been “with leave to renew.”

 

/ ,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure proceeding did not demonstrate defendant’s default because the relevant business documents were not submitted:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer who averred … that based upon his review of certain business records maintained by the loan servicer and the plaintiff, he was familiar with the underlying mortgage loan and payment history of Hernandez [defendant]. However, the affiant, and the plaintiff, failed to submit any business records substantiating the alleged default … . “‘Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value'” … . “Even assuming that the subject affidavit established a sufficient foundation for the records relied upon, ‘it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01888, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: An affidavit describing business records is hearsay if the records themselves are not attached.

 

/ , , ,

THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Chase, the defendant – lessor of the car involved in a traffic accident, did not present sufficient evidence of its status as the lessor for purposes of asserting the Graves-Amendment defense. The business records which would have established the lessor-lessee relationship were either illegible or were not submitted:

When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the motion should not be granted unless the evidentiary material “conclusively [establishes] that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … .

Pursuant to the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of the vehicle if (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner … .

… Chase attempted to establish the fact that it leased the subject vehicle to [defendant] through the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). … [E]ven assuming that the … affidavit had established a proper foundation, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … .. Since Chase failed to submit the purported assignment of the lease agreement, it failed to conclusively establish that … it was shielded by the Graves Amendment. Tello v Upadhyaya, 2023 NY Slip Op 01913, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Here the lessor of the car involved in the accident attempted to raise the Graves-Amendment defense but did not submit the business records showing the assignment of the lease. Therefore the affidavit laying a foundation for those records was hearsay and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO PURPORTED TO WAIVE SERVICE OF PROCEES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that one foreign defendant (Koukis) demonstrated he was not represented by an attorney (Santamarina) who purported to waive all defenses based on service of process or lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of all defendants. Supreme Court agreed Koukis demonstrated Santamarina did not represent him, but found personal jurisdiction over Koukis pursuant to CPLR 302(a)2). The First Department held the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Koukis:

The motion court correctly found that there was no basis to conclude that Koukis authorized Santamarina to appear and waive all jurisdictional defenses on his behalf … . … Koukis emailed Santamarina, with a copy to his attorney, specifically stating that “I have not authorized you to represent me in any legal or other matters.” Koukis also averred that he never communicated with Santamarina and that he never represented him, and there is no indication in the record that Koukis was even aware of Santamarina for any significant time prior to his … email. The two … emails referenced by the dissent were not from or to Santamarina and made no mention of any representation by Santamarina. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01863, First Dept 4-11-23

​Practice Point: Here defendant demonstrated he was not represented by an attorney who purported to waive service of process and personal jurisdiction defenses on behalf of all defendants.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A SODA CAN WITH HIS DNA ON IT; THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the burglary conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

The verdict convicting defendant of a burglary of a doctor’s office that occurred in July 2015 was against the weight of the evidence … . Defendant was connected to this burglary solely through the presence of his DNA on an opened soda can in the reception area. The office manager’s testimony failed to address whether there was any innocent explanation for the presence of defendant, or of the soda can, at that location. … . People v Taylor, 2023 NY Slip Op 01848, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Defendant was convicted of the burglary of a doctor’s office based solely on the presence of a soda can with his DNA on it in the reception area. The testimony did not address whether there was an innocent explanation for the presence of the soda can. The conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

 

/ ,

WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to contest the constitutionality of his 2002 conviction because he was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) before he pled guilty. Defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010 to add PRS to his sentence did not waive his right to claim prejudice in a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony:

At the persistent violent felony offender proceeding in this case, defendant claimed that he would have gone to trial in the 2002 case had he known that PRS would ultimately be a consequence of his plea … . The sentencing court conducted a hearing on this claim, which included defendant’s testimony. After the hearing, the court expressly declined to rule on this claim of prejudice. Instead, the court ruled that defendant was barred from making such a challenge because he declined an opportunity to withdraw his 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010. However, that opportunity, offered when defendant had only weeks left to serve on the 8½ year sentence imposed in 2002, would not have provided a remedy for the constitutional defect that defendant is claiming, which is that he would not have pleaded guilty in 2002 had he known of the ultimate PRS component of his sentence. Accordingly, we find that defendant’s 2010 failure to withdraw the 2002 plea did not waive his right to claim prejudice in the context of a challenge to the constitutionality of a predicate felony, and we remand for a ruling on that claim. People v Graham, 2023 NY Slip Op 01852, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Defendant was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) when he pled guilty in 2002 and did not move to withdraw his plea when PRS was added in 2010. Defendant did not waive his right to attack the constitutionality of the 2002 conviction in this persistent felony offender proceeding.

 

/ , ,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT AN ENUMERATED OFFENSE UNDER SORA, THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not required to register as a sex offender because the offense to which he pled guilty, burglary as a sexually motivated felony, is not one of offenses to which SORA applies. In addition, the Third Department held defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [W]e agree with the analysis of our colleagues in the First and Second Departments concluding that registerable offenses subject to SORA are, by application of the clear statutory text, limited to those crimes expressly identified as “[s]ex offense[s]” pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (2) … . As burglary in the third degree as a sexually motivated felony is not among the offenses enumerated therein, we agree that defendant was improperly required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA … . …

During the plea colloquy, County Court did not explain that certain appellate rights would survive the waiver of appeal and instead improperly described the rights to be waived as encompassing “any argument” that defendant might take to a higher court … . The written waiver, in turn, states that “[i]t is [defendant’s] understanding and intention that [his] plea agreement and sentence will be a complete and final disposition of this case.” Although the written appeal waiver also includes qualifying language limiting its application “to all legal issues that can be waived under the law[,]” and the court confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel … , we find that the “totality of the circumstances” presented here fails to confirm that defendant understood that some appellate review would survive the waiver … . People v Winter, 2023 NY Slip Op 01820, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: A defendant may not be required to register as a sex offender if convicted of a crime not listed in the Correction Law. Burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not listed.

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant that, despite the waiver of appeal, certain issues remain appealable, renders the waiver of appeal invalid.

 

/

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the superior court information, noted the record did not indicate the waiver of indictment was signed in open court, which is a jurisdictional defect:

A defendant “may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney” provided that “such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel” … . Although the record reflects that defendant orally agreed to waive indictment in open court and contains a written waiver of indictment bearing the date of that appearance, which defendant and defense counsel acknowledged signing, the minutes do not demonstrate that defendant signed the waiver in open court, as constitutionally mandated. “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea” … . Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent … , nor County Court’s undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court … . In light of this jurisdictional defect, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information must be dismissed …. People v Camlin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01821, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: If the record does indicate the waiver of indictment was signed in open court, the superior court information will be dismissed.

 

/ , ,

THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, REVERSING THE NEGLECT FINDINGS AGAINST MOTHER, DETERMINED THE SYSTEM FAILED MOTHER WHO WAS DEALING WITH EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHO WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY SEEKING HELP FROM PETITIONER FROM THE OUTSET; EVEN THE APPEALS PROCESS FAILED HER BECAUSE IT TOOK TOO LONG (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s neglect findings, noted that mother was dealing with extremely difficult circumstances, including an abusive and violent father, and, from the outset, was desperately seeking assistance from the petitioner (the county department of social services) which was not provided. The Third Department noted that the appeal should have been brought much sooner, and the failure to do so may have resulted in the unjustified separation of mother from her children for years. In the words of the court: “it … appears that we have failed to address the pressing needs of this family, and the children, at each step:”

An adjudication of neglect based upon emotional impairment must include a determination “that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care” … .  As the oldest child’s emotional difficulties are, at least to some great extent, properly attributed to the trauma he experienced [father beating mother], rather than any failing of the mother, his condition does not support the neglect finding. Family Court further concluded that the other two children were neglected because the oldest child’s behaviors presented a risk to his siblings’ physical well-being. However, at no point did petitioner proffer evidence that either of the younger siblings had been injured by the oldest child, nor is there any evidence that such physical harm was imminent; at most, this conclusion is premised upon possible future harm, which is insufficient to support an adjudication of neglect … .

… [W]hile leaving children unattended, even for a brief period, can constitute a failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care under certain circumstances … , it does not amount to neglect in all cases, even in certain circumstances where the unattended child is accidentally injured … . Here, considering the surrounding circumstances, we do not find that the evidence revealed such a failure. Nor will we fault the mother for her inability to control all three young children while attending to their various needs — as was the case in the incidents where the youngest child was left in a foam infant seat on a table and where the two older children ran outside of the shelter — or while taking care of necessary chores — as was the case in the incident where the youngest child fell out of a baby carriage. In our view, the mother’s conduct during these alleged incidents of neglect did not fall below a minimum degree of parental [*4]care; nor were the children physically impaired, and it was not demonstrated that any sort of impairment was imminent … . Matter of Alachi I. (Shelby J.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01822, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here mother was dealing with an abusive, violent father and an older child who was difficult to control. She unsuccessfully sought assistance from the social services department from the outset. The Third Department determined the neglect findings based upon the behavior of the older child were baseless and the instances where children were briefly unattended did not amount to neglect. Even the appeals process failed mother because it took years, which necessarily affected her ability to stay connected with her children.

 

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