You are here: / THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DID NOT...

Search Results

/ , , ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE STATUTORY FACTORS SUPPORTING ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE FORMER INMATE TO WORK AS A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER; THEREFORE THE DENIAL WAS ARBITRARY; MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a certificate of good conduct (CGC) was not supported by the agency’s cursory rulings, rendering the denial arbitrary and requiring remittal for further proceedings. Petitioner, a former inmate with a sexual-offense conviction, sought the certificate of good standing in order to work as a school bus driver:

… [T]he challenged determination is a form letter with blanks to be filled in, and the Assistant Commissioner made no effort to explain his reasoning beyond checking a box next to a sentence stating that petitioner’s application was being denied because “[t]he relief to be granted by the [CGC] is inconsistent with public interest.” There is no question that such a “cursory letter decision,” which mentions only one of the statutory factors set forth in Correction Law § 703-b and offers no discussion of the “grounds for the denial[,] precludes meaningful review of the rationality of the decision” … .

… Correction Law article 23 requires more than a naked reliance on the crime of conviction, and the Assistant Commissioner’s affidavit … reflects that DOCCS “failed to comply with the statute and acted in an arbitrary manner” … . Although the record contains other information regarding the circumstances of petitioner’s conviction and his subsequent history that might render the denial of his application rational, a “court is powerless to sanction the determination by substituting what it deems a more appropriate or proper basis” … . Matter of Streety v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 02170, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: If an administrative agency issues a ruling which does adequately explain the statutory factors upon which the ruling is based, making a review of the bases of the ruling impossible, the ruling may be characterized as “arbitrary” and annulled.

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE VAPING ASSOCIATION PREVAILED IN ITS ACTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S REGULATIONS BANNING FLAVORED VAPING LIQUIDS, THE DEPARTMENT’S ACTION WAS “SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED;” THEREFORE THE VAPING ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent Public Health and Planning Council (within the NYS Department of Health) (the council) should not have been ordered to pay attorney’s fees to petitioner Vapor Technology Association (the vaping association) pursuant to the State Equal Access to Justice Act. The respondent council had adopted emergency regulations prohibiting flavored vaping liquids targeting young people. The petitioner vaping association brought a combined Article 78 and declaratory judgment action challenging the emergency regulations as exceeding the council’s regulatory authority. The Third Department granted the vaping association’s request for a temporary restraining order and Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction. The matter was rendered moot when the legislature banned the sale of the flavored electronic cigarette products. Because the vaping association had prevailed prior to the legislature’s prohibition, it sought and was awarded attorney’s fees:

CPLR 8601 (a) “mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … . * * *

Petitioners capably disputed respondents’ arguments and obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the emergency regulations, but a grant of temporary injunctive relief is not “an adjudication on the merits,” and we need not decide who would have prevailed had this matter proceeded to a final judgment … .. Upon our review, we are satisfied that respondents articulated a reasonable factual and legal basis for their arguments that the Council and the Commissioner acted within their rule-making authority by adopting the emergency regulations … . Thus, Supreme Court abused its discretion in finding that those arguments were not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a), and petitioners were not entitled to an award of counsel fees and expenses as a result … .Matter of Vapor Tech. Assn. v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 02171, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Even though a party which prevails against a state agency is generally entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to the State Equal Access to Justice Act, if the agency’s actions are deemed “substantially justified” attorney’s fees will not be awarded. Here the Department of Health’s adoption of emergency regulations banning the sale of flavored vaping liquids (targeting young people as a market) was deemed “substantially justified” by the appellate court. The award of attorney’s fees by Supreme Court was reversed.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action sounding in medical malpractice by alleging the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent against decedent’s wishes and the wishes of his health-care agents prolonged his pain and suffering. This action was distinguished from the “wrongful life” line of case which held that being born alive with disabilities does not constitute an injury in New York [therefore a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging the parents should have been advised to terminate the pregnancy does not state a cause of action]. Supreme Court had based its dismissal of the complaint on a Second Department case (Cronin) which followed the “wrongful life” line of reasoning. The First Department refused to follow the Second Department:

… [In] Cronin, it appears that plaintiff sought damages based on a claim “that the defendant wrongfully prolonged the decedent’s life by resuscitating him against the express instructions of the decedent and his family” (Cronin, 60 AD3d at 804). In contrast, here, plaintiff seeks damages for decedent’s pain and suffering, which the complaint alleges was the result of medical malpractice in that defendants breached the standard of care by administering treatments without consent and in direct contravention of decedent’s wishes expressed in his advance directives as reaffirmed by his health care agents … .Greenberg v Montefiore New Rochelle Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02194, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: A decision in one appellate-division department does not bind another department. Here the “wrongful life” line of cases did not preclude a medical malpractice action alleging the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent against decedent’s wishes and against the wishes of decedent’s health-care agents prolonged decedent’s pain and suffering.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT ADDRESS THE OPINION OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice case, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs’ expert did not address the defendants’ expert’s opinion. The defense expert averred plaintiff’s problems were caused by cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert took the position plaintiff never had cancer, a position contradicted by the record:

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through their expert, who averred that defendants’ treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care and any difficulties with the treatment were caused by plaintiff’s underlying cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert failed to address that opinion, and thus failed to rebut defendants’ showing of entitlement to summary judgment … . Instead, the expert took the position that plaintiff never had cancer, a fact contradicted by the record … .. While plaintiff’s cancer had an unusual presentation, and pathologists initially disagreed as to whether she had an invasive jaw cancer, she was ultimately successfully treated by oncologists with surgery, radiation, and gene therapy. Plaintiffs’ expert entirely ignored plaintiff’s treatment from 2016 to 2017 for a rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma, as well as her 2018 treatment for a reoccurrence … . Given those omissions, plaintiffs did not rebut defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary dismissal of the negligence and medical malpractice claims against them…. . Mulroe v New York-Presbyt. Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02204, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: If the defendants’ expert in a med mal case makes a prima facie showing defendants’ treatment was within the standard of care and the plaintiffs’ expert does not address that opinion, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. Med mal cases, at the summary judgment stage, turn on the experts’ affidavits. Every argument raised by the movant’s expert must be addressed by the plaintiff’s expert to raise a question of fact.

/ , , ,

THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wife was entitled to maintenance in this divorce proceeding. The parties had been married for 44 years. The wife’s income was around $31,000 and the husband’s income was around $117,000. Both were retired. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court did not give any indication of its rationale for rejecting the wife’s application and adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“The amount and duration of a maintenance award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties’ predivorce standard of living are considered” … .. “The court need not articulate every factor it considers, but it must provide a reasoned analysis of the factors it ultimately relies upon in awarding or declining to award maintenance” … .

Supreme Court wholly adopted verbatim the husband’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, without articulating the factors it considered or providing a reasoned analysis for its rulings on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. “[F]indings of fact submitted pursuant to CPLR 4213 (a) cannot constitute the decision of the court [as] mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g)” … . Although Supreme Court failed to set forth its rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance, “because our authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, we need not remit this issue” … . Louie v Louie, 2022 NY Slip Op 02172, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce proceeding the judge did not give any indication of the rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance and wholly adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact cannot constitute a court’s decision. Rather than remitting the matter, the Third Department awarded maintenance.

 

/ ,

PETITIONER STARTED PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE EXECUTOR’S HANDLING OF DECEDENT’S ASSETS IN SURROGATE’S COURT; AFTER RELIEF WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER STARTED SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT, A COURT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; THE EXECUTOR’S MOTION TO TRANSFER THAT PROCEEDING TO SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that Surrogate’s Court, not Supreme Court, was the proper forum for this proceeding concerning respondent-executor’s handling of decedent’s assets. Both respondent and petitioner are decedent’s children. Petitioner had commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Court, and, after the requested relief was denied without prejudice, petitioner commenced a similar proceeding in Supreme Court:

“Supreme Court and . . . Surrogate’s Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters involving decedents’ estates” … . Generally, where courts share concurrent jurisdiction, “it should continue to be exercised by that one whose process was first issued. Moreover, wherever possible, all litigation involving the property and funds of a decedent’s estate should be disposed of in . . . Surrogate’s Court” … . Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to transfer to Surrogate’s Court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion … . * * *

Petitioner challenges the propriety of transactions allegedly made in breach of respondent’s fiduciary duty to decedent while decedent was alive, involving assets that would have become part of decedent’s estate. This matter falls squarely within the purview of Surrogate’s Court … . Since “all the relief requested may be obtained in . . . Surrogate’s Court and . . . Surrogate’s Court has already acted,” we find that Supreme Court should have granted respondent’s motion seeking to transfer the proceeding … . Matter of McNeil v McNeil, 2022 NY Slip Op 02173, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Surrogate’s Court and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction. Here a matter concerning the executor’s handling of decedent’s assets was commenced in Surrogate’s Court, and after relief was denied there, a second similar matter was commenced in Supreme Court. The executor’s motion to transfer the second proceeding to Surrogate’s Court should have been granted.

 

/ ,

THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing two of defendant’s burglary convictions, determined the hospital from which laptops were stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes:

Defendant’s convictions under counts three and four of the indictment, regarding the 2017 thefts of laptop computers from the Physicians & Surgeons Building at Columbia University Medical Center, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence of the “dwelling” element of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.00[3]). There was no evidence that patients stayed overnight in this building. The People’s reliance on Penal Law § 140.00(2) is unavailing, because no “unit” within the building is a dwelling. Although the building was part of a large campus covering several blocks, there was insufficient evidence that this building provided defendant with ready access via connecting elevators, stairwells, or corridors to other buildings, where hospital patients stayed overnight and which was, in any event, at a considerable distance … . People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02205, First Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here a hospital from which laptops had been stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes.

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when a prospective juror said travel plans prohibited her from serving beyond the projected last day of the trial:

During jury selection, the court advised the panel that the trial could last until April 17, 2018. The panelist at issue stated that she “absolutely” could not serve on April 18, because she had irrevocable travel plans for that day. When defense counsel said that “we are starting to get closer to the 16th, 17th,” and asked whether she “may not be able to give [her] best attention” if “we started moving in that direction,” the panelist said, “Yes.” Counsel challenged this panelist for cause because of the concern that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial due to her travel constraints. In the alternative, counsel sought to question this panelist further. The court denied the challenge because it believed that the trial “should never even get that close.” Defendant was compelled to exercise his final peremptory challenge against this panelist. The court should have granted defendant’s request for further inquiry to determine her ability to serve … . Given that her travel plans precluded her from serving a single day beyond the court’s estimated outer limit for the trial, the panelist gave the impression that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial, as she stated, and that, if selected, she might have been biased in favor of reaching a verdict quickly … . People v Bowman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02208, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here a prospective juror had firm travel plans and therefore could not serve beyond the projected last day of the trial. The judge should have inquired further when defense counsel suggested she may have difficulty focusing on the trial. The juror may have been biased in favor of a quick verdict. Defense counsel used a peremptory challenge; new trial ordered.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THAT GROUND, THE DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S “LIMITED APPEARANCE” AT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an attorneys “limited appearance” at a foreclosure settlement conference provided the court with jurisdiction over matter despite the fact defendants demonstrated they were not properly served with the summons and complaint:

… [A]n attorney appeared in the action on behalf of the defendants by filing notices of appearance that represented that counsel was making “a limited appearance for the settlement conference pursuant to CPLR Rule 3408.” However, neither the defendants nor counsel for the defendants raised any objection to personal jurisdiction at that time by either a timely motion to dismiss on that ground or by interposing a timely answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction … . Although the notices of appearance purported to limit counsel’s appearance to the foreclosure settlement conferences, “such language ‘is not a talisman to protect the defendant[s] from [their] failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve [their] defense of lack of personal jurisdiction'” … . Since the defendants had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to timely assert it, that defense was not a proper basis on which to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale … . US Bank N.A. v Chkifati, 2022 NY Slip Op 02151, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendants proved they were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action and Supreme Court granted their motion to vacate the judgment. However the appellate court reversed because the defendants’ attorney’s “limited appearance” for the settlement conferenced provided the court with jurisdiction (just as if defendants had been properly served).

 

/ , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEND DEFENDANT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was entitled to summary judgment because the bank did not send the notice of default in a separate envelope as required by RPAPL 1304:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304(2) states that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.”

The defendant established that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304, on the ground that additional material was sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hinds, 2022 NY Slip Op 02150, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the borrower’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint was granted because the bank sent the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 in an envelope along with other materials, violating the “separate envelope” rule.

 

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