You are here: / THE FEDERAL POSSESSION-OF-A-FIREARM-BY-A-FELON STATUTE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT...

Search Results

/

THE FEDERAL POSSESSION-OF-A-FIREARM-BY-A-FELON STATUTE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING THE WEAPON WAS OPERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second felony offender adjudication, determined the federal possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon statute is not the equivalent of a New York felony:

… [T]he defendant should not have been adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior federal conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon (see 18 USC § 922[g][1]). “An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under New York’s sentencing statutes only if it is for a crime ‘whose elements are equivalent to those of a New York felony'” (… see Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Bilfulco, 2022 NY Slip Op 04637, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The federal possession-of-a-weapon statute (18 USC 922[g][1]) is not the equivalent of a New York felony because it does not require that the weapon be operable. Therefore that federal statute cannot be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication.

 

/ ,

FATHER, WHO LIVES IN CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER; MOTHER, WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IN NEW YORK; FAMILY COURT CORRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COURT BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE PARTIES TO PRESENT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE NEW YORK PETITION; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did everything right in dealing with the modification of a California custody order, including communication with the California court, but did not allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments before ruling New York did not have jurisdiction. Father was in California and mother was in New York. Father sought modification of the custody order in California and mother sought modification of the custody order in New York:

“If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]; see id. § 77-f …). “If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A] does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding” … .

When a court, acting pursuant to these provisions, communicates with a court of another state on substantive matters, it must make a record of the communication, promptly inform the parties of the communication, and grant the parties access to the record … . The court may, in its discretion, allow the parties to participate in the communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made” … .

… [A]fter providing that information to the parties, who had not participated in the communication, the court immediately announced its decision on the issue of jurisdiction, without affording the parties an opportunity to present facts and legal arguments. This did not comport with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 75-i(2), and, under the circumstances of this case, requires reversal  … . Matter of Touchet v Horstman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04633, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: When a New York resident seeks modification of an out-of-state custody order, Family Court must communicate with the out-of-state court about whether the New York petition should be dismissed. Where the parties did not participate in the communication, before ruling, Family Court must allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments. Here the court’s failure to allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments required reversal.

 

/ ,

IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained the different burdens of proof in an Article 78 proceeding and an action seeking declaratory relief and damages. In an Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner has to show standing as part of its prima facie case. In a declaratory judgment/damages action, the respondent (defendant) has to demonstrate the petitioner does not have standing as a matter of law to warrant summary judgment:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding/action based on lack of standing. “‘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 to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand'” … . Generally, in an action to recover damages, “[o]n a defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing. To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” … . Within the context of a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, “[t]he petitioner ‘has the burden of establishing both an injury-in-fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated'” … . Matter of Crown Castle NG E., LLC v City of Rye, 2022 NY Slip Op 04626, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The burdens on the issue of standing are different in an Article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment/damages action. Here both were brought in a hybrid proceeding. The petitioner must demonstrate standing in the Article 78 proceeding. The respondent (defendant) must demonstrate petitioner does not have standing as a matter of law to warrant summary judgment in the declaratory judgment/damages action.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE STEP WAS MARKED AND THERE WAS A WARNING SIGN, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE STEP AND THE SIGN COULD NOT BE SEEN WHEN THE AREA WAS CROWDED; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIR-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stair-fall case should not have been granted. Although there was evidence the single step in defendant’s nightclub was marked and there was a warning sign, there was also evidence the area was crowded, obscuring the step and the sign:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the single-step riser was located between the dance floor and another area of the premises, such that persons exiting the dance floor in that direction would traverse the area where the step was located and a crowd could form, obscuring both a warning sign which was below eye level, and the step which was painted white. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the premises were crowded, and that she did not see the step or the paint on the step. Another witness testified at her deposition that the premises were so crowded that the witness could not see the floor. Kernell v Five Dwarfs, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04624, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Here the step where plaintiff allegedly fell was marked and there was a warning sign. But there was evidence that when this area of defendants’ nightclub was crowded neither the step nor the sign could be seen. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stair-fall case should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted summary judgment. Plaintiff motorcyclist collided with defendants’ vehicle as defendant driver was attempting to make a left turn crossing plaintiff’s lane of traffic. The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s motorcycle was so close as to constitute an immediate hazard at the time defendant initiated the turn:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se … .

The plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the transcripts of his deposition testimony and that of the defendants. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants, as the nonmoving parties, raised triable issues of fact as to whether, at the time the defendant driver initiated her turn, the plaintiff’s motorcycle was “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . DePass v Beneduci, 2022 NY Slip Op 04622, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1141 prohibits making a left turn when oncoming traffic is “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” Plaintiff motorcyclist collided with defendant’s car as defendant attempted a left turn across plaintiff’s lane of traffic. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment but the Second Department held there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was ‘”so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” when defendant initiated her turn.

 

/ , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff  bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with RPRL 1303, which requires that the notice of foreclosure use certain sizes of type and a different color paper:

RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled “Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure” be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings (see RPAPL 1303[1],[3] …). The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type (see RPAPL 1303[2]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing compliance with the statute … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v McCaffrey, 2022 NY Slip Op 04619, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the bank’s strict compliance with the notice requirements in the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) is a condition precedent for the action. Here the bank did not demonstrate that the notice of foreclosure complied with RPAPL 1303 which requires certain type sizes and a paper-color different from that of the summons and complaint. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ , ,

THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore should not have been awarded summary judgment in this foreclosure action:

The affidavits of Daphne Proctor, Theresa Robertson, and April Martin, all of whom were document execution specialists employed by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Proctor, Robertson, and Martin attested that they were familiar with Nationstar’s records and record-keeping practices, but they failed to attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Nationstar. Moreover, Martin attested that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but neither she nor Proctor or Robertson attested that they were familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures. Therefore, they failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation from the United States Postal Service proving the certified and first-class mailing … . The presence of numbered bar codes on the envelopes and the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. v Salvador, 2022 NY Slip Op 04618, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: These foreclosure summary-judgment reversals based on the bank’s failure to  submit sufficient proof of the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the defendants just keep coming, week after week, year after year.

 

/ , ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s premises-liability cause of action against defendant school district should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff was pretending to play basketball when he inadvertently slapped a display case in the hall of the school and the glass shattered. There was evidence glass in the display case had shattered before and some of the glass panels were made of shatterproof plexiglass:

The defendant’s evidence in support of the motion did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition because, among other things, the head custodian of the school testified at his deposition that at least one other glass panel in a similar display case in the school had shattered prior to the accident … . Further, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the glass panel was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. In particular, the evidence demonstrated that the display case where the accident occurred contained two panes of shatterproof plexiglass and one glass pane and that the infant plaintiff was under the impression that the display case was made entirely of unbreakable material. R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Here a glass panel in a display case located in the hallway of a school shattered when plaintiff-student slapped it. There was evidence a similar incident occurred in the past, and some of the panels in the display case were made of shatterproof plexiglass. Therefore there was evidence the school had notice of the dangerous condition and there was a question whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Falkovsky’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. Although the doctor made out a prima facie case demonstrating there was no departure form good and accepted medical malpractice, plaintiff’s expert raised questions of fact about whether defendant should have considered cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis:

[Plaintiff] presented to Falkovsky … with complaints of loss of taste and appetite for two weeks, the unintentional loss of ten pounds, and two episodes of dizziness and vomiting that resolved on their own. During a follow up visit on March 17, 2015, Falkovsky noted … that blood work had revealed that the decedent had anemia. Falkovsky believed the cause of the decedent’s symptoms was most likely a neoplasm, and referred the decedent to a gastroenterologist and a nephrologist. On March 19, 2015, the decedent was examined by a nephrologist, who noted … that the decedent had lower extremity edema. The decedent underwent an endoscopy with his gastroenterologist on March 25, 2015, which revealed … reflux and gastritis. A renal sonogram performed on April 11, 2015, showed that the decedent had a right renal cyst and a possible angeomyolipoma. The decedent died on April 16, 2015. An autopsy revealed that the decedent died as a result of atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. * * *

… [T]he opinions of the plaintiff’s expert were not speculative and conclusory … . The plaintiff’s expert opined, inter alia, that Falkovsky departed from the standard of care by failing to include cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis based upon the decedent’s symptoms in light of his medical history, and failing to order proper tests or to refer the decedent to a cardiologist for cardiac-related tests, which resulted in a lack of proper treatment that could have prevented the decedent’s death. Shirley v Falkovsky, 2022 NY Slip Op 04659, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: A conclusory or speculative expert affidavit will not raise a question of fact in a medical malpractice case. Here plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant doctor should have considered cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis, based on plaintiff’s symptoms, which included swelling of the lower extremities. Plaintiff died from his cardiac disease. Supreme Court should not have found plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit to have been speculative and conclusory and therefore should not have granted the doctor’s motion for summary judgment.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this asbestos-exposure case did not raise a question of fact about whether his exposure to asbestos was sufficient to have caused his cancer. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he installed defendant ABI’s vinyl floor tiles. Defendant presented evidence from simulation studies and plaintiff offered no expert evidence in opposition:

In Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am. (___ NY3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 02769 [2022]), the Court of Appeals, while recognizing its conclusion in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) that precise qualification of exposure to a toxin is not always required, stated that causation nonetheless requires plaintiff to provide proof of “sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . …

Plaintiff challenges the opinion proffered by ABI’s expert, who relied upon calculations arising from experiments funded by defendants, in determining that decedent was exposed, if at all, to asbestos in amounts similar to those in ambient air, an exposure insufficient to cause cancer. While the reliability of those calculations could pose an issue of credibility, the fact that they were performed by a paid expert does not automatically invalidate their conclusions. Plaintiff offered no expert to counter ABI’s calculation of decedent’s cumulative lifetime exposure, and thus no question of fact was raised as to its validity … . Killian v A.C. & S., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04610, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: Here defendant presented evidence of simulation studies to show that plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos was not sufficient to have caused his cancer and plaintiff presented no expert evidence in opposition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

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