You are here: / THE AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY COURT ACT WHICH PRECLUDES A FINDING OF NEGLECT...

Search Results

/ ,

THE AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY COURT ACT WHICH PRECLUDES A FINDING OF NEGLECT BASED SOLELY ON MARIJUANA USE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S NEGLECT OF THE CHILD BASED UPON HER “ABUSE” (AS OPPOSED TO “USE”) OF MARIJUANA (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Zayas, determined (1) the amendment to the Family Court act precluding a finding of neglect based solely on marijuana use should be applied retroactively, and (2) the evidence mother neglected the child based upon abuse of marijuana was sufficient:

The 2021 amendment should not be interpreted as preventing any reliance on the misuse of marihuana, no matter how extensive or debilitating, to establish a prima facie case of neglect. After all, the statute still encompasses the misuse of other legal substances, such as alcoholic beverages and prescription drugs. Based on the plain language of the statute, the 2021 amendment does not prevent a court from finding that there has been a prima facie showing of neglect where the evidence establishes that the subject parent has, in fact, repeatedly misused marihuana in a manner that “has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” … . Such a finding is not based on “the sole fact” that the parent “consumes cannabis” … .

… In its order, the Family Court expressly determined that the mother had misused marihuana and “clearly had a substantial impairment of judgment, and/or substantial manifestation of irrationality and was disoriented and/or incompetent.” Since this finding was not based on “the sole fact” that the mother “consumes cannabis” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][iii]), it provided a sufficient basis on which to apply the presumption of neglect arising from repeated misuse of drugs that is articulated in the statute, as amended … . Matter of Mia S. (Michelle C.), 2022 NY Slip Op 06932, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: The amendment of the Family Court Act to preclude a finding of neglect based solely on use of marijuana should be applied retroactively. But the amendment does not preclude a finding of neglect based on the “abuse,” as opposed to “use,” of marijuana.

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THREE OF THE CHILDREN BY THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTHER AND YELLING AT MOTHER WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence father neglected three of the children by throwing an object at mother and yelling at mother was insufficient:

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the out-of-court statements of Tawdrea G., Terel R., and Micah M. G. to an ACS caseworker that the father threw an object at the mother cross-corroborated each other, and that the record as a whole demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the physical, mental, or emotional condition of Tawdrea G., Terel R., and Micah M. G. was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired when the father threw an object at the mother in their presence … .

However, the Family Court erred in determining that a preponderance of the evidence established that the father neglected Tyresse M., Makai G., Tamera P.-C. M., or Divine K. M., based on the father throwing an object at the mother. There was no evidence that Tyresse M., Makai G., Tamera P.-C. M., or Divine K. M. witnessed that event. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the physical, emotional, or mental condition of Tyresse M., Makai G., Tamera P.-C. M., or Divine K. M., was impaired or placed in imminent danger of impairment based on that incident … .

The Family Court also erred in determining that a preponderance of the evidence established that the father neglected any of the children by verbally abusing the mother in the presence of the children. While it was inappropriate for the father to yell at the mother in the presence of the children, the evidence concerning those arguments was insufficient to establish that the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger becoming impaired … . Matter of Divine K. M. (Andre G.), 2022 NY Slip Op 06929, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: There was no evidence three of the children were present when father threw an object at mother and there was no evidence the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired by father’s yelling at mother. The relevant neglect findings were reversed.

 

/ , ,

THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING IN THIS STATUTORY, COMPULSORY ARBITRATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s ruling in this no=fault insurance case was arbitrary and capricious, noting that judicial review of statutory, compulsory arbitration is more stringent than review of a voluntary agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff GEICO paid the injured driver’s no-fault benefits and sought reimbursement from the insurer of the loaner car involved in the accident. The arbitrator denied reimbursement and the Second Department reversed:

Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate, the arbitrator’s determination is subject to “closer judicial scrutiny” under CPLR 7511(b) than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the parties … . To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding “must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” … . “Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether ‘any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation'” … . …

The arbitrator’s interpretation of the rental agreement … as relieving [defendant insurance company] of its obligation to provide mandatory personal injury protection (hereinafter PIP) coverage was contrary to 11 NYCRR part 65, which provides … that all motor vehicle insurance policies must contain a mandatory PIP endorsement; expressly sets forth the language of the PIP endorsement; permits deviations from the prescribed language only upon prior approval; and prohibits any release, express or implied, from mandatory or optional PIP benefits … . Matter of GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 12-7-22

Similar issues and result in Matter of Wesco Ins. Co. v GEICO Indem. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06933, Second Dept 12-7-22

​Practice Point: The Second Department explained that the criteria for judicial review of statutory, compulsory arbitration is more stringent than for judicial review of arbitration by voluntary agreement.

 

/ ,

THERE CAN BE NO REPUDIATION WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff in this landlord-tenant dispute could not seek separate redress on a theory of repudiation for the breach of contract cause of action. The decision is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [B]ecause a party cannot repudiate a contract it has already breached, if the landlord is found to have breached the lease in 2015, there can be no repudiation in 2021 … . * * *

From the dissent:

A party “cannot simultaneously pursue a breach of contract claim and an anticipatory breach claim premised on the same underlying conduct” … . However, where an obligation is ongoing or serial in nature, a subsequent material breach can support a claim on a theory of repudiation notwithstanding earlier claims for partial breach … . Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06880, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: The majority held plaintiff could not seek redress on a theory of repudiation where there had been a breach of contract. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGING BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against defendant attorneys (BSF) alleging BSF billed for expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York:

The complaint stated a limited cause of action for breach of contract against BSF. The complaint sufficiently alleged that BSF overbilled or billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted to practice law in, or based out of, New York, and the documentary submissions do not utterly refute those allegations … . Kaufman v Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 06883, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated a cause of action against a law firm alleging the firm billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York.

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION DEFENDANT’S FRIEND PAID DEFENDANT’S LEGAL FEES CREATING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground his attorney had a conflict of interest which deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The case had gone to the Court of Appeals which held the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion:

The record supports the hearing court’s factual determination that defendant’s friend Salaam, whom his counsel represented on an unrelated criminal case, and who had initially been a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted, did not pay defendant’s legal fees. At the hearing, defendant did not meet his burden of proving the necessary facts by a preponderance of the evidence … . The hearing evidence showed that Salaam physically handed cash to defendant’s attorney for his retainer and for much of the balance of the fee, but that there was no proof as to the ultimate source of the cash. Counsel credibly testified that he viewed Salaam as his contact person and believed that the legal fees were being collectively raised by a group of defendant’s friends and relatives, including Salaam. The court’s finding was also supported by defendant’s recorded calls made while incarcerated, and the fact that Salaam always delivered cash to the attorney while accompanied by other friends of defendant. The evidence also shows that defendant chose and hired the attorney. People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 06889, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Defendant alleged his friend paid his legal fees. Defendant’s friend had been represented in another criminal matter by defendant’s attorney and was a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted. The evidence at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction did not support the allegation defendant’s friend was the source of the funds paid to defendant’s attorney. Therefore defendant’s argument he was deprived of effective assistance because of his attorney’s conflict of interest was not supported by the evidence.

 

/ ,

THE ALLEGATION THE A-FRAME LADDER SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINION THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this A-frame ladder-fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment based upon the allegation the ladder shifted for no apparent reason. The facts that plaintiff inspected the ladder before using it, there were no witnesses and defendant’s expert opined the accident was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries did not preclude summary judgment on liability:

It is irrelevant that plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be in good order before using it, as plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim … .

… [P]laintiff is entitled to summary judgment in his favor even though he was the only witness to his accident, as “nothing in the record controverts his account of the accident or calls his credibility into question” … . While the opinions of defendants’ expert engineer might relate to the issue of proximate causation of plaintiff’s damages, i.e., whether plaintiff’s claimed injuries were proximately caused by his accident … , they do not raise material issues … as to liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Pinzon v Royal Charter Props., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06891, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Here the allegation the A-frame ladder shifted for no apparent reason warranted summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1). The facts that there were no witnesses, plaintiff inspected the ladder before use, and defendant’s expert opined plaintiff’s injuries were not proximately caused by the fall did not preclude summary judgment.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF-INVESTOR’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF ITS DRUG WAS MISLEADING AND VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SECURITIES ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pharmaceutical company’s, Genfit’s, motion to dismiss the complaint alleging the company misrepresented the efficacy of a drug in violation of the Federal Securities Act should have been granted. The court noted that the pleading requirements for misrepresentation in this context are not the heightened pleading requirements for fraud:

The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that Genfit made misrepresentations and/or omissions in the registration statement and prospectus (collectively offering documents) it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO (initial public offering). Before a company may sell securities in interstate commerce, it must file a registration statement with the SEC. Pursuant to section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act, if … the registration statement contains an untrue statement of material fact or omits a material fact necessary to make the statement therein not misleading, a purchaser of the stock may sue for damages (15 USC § 77 [k] …). * * *

Plaintiff … objects to certain statements in the offering documents, which we characterize as opinions. … Opinions in offering documents are subject to an analysis under the Supreme Court Decision in Omnicare, Inc. v Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund (575 US 175, 184 [2015]). Under Omnicare, an opinion is actionable if (1) the speaker does not actually hold the stated belief … ; or (2) the opinion affirms an underlying fact … a registration statement omits material facts about the issuer’s inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself … .

[The] statements of opinion do not affirm underlying facts. … … Plaintiff claims … [the] statements are misleading because Genfit does not actually believe the opinions stated and that the offering documents omit material facts and knowledge. The complaint, however, alleges no facts supporting these conclusions. Schwartz v Genfit, S.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 06892, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: The allegation that a company’s registration statement is misleading in violation of the Federal Securities Act is not subjected to the heightened pleading requirements for fraud. Here the allegations in the complaint did not support even the less stringent pleading requires for misleading statements.

 

/

PETITIONER CHIROPRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING PAYMENTS DIRECTLY FROM A MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDER IN VIOLATION OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CONTESTED FACTS, THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD THE POWER TO REMOVE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF AUTHORIZED MEDICAL PROVIDERS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch (too detailed to fully summarize here), determined petitioner chiropractor was not entitled to a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Board removed petitioner from the list of authorized medical providers. Petitioner acknowledged taking payments directly from a supplier of medical equipment, which is a violation of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Petitioner’s only argument on appeal was his entitlement to a hearing before removal from the list. After analyzing the applicable statutes, the Third Department determined, absent any contested facts about the statutory violation, petitioner was not entitled to a hearing:

… [W]e agree with respondent that the chair [Workers’ Compensation Board] has authority independent of the CPC [chiropractic practice committee] to conduct an investigation, find that the provider is disqualified from rendering care under the Workers’ Compensation Law for statutorily specified acts of misconduct and, upon such a finding, remove the provider from the list of authorized chiropractors (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-l [10], [12]; see also Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-l [10] [g]). * * *

In an instance where questions of fact attend the asserted charges of professional misconduct or incompetency, a hearing would be in order. Here, however, petitioner has admitted and documented his receipt of payments from [the medical equipment supplier] for treatment rendered to workers’ compensation claimants in direct violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-l (10) (g). Under these circumstances, no hearing was warranted and respondent’s decision to remove petitioner from the list of authorized providers was not arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Levi v New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 06850, Third Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: In the absence of contested facts about whether petitioner-chiropractor violated the Workers’ Compensation Law by taking payments directly from a medical equipment provider, the Workers’ Compensation Board properly removed petitioner’s name from the list of authorized providers without first holding a hearing.

 

/

THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the club’s (Copacabana”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been granted. Because the subsequent accident did not occur on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed:

Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person … . While Copacabana relied on defendant Anslem Trotman’s deposition testimony that he arrived to the establishment after having only one beer, and that he did not recall anyone from Copacabana serving him drinks, Trotman’s testimony was insufficient to rule out the possibility that he was served alcohol by Copacabana waitstaff while he was visibly intoxicated. Trotman had also testified that he was drunk and could not remember large portions of the night, and his testimony was equivocal as to whether Copacabana waitstaff served him drinks or whether he purchased additional alcohol beyond what came with his party package. …

Plaintiff’s common-law negligence was properly dismissed, as the accident that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries occurred off Copacabana’s premises … . The claim for punitive damages was also properly dismissed, as there is no independent cause of action for punitive damages …  and plaintiff failed to establish a basis for such damages. Denenberg v 268 W. 47th Rest., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06866, First Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether plaintiff was served alcohol by defendant club when he was visibly intoxication. The Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been dismissed. Because the accident did not happen on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

 

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