You are here: / MOTHER’S MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY AND THE FACT THAT MOTHER...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTHER’S MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY AND THE FACT THAT MOTHER AND CHILD TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’S BIRTH WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE NEGLECT; NEW YORK HAS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA USE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s marijuana use during pregnancy, and the fact that mother and the child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth, were insufficient to demonstrate neglect:

… [T]he evidence that the mother smoked marijuana while pregnant with her youngest daughter, and that the mother and child both tested positive for marijuana at the time of the birth, is insufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a finding that the child was physically, mentally or emotionally impaired, or was in imminent danger of being impaired … . Here, as acknowledged by the agency, there was no evidence that the mother’s marijuana use impacted her judgment or behavior, or that the child was impaired or placed in imminent risk of impairment by the mother’s drug use … . Furthermore, the finding of neglect based solely on use of marijuana, without a finding of actual or imminent impairment of the child’s physical or emotional condition, is inconsistent with this State’s public policy legalizing marijuana, as reflected in the recent amendment to the Family Court Act (Family Court Act § 1046[a][iii] …). Matter of Saaphire A.W. (Lakesha B.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02382, First Dept 4-12-22

Practice Point: Because marijuana use has been legalized, proof mother smoked marijuana and mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth was not enough to demonstrate neglect. There must be proof, for example, that mother’s judgment was affected or the child was harmed in some way.

 

/ , ,

THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DISCOVERABLE MATERIALS TO THE DEFENDANT UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ALLOW THE ISSUES TO BE FULLY LITIGATED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the protective order upon an expedited review (CPL 245.70), determined that defense counsel should have been provided with the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial:

Inasmuch as the People offered no basis to withhold these materials from defense counsel and, in fact, pursuant to the proposed order submitted by the People, defense counsel would be permitted to access them as soon as County Court signed the order, the better practice would have been to permit defense counsel access to the application and materials prior to the hearing on the protective order so that counsel could participate in it to the fullest extent practicable. …

Defense counsel should, with the appropriate caveat not to disclose them to or discuss their contents with his client pending determination of the application, be permitted to view the application and the materials at issue and thereby meaningfully participate in the hearing before County Court in order to advocate on behalf of his client and assist in reaching an appropriate outcome. Accordingly, the instant application should be granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing following further disclosure to defense counsel. People v Escobales, 2022 NY Slip Op 02354, Third Dept 4-8-22

Practice Point: Here County Court should have disclosed to defense counsel the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial. Without the application, defense counsel could not fully litigate the issues. (The People had no objection to disclosing the withheld materials to defense counsel as soon as the requested order of protection was signed.)

 

/

LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined plaintiff’s allegation his restaurant lost business because of COVID did not constitute “direct physical loss or damage” within the meaning of the business-interruption insurance policy:

This appeal concerns the issue of whether the actual or possible presence of COVID-19 in plaintiff’s restaurants caused “direct physical loss or damage” to its property, within the meaning of the insurance policy that plaintiff purchased from defendant. The issue of whether business interruptions due to COVID-19 is caused by direct “physical” damage to property presents an issue of first impression for an appellate court in New York. This Court has, however, previously construed the phrase “direct physical loss or damage” in other contexts involving similar insurance contracts. As more fully explained below, we hold that where a policy specifically states that coverage is triggered only where there is “direct physical loss or damage” to the insured property, the policy holder’s inability to fully use its premises as intended because of COVID-19, without any actual, discernable, quantifiable change constituting “physical” difference to the property from what it was before exposure to the virus, fails to state a cause of action for a covered loss. Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Ins. Corp, 2022 NY Slip Op 02336, First Dept 4-7-22

​Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged his restaurant lost business due to COVID. The business-interruption insurance policy does not cover the loss.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION (AMONG OTHERS) THAT HIS ACCENT WAS MOCKED, BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTATE HIS DEMOTION WAS RELATED TO SUCH ANIMUS; THERFORE THE DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law stemming from his demotions should have been dismissed:

The discrimination claims should not have been allowed to proceed. Defendants proffered evidence supporting several legitimate reasons for demoting him from his provisional managerial position, including (1) an agency-wide restructuring, (2) plaintiff’s lack of accounting and management skills, and (3) evidence that he was a poor manager whose routinely hostile demeanor demoralized his subordinates, as evidenced by complaints made against him by several of those subordinates …  In the face of this evidence, plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence raising an issue of fact as to whether these reasons were mere pretext for discrimination (under the State HRL) or whether discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the demotion (under the City HRL) … . Plaintiff presented no evidence of any disparity between defendants’ treatment of him and defendants’ treatment of employees of other races or ethnicities under similar circumstances. While plaintiff’s allegations of remarks that could be interpreted as derogatory or indicative of animus suffice to support the hostile work environment claim … plaintiff fails to identify any evidence connecting such animus, if any, to the decision to demote him … . Kwong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02342, First Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Facts sufficient to state a cause of action for a hostile work environment do not necessarily state a cause of action for employment discrimination. A connection must be made between the hostile work environment claims (here allegations plaintiff’s accent was mocked) and the discrimination (here a demotion).

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS SENTENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM MAKING “ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS” WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the judge who denied defendant’s second motion to set aside his sentence should not have precluded defendant from making “additional applications” without the permission of the court:

We … agree with defendant that County Court abused its discretion in ordering that prior court approval was required before any further motions were filed. Notably, the authority cited by County Court — 22 NYCRR part 130-1.1 — by its own terms applies to only civil actions or proceedings (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Moreover, even if such authority does exist in a criminal action … , defendant has not engaged in sufficiently excessive, protracted and/or unwarranted litigation as to justify such action here. … . People v Maloy, 2022 NY Slip Op 02312, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Here the court abused its discretion in prohibiting defendant, who had made two motions to set aside his sentence, from making additional motions without permission from the court. It is questionable whether a judge has that authority on the criminal, as opposed to civil, side.

 

/

HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 a nd 240(1) causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was told to deliver sheetrock through an opening where heavy double barn doors were being restored. The hinges had been removed and the doors were held in place by wooden wedges. The doors fell on plaintiff. The Third Department found there were questions of fact whether the doors presented a dangerous condition (Labor Law 200), an elevation-related hazard (Labor Law 240(1), and whether the project was commercial in nature such that the homeowner exemption did not apply. With regard to the homeowner exemption, the court wrote:

Although Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners to protect workers engaged in construction-related activities, “the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … . “That exemption, however, is not available to an owner who uses or intends to use the dwelling only for commercial purposes” … .

… [D]efendants, as the parties seeking the benefit of the statutory exemption, had the burden of establishing that the property was not being used solely for commercial purposes … . This they failed to do. [Defendant’s] deposition testimony established that he is a professional musician and that the structure was being altered to use as a music studio and a photography workspace. Moreover, defendants failed to submit an affidavit addressing whether they intended to use the structure for commercial or noncommercial purposes. [W]e find that defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the homeowner exemption as a matter of law and that a question of fact exists regarding the application of the homeowner exemption … .Hawver v Steele, 2022 NY Slip Op 02322, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: The homeowner exemption to Labor Law liability does not apply where the construction is for commercial purposes. Here the defendants did not demonstrate the renovation of a barn for use as a music studio was not for commercial purposes. Therefore defendants motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

A PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTER INJURED WHILE TRAINING TO COMPLETE A FIRE BASIC TRAINING PROGRAM WAS INJURED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ENTITLING HIM TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A DISBILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined Supreme Court properly found petitioner, a probationary firefighter, was entitled to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a. The fact that petitioner was injured while training for a test required for the completion of a fire basic training program did not mean petitioner was not injured in the performance of his duties, as argued by the city:

Although petitioner’s injury did not occur in the course of his actual performance of the required test, successful completion of the candidate physical ability test was a necessary requirement of petitioner’s position, and petitioner was engaged in the expected and foreseeable task of practicing for that test during a mandatory training program that was part of his duties as a probationary firefighter … . The record further reflects that petitioner was attending the Fire Academy at the direction of the City, that the training was paid for by the City and that petitioner was receiving full pay for his attendance and participation in the program. Mindful that, as a remedial statute, General Municipal Law § 207-a “should be liberally construed in favor of the injured employees the statute was designed to protect” … , we find that the requisite causal relationship exists between petitioner’s job duties and his injury … . Matter of Smith v City of Norwich, 2022 NY Slip Op 02324, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: A probationary firefighter injured while training to complete a fire basic training program was injured in the “performance of his duties” and is therefore entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a disability benefits.

 

/ ,

IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a composite material used at the top of a staircase was inappropriate for that purpose because the surface became slippery when wet from rain. The Second Department found that the defendants did not demonstrate they did not have constructive knowledge of the condition, mainly because the evidence relied upon was inadmissible hearsay. But the Second Department also noted the plaintiff must show more than the creation of a dangerous condition to hold the defendants liable. It must also be shown the defendants knew or should have known of the danger:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants may not be held liable merely because they created the allegedly dangerous condition by directing the installation of the composite decking material on the landing. “[A]bsent a statute imposing strict liability, a defendant may not be held liable for creating a dangerous or defective condition upon property unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge of the danger created” … . San Antonio v 340 Ridge Tenants Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02298, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: It may be an obvious point, but in order to hold a property owner liable for creating a dangerous condition, the plaintiff must not only show that the defendant created the condition, but also that the defendant was aware of the danger. In this case the defendant installed a composite flooring at the top of a stairwell which allegedly became slippery when wet. Just proving the defendant installed the floor and that the floor became slippery when wet would not be enough.

 

/

BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUDED CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY FIRST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the sentence and dismissing the count, determined burglary second is a lesser included concurrent count of burglary first:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree under Penal Law § 140.25(2), as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated and that count dismissed as a lesser included concurrent count of burglary in the first degree under Penal Law § 140.30(4) (see CPL 300.40[3][b] …). People v Joseph, 2022 NY Slip Op 02282, Second Dept 4-6-22

 

/ ,

THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined New York did not haver jurisdiction over father’s petition for child support. The original child support order was issued in Virginia, where father resides. Therefore the New York petition was a petition for modification of the Virginia order, which cannot be addressed by a New York court:

The mother and the father are the parents of a child who was born in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2007. In September 2020, the father commenced the instant proceeding in New York for child support pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B; hereinafter UIFSA). * * *

“Under the [Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act] and UIFSA, the state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its child support orders so long as an individual contestant continues to reside in the issuing state” … . “Accordingly, a state may modify the issuing state’s order of child support only when the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” … . …

Here … support for the parties’ child was previously awarded to the mother in an order issued by a court within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to the filing of the father’s petition. Accordingly … his petition was in the nature of a “modification” petition, rather than a “de novo” application … . Since the father resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that entity retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of its child support order, and New York does not have jurisdiction to modify it … . Matter of Salim v Freeman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02268, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: The original child support order was issued in Virginia, where father resides. Father’s New York petition for child support, therefore, was not a “de novo” petition, but rather was a petition for modification of the Virginia order, which a New York court cannot entertain.

 

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