You are here: / FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW...

Search Results

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD BEFORE DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION FOR IN-PERSON PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the denial of mother’s petition for in-person parental access was not supported by the record, in part because the judge did not conduct an in camera interview with the child:

The Family Court’s determination, in effect, denying that branch of the mother’s petition which was for in-person parental access lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. “The decision to conduct an in camera interview to determine the best interests of the child is within the discretion of the hearing court” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to conduct an in camera interview of the child, particularly given the mother’s testimony that the child’s fear of visiting her in person was due to outside influence … . The child is of such an age and maturity that his preferences are necessary to create a sufficient record to determine his best interests … . Matter of Badal v Wilkinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 00997, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court should have conducted an in-person interview with the child before denying mother’s petition for in-person parental access. The failure to conduct the interview was deemed an abuse of discretion.

/ , ,

WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined that where one action is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss as time-barred, it is an abuse of discretion for a judge to grant a motion to consolidate that action with another which is timely:

… [B]oth actions are to foreclose on the same mortgage securing the same debt owed by the same defendant. However, in our view, a precondition for merging two or more actions is that each action should itself be viable, meaning that neither is confronted with a pending—and apparently meritorious—motion to dismiss. Once the defendant here met her burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the 2017 action had expired, it became the plaintiff’s burden to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period. The plaintiff could not meet that shifted burden by merely asserting that the 2017 action will become timely once it is merged with the timely 2008 action. The purpose of consolidation under CPLR 602(a) is not to provide a party with a procedural end run around a legal defense applicable to one of the actions. In our opinion, in such instances, judicial discretion should not be used to cure the untimeliness of one action by tethering it to a related timely action. We hold, as an issue of apparent first impression that, in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting consolidation and that, in general, consolidation should be denied where one of the cases to be consolidated is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss…. . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Francis, 2023 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here there were two related foreclosure actions. One was subject to dismissal as time-barred and the other was timely. The two should not be consolidated as an end-run around the statute of limitations.

 

/ , , , , ,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the defendant estate in this traffic accident case. Defense counsel represented the insurance company, not the estate:

… [C]ounsel’s affirmation stated that he “was retained by Truck Insurance Exchange to represent the interests of their insured Arthur Ketterer herein.” Under these circumstances, moving counsel lacked authority to represent the defendant estate … . …

In appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint a temporary administrator, in order to “avoid delay and prejudice in a pending action” … . Such a determination is addressed to the broad discretion of the court … . Here, a Surrogate’s Court decree appointed the Public Administrator to represent the estate of Arthur C. Ketterer in a related prior action. That decree did not expressly grant to the Public Administrator the authority to represent the defendant estate in this action. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s cross-motion should have been granted, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a temporary administrator to represent the defendant in the instant action … . Franco v Estate of Arthur C. Ketterer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00988, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, defense counsel represented the insurer, not the defendant estate. Therefore Supreme Court had the authority, upon plaintiff’s motion, to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the estate.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION WAS STRUCK BY A PIPE WHICH FELL AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED FROM A TRUCK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD THE VIOLATION OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS TO THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should not have been granted and plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill of particulars should have been granted. Plaintiff was unloading pipes from a flatbed truck when a pipe which was being lifted by an excavator came loose and fell on plaintiff’s leg:

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “[A] plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . A plaintiff must also show that “the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege certain additional violations of sections of the Industrial Code with regard to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. The plaintiff made a showing of merit, and the proposed amendment did not prejudice the defendants and did not involve new factual allegations or raise new theories of liability … . Castano v Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00983, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: As long as no additional facts are involved, a motion to amend the pleadings to add Industrial Code violations (re: a Labor Law 241(5) action) should be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed (absent prejudice).

 

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this police-car traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant officer (Hughes) did not act with reckless disregard for the safety for the safety of others when he attempted a U-turn and struck plaintiff’s car:

“Conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) includes disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in “specified directions” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that Hughes’s conduct in attempting to execute a U-turn to pursue a suspected violator of the law was exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)(4), and that, as a result, his conduct was governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) … .

… The reckless disregard standard “requires evidence that ‘the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . …  Hughes testified that after the offending vehicle passed him, he took his eyes off the road and looked into his left side mirror to see the offending vehicle’s license plate number. When he resumed looking straight ahead, the plaintiff’s vehicle was less than half a car length in front of him. Although Hughes testified that he applied the brakes once he saw the plaintiff’s vehicle, the plaintiff testified that the collision occurred when Hughes turned sharply into the path of the plaintiff’s vehicle and then accelerated. … Hughes did not activate his turn signal, lights, or siren before he started the U-turn. … [D]efendants’ submissions presented a triable issue of fact as to whether Hughes was reckless in attempting to make a U-turn without taking precautionary measures to avoid causing harm to others … . Bourdierd v City of Yonkers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00981, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The evidence that the police officer took his eyes off the road in front of him before attempting a U-turn and striking plaintiff’s car raised a question of fact whether the officer acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others (Vehicle & Traffic Law 1104).

 

/ ,

AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A WITNESS TO THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT STATING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS BACKING UP AT THE TIME DEFENDANT’S CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S RAISED ONLY A QUESTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE FAULT WHICH WILL NOT DEFEAT PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. The affidavit of a witness stating that plaintiff was backing up when defendant’s car struck it raised an issue of comparative negligence, which is no longer a bar to summary judgment:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . As such, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, sudden or unavoidable circumstances” … . “[V]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows” … . “A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability”… .

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that his vehicle was at a full stop when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . The defendants submitted an affidavit … a witness to the accident … who stated that he saw the plaintiff’s vehicle backing up while the defendants’ vehicle was moving forward and, as a result, the front of the defendants’ vehicle made contact with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. … [The]statement that the plaintiff’s vehicle was backing up … was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because that statement related only to the plaintiff’s comparative fault … . An v Abbate, 2023 NY Slip Op 00977, Second Dept 2-22-23

Same result (but no comparative negligence evidence) in another rear-end traffic accident case: Balgobin v McKenzie, 2023 NY Slip Op 00978, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here a witness to the rear-end traffic accident provided an affidavit stating plaintiff was backing up when defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s car. The affidavit raised a question of plaintiff’s comparative fault which was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

 

/ , , ,

A JUDGE HAS DISCRETION TO DENY A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE VIABLE; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, STATED A VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in a case related to Aleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc.,2023 NY Slip Op 00975, Second Dept 2-22-23 (also summarized in the Digest), determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment in this action to set aside a deed as forged should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff correctly contends that the motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Rutland was timely filed. The plaintiff served Rutland with the summons and complaint on March 25, 2019, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 via service on the Secretary of State. Rutland defaulted by failing to appear or answer the complaint within 30 days (see CPLR 320[a]; 3012[c]). The plaintiff would have been required to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against Rutland within one year of the default, by April 24, 2020 (see id. § 3215[c]). However, time limitations in civil actions were tolled by executive order from March 20, 2020, until November 3, 2020 … . Since the plaintiff filed the motion on October 6, 2020, it was timely.

… “A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215 must file proof of: (1) service of a copy or copies of the summons and the complaint, (2) the facts constituting the claim, and (3) the defendant’s default” (…See CPLR 3215[f]). “[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . However, “‘a court does not have a mandatory, ministerial duty to grant a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, and retains the discretionary obligation to determine whether the movant has met the burden of stating a viable cause of action'” … .

… [Plaintiff’s] submissions, including her affidavit in which she denied signing the deed and other documents related to the transfer of the property, were sufficient to demonstrate that her causes of action, insofar as asserted against Rutland, were viable … . Alleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00976,Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: A judge has the discretion to deny a motion for a default judgment if the plaintiff has not demonstrated the action was viable. Here the allegations in the complaint, which are deemed admitted by the failure to answer, stated a viable cause of action and the default judgment should have been awarded.

 

/ , ,

AN “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT HAS DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAN A “GOOD CAUSE” EXTENSION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for more time to serve the defendant in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The different criteria for an “interest of justice” versus a “good cause” request for an extension is explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service” … . “[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . Under the interest of justice standard, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant” … .

… The plaintiff demonstrated that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was believed by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action but was subsequently found to be defective, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the extension of time would not prejudice the defendant as the defendant had actual notice of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boakye-Yiadom, 2023 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: An “interest of justice” extension of time to serve a defendant has different criteria than a “good cause” extension. The criteria are explained.

 

/ , ,

IF PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVE THE DEED WAS FORGED; TO WIN A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MUST UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE DEED WAS FORGED WHICH DEFENDANT FAILED TO DO HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Golden Bridge’s) motion to dismiss this action to set aside a deed (allegedly forged) should not have been granted. The decision clearly lays out the subtle but crucial differences in proof requirements between a defendant’s motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence and a a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On February 3, 2004, the plaintiff acquired title to real property located in Brooklyn. In 2017, the property was transferred to the defendant Rutland Development Group, Inc. (hereinafter Rutland), by the deed that is the subject of this action. Rutland granted the defendant Golden Bridge, LLC (hereinafter Golden Bridge), a mortgage on the property in exchange for the sum of $625,000. * * *

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate … . A motion to dismiss a complaint based upon CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [a] plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . …

Here, in support of its motion, Golden Bridge submitted … a notary’s certificate of acknowledgment attesting that the plaintiff had appeared before him … , and executed the subject deed or acknowledged her execution thereof, a resolution by Rutland authorizing the plaintiff to borrow a sum of money from Golden Bridge on Rutland’s behalf, and bank checks … . Although Golden Bridge did proffer some evidence that the plaintiff may have received consideration as a result of the transfer of the property, Golden Bridge’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations that the deed and other relevant documents were forged, she received no consideration, and she did not have any relationship to Rutland (see CPLR 4538 …). On a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff would have had to proffer evidence so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty, in order to rebut the presumption, based on the notary’s certificate of acknowledgment, that the deed was duly executed (see CPLR 4538 …). Here, however, on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), the questions are whether the plaintiff has a cause of action and whether Golden Bridge conclusively established a defense as a matter of law. Aleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc.,2023 NY Slip Op 00975, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this action to set aside a deed as forged, the proof requirements for a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence were compared. In the summary judgment motion, plaintiff would have to prove the deed was forged. In the motion to dismiss, the defendant must produce documentary evidence which utterly refutes plaintiff’s allegation the deed was forged–two very different standards of proof.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action should have been allowed to amend the answer:

… Supreme Court … should not have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert an affirmative defense alleging lack of compliance with the condition precedent in the mortgage agreement requiring a notice of default. In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …). Lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment … . “‘It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . Moreover, although a defense is generally waived under CPLR 3211(e) where not raised in an answer or made the subject of a motion to dismiss, it can be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd. v Berquin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01025, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The court can grant a defendant leave to amend an answer where the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the ground which is the subject of the amendment. In other words, if the defendant fails to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss and the initial answer does not include the affirmative defense which could have been the basis of a motion to dismiss, the defendant gets another chance in an amendment of the answer by leave of court.

 

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