You are here: / FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING,...

Search Results

/ , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, DIRECT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH A SUITABLE PERSON MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PLACEMENT IN THE “CARE OF AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY” SUCH THAT A PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE AFTER DIRECT PLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN TERMINATED WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED, THE “EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE” WAS INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, considering the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine in this neglect/termination-of-parental rights proceeding, determined that direct placement of the child with a suitable person met the definition of placement in the “care of an authorized agency” for purposes of the pre-requisite for a permanent neglect proceeding seeking to terminate parental rights. Family Court had ruled placement with a suitable person was not placement in the “care of an authorized agency” and dismissed the permanent neglect proceeding on that ground. The Third Department, after finding the permanent neglect proceeding should not have been dismissed, went ahead and ruled on the merits, finding that mother had permanently neglected the child:

… [W]e find Family Court’s interpretation of Social Services Law § 384-b too narrow and calling for a result that is “unnecessarily circuitous” … and ultimately contrary to the stated legislative intent (see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [1] [a]-[b]). A proceeding for termination of parental rights may be originated by an “authorized agency” such as petitioner … , seeking an order for guardianship and custody when a child is a permanently neglected child … . A “permanently neglected child” is defined as “a child who is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent or custodian has failed for a period of either at least one year or [15] out of the most recent [22] months . . . substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child” … .

Regarding the phrase “care of an authorized agency,” courts have consistently held that a direct placement authorized by Family Court, like the order of fact-finding and disposition issued … pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1055, falls within the purview of Social Services Law § 384-b. Matter of Frank Q. (Laurie R.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02843, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: For purposes of the prerequisite for a permanent neglect/termination-of-parental rights proceeding, a child’s direct placement with a suitable person meets the definition of placement in the “care of an authorized agency” such that the permanent neglect proceeding is available after direct placement for one year. Here, the mother’s parental rights had been terminated at the time the appeal was considered, but the “exception to the mootness doctrine” was invoked because the issue was deemed likely to recur.

 

/ ,

THE ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED HEARING INCLUDED 80 QUESTIONS POSED TO A WITNESS BY COUNSEL BUT ONLY FOUR ANSWERS WERE AUDIBLE; NEW HEARING WITH A STENOGRAPHER ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the record on appeal was insufficient and ordered a new hearing with a stenographer. The hearing was electronically recorded. Counsel ask a witness 80 questions but only four answers were audible. Matter of Jereline Z. v Joseph AA., 2022 NY Slip Op 02848, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: If a hearing is electronically recorded but most of a significant witness’s answers are inaudible, the appeal cannot be considered. Here a new hearing with a stenographer was ordered.

 

/

PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A COMMENT TO A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AT A SOCIAL GATHERING, WAS FOUND GUILTY AND WAS TERMINATED; THE EMPLOYEE TESTIFIED THE REMARK WAS MADE AT THE WORKPLACE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CONDUCT THAT WAS NEVER CHARGED; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination terminating petitioner’s employment with the state, found that petitioner’s due process rights were violated because he was found guilty of conduct that was never charged. Petitioner was charged with making a comment to a fellow employee at a social gathering. But the employee testified the remark was made at the workplace:

Pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (1), a civil service employee “shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty . . . except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges.” “The standard of review of such a determination made after a disciplinary hearing is whether it is supported by substantial evidence” … . “The first fundamental of due process is notice of the charges made. This principle equally applies to an administrative proceeding for even in that forum no person may lose substantial rights because of wrongdoing shown by the evidence, but not charged” …  Fundamentally, the determination made in a disciplinary proceeding “must be based on the charges made” and it is error to find a public employee guilty of uncharged specifications of misconduct and impose a penalty thereon … . Matter of Kiyonaga v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2022 NY Slip Op 02850, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Civil Service Law, a state employee charged with official misconduct is entitled to due process, including notice of the charges. Here the petitioner was charged with making a comment to a fellow employee at a social gathering. The employee testified the remark was made in the workplace, conduct that was never charged. Petitioner was improperly found guilty of misconduct that was never charged and was terminated. The determination was annulled.

 

/

WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CLEANING WORK IS “ROUTINE;” “ROUTINE” CLEANING WORK IS NOT COVERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determine plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted. The issue was whether plaintiff was injured doing “cleaning” work covered by the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff was doing “routine” work, which therefore did not qualify as “cleaning” under Labor Law 240(1). The facts were not explained:

Labor Law § 240 (1) requires certain contractors and property owners to provide adequate safety devices when workers engage in particular tasks involving elevation-related risks. To recover under section 240 (1) for an injury caused by a failure to provide such safety devices, plaintiffs must first show that they were engaged in one of that section’s enumerated activities including, among others, “cleaning.” To determine whether an activity is “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute, courts apply a four-factor analysis (see Soto v J. Crew Inc., 21 NY3d 562, 568 [2013]). The first factor considers whether the work is “routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises” (id. [emphasis added]). This factor does not involve a fact-specific assessment of a plaintiff’s regular tasks—it instead asks whether the type of work would be expected to recur with relative frequency as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of a commercial property (see id. at 569).

Here, plaintiff’s work was “routine” within the meaning of the first factor, which therefore weighs against concluding that he was “cleaning.” “[V]iewed in totality,” the Soto factors do not “militate in favor of placing the task” in the category of “cleaning” (id. at 568-569). Healy v EST Downtown, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02836, CtApp 4-28-22

​Practice Point: Injury while “cleaning” is not covered under Labor Law 240(1) if it is “routine.”

 

/ , ,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; THERE WAS A DEFENSE VERDICT AFTER TRIAL; THE ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division order denying summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case did not “affect the final judgment” after trial. Therefore the order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals:

The 2018 Appellate Division order may be reviewed on appeal from a final paper only if, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a), the nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment. “It is difficult to distill a rule of general applicability regarding the ‘necessarily affects’ requirement” … and “[w]e have never attempted, and we do not now attempt, a generally applicable definition” … . That said, to determine whether a nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment, in cases where the prior order “str[uck] at the foundation on which the final judgment was predicated” we have inquired whether “reversal would inescapably have led to a vacatur of the judgment” … . This is not such a case. In other cases, we have asked whether the nonfinal order “necessarily removed [a] legal issue from the case” so that “there was no further opportunity during the litigation to raise the question decided by the prior non-final order” … .

In resolving plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division held that factual questions existed as to whether a statutory violation occurred and as to proximate cause, or more specifically as to whether plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . That nonfinal order did not remove any issues from the case. Rather, the question of proximate cause and liability was left undecided. The parties had further opportunity to litigate those issues and in fact did so during the jury trial. Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02835, CtApp 4-28-22

Practice Point: A nonfinal order is not appealable to the Court of Appeals unless it “affects the final judgment.” If questions of fact remain after the nonfinal order is issued, the order does not “affect the final judgment” and is not appealable. Here the nonfinal order was the Appellate Division’s denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The order left open factual questions resolved at trial. Therefore the order did not “affect the final judgment.”

 

/ ,

THE CURRENT GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, AS WELL AS FORMER GOVERNOR CUOMO, ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS SUIT PURSUANT TO THE STATE FINANCE LAW CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SALARY INCREASES FOR THOSE PARTIES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action under the State Finance Law challenging the constitutionality of the salary increases for governor and lieutenant governor should have included the current Governor and Lieutenant Governor, as well as former Governor Cuomo, as necessary parties:

CPLR 1001 (a) provides that “[p]ersons . . . who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants.” When such a person “has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him [or her] summoned” … . This requirement protects the right to due process by providing such a person the opportunity to be heard before his or her interests are adversely affected … .

… [T]he interests of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are not necessarily being represented or protected by defendant and his counsel — the Attorney General, who would also typically represent those other state officials … ;. We cannot determine whether the Governor and Lieutenant Governor will necessarily support and integrate defendant’s argument that the resolution is constitutional; indeed, they may argue against its constitutionality, to establish precedent that would prevent a potential future intra-term diminution of their salaries. Accordingly, and as the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are subject to its jurisdiction, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s request that those officers be joined as necessary parties and ordered them summoned (see CPLR 1001 [b] …). Arrigo v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 02845, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to CPLR 1001, parties within the jurisdiction of the court must be added as necessary parties if the ultimate ruling could have an adverse effect on them.

 

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case should not have been awarded summary judgment. Plaintiff used an A-frame ladder in a closed position because of limited space. While rerouting pipes in the ceiling, plaintiff received an electric shock and fell to the floor. The majority found questions of fact were raised about whether the ladder failed to protect plaintiff and whether other safety devices should have been provided:

An “accident alone” is insufficient to establish a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) or causation … . Moreover, Labor Law § 240 (1) is designed to protect against “harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . We agree with the dissent below that plaintiff was not entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Indeed, questions of fact exist as to whether “the ladder failed to provide proper protection,” whether “plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices,” and whether the ladder’s purported inadequacy or the absence of additional safety devices was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident … . Cutaia v Board of Mgrs. of the 160/170 Varick St. Condominium, 2022 NY Slip Op 02834, CtApp 4-28-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was apparently electrocuted while standing on a closed A-frame ladder and fell to the floor. The happening of the accident alone did not establish that the ladder failed to protect plaintiff or that other safety equipment should have been provided to plaintiff. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. There was a three-judge dissenting opinion.

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR AND DID NOT SUBMIT AN ADEQUATE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ACTION IS DEEMED ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not submit sufficient evidence to support a late motion for default judgment against the borrower. The bank did not offer a reasonable excuse for failure to take proceedings for a default judgment within a year, and did not submit a sufficient lost note affidavit. The Second Department deemed the action abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its failure to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement part … .

Further, a plaintiff moving for leave to enter default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original note … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment did not identify who conducted the search for the lost note or explain when or how the note was lost … . LaSalle Bank N.A. v Carlton, 2022 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: If the bank does not present an adequate excuse for failing to take proceedings for a default judgment in a foreclosure action within one year, the action will be deemed abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215.

 

/

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined conflicting facts precluded summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. Plaintiff alleged the ladder was unsecured and shifted when he attempted to descend. The defendant alleged plaintiff told his supervisor he lost his balance and jumped off the ladder which raised a question whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the ladder shifted to the right and backwards, as the plaintiff testified, or whether the plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of the subject accident. The defendants submitted an affidavit from the plaintiff’s supervisor, who averred that the plaintiff had told him, just after the accident occurred while he was still on the roof, that he had lost his balance as he descended the ladder and jumped off the ladder. The different versions of the accident given by the plaintiff create triable issues of fact that required denial of the motion, including a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Jurski v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02783, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Evidence that plaintiff told his supervisor he lost his balance and jumped from the ladder created a triable issue of fact about whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident in this Labor Law 240(1) action.

/ , ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE LAID AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION FOR THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE, A CONDITION PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the evidence that the bank had standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient and the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage, a condition precedent. Although the affidavit submitted by the bank laid a sufficient foundation for the business records described in the affidavit, the records themselves were not submitted:

Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissable hearsay” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Boursiquot, 2022 NY Slip Op 02782, Second Dept 4-27-22

Similar issue (failure to submit records referenced in affidavits) and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Tesoriero, 2022 NY Slip Op 02830, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Even if an affidavit lays a proper foundation for business records, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay if the records themselves are not also submitted.

 

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