You are here: / IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FATHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT...

Search Results

/ , ,

IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FATHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent-father had presented sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing on the best interests of the child:

Where … ” ‘a respondent moves to dismiss a modification proceeding at the conclusion of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept as true the petitioner’s proof and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn therefrom’ ” … . Here, the father testified that, at the time the order of custody and visitation was entered into and for a short time thereafter, the mother and the father were communicating effectively and, in addition to scheduled visitation, were able to agree to further overnight and weekend visitation. That arrangement subsequently changed, however, and the father could not get the mother to agree to any visitation time apart from his scheduled day. The father further testified that communication with the mother regarding additional visitation time essentially ended after he moved to a new home 30 miles away. Taking the father’s testimony as true and considering the circumstances of the father’s move and the development of “extreme acrimony between the parties,” we conclude that the father met his burden of showing a change in circumstances warranting an inquiry into the best interests of the child … . Matter of Cooley v Roloson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00534, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

/ , , ,

WHEN THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED BOTH TWO AND THREE-YEAR SENTENCES WERE MENTIONED; DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not clearly informed of the sentence, rendering his plea involuntary. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion, the Third Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

… [W]hen the terms of the plea agreement were placed on the record, it was stated that the prison term to be imposed would be two years. County Court then, in discussing defendant’s second felony offender status, stated that the prison term was three years but, thereafter, informed defendant that, if he violated any jail rules prior to sentencing, it would not be bound by the promise of a two-year prison term. The record does not reflect that there was any clarification or correction regarding the misstatements as to the agreed-upon sentence either during the plea colloquy or at sentencing before a three-year prison term was imposed. As “[t]he record thus fails to reveal that defendant was accurately advised of the essential terms and conditions of the plea agreement” … , we find that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. People v Lumpkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 00477, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S SITTING IN A DESK CHAIR (WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE BROKEN), LEANING BACK, FALLING BACKWARD AND INJURING HIS HEAD CONSTITUTED AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Comptroller, over a dissent, annulled the determination that petitioner police officer was not injured in an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner alleged he sat in a desk chair, leaned back and fell over striking his head. There was evidence the chair was broken:

Petitioner’s burden was to demonstrate that his disability arose out of an accident which, for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, is defined as “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” … . * * *

In our view, the incident as described constitutes an accident. Contrary to the findings of the Hearing Officer, whether the chair was broken prior to or during the fall is of no moment, as either way petitioner was unaware of any defect. In either situation, the collapse of a chair back would be a sudden, unexpected outcome for anyone who simply sits and leans back. Matter of Crone v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00481, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/ , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, held the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude this Sullivan County action, which sought to determine whether a 2017 election of the board of dIrectors of plaintiff religious corporation was valid. A prior action in Kings County determined a 2019 election of the board of directors of the same corporation was a nullity:

As defendants’ amended petition and the order of Supreme Court … in the Kings County proceeding reflect, the issue to be determined therein was the validity of the 2019 election, not the validity of the 2017 election. Defendants sought in that proceeding to declare the 2019 election a nullity and, as a result, enjoin the individual plaintiffs, purportedly elected in 2019, from acting as the board of directors. Indeed, the court went out of its way during oral argument in that matter to so limit the issue when it stated that it “want[ed] to be very clear that [it was] making no determination in this case as to whether [defendants] have any right to control the corporation by virtue of any acts that predated the [June 2019 election.]” The court further clarified “that [it] take[s] no position on the validity of any actions that [defendants] claim[] to have taken in 2017 and thereafter,” and added that the allegations relating to the 2017 election was part of “[t]he Sullivan County matter” which “is not before [it],” and that the proceeding “has nothing to do with the Sullivan County matter.” More importantly, the order signed by the court was so circumscribed, and granted the amended petition “to the sole extent that it [sought] to invalidate” the 2019 election. Congregation Machne Ger v Berliner, 2022 NY Slip Op 00483, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; HERE THE DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS REMEDY WAS LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the judicial estoppel doctrine applied and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the workers’ compensation affirmative defense in this personal injury action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured on the job. In the Workers’ Compensation proceeding defendants argued plaintiff was an not an employee. In this action defendants argued he was an employee and his recovery is limited to Workers’ Compensation:

… [T]he record makes clear that defendants, through Old Republic [insurance company], consistently advanced in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding the theory that plaintiff was not its employee. Old Republic, as the workers’ compensation carrier for defendants, was subsequently discharged from this proceeding. As such, defendants achieved its desired result after asserting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Although the record is not explicit as to the basis for the discharge of Old Republic from the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding, “[t]he policy behind judicial estoppel would not be served by limiting its application to cases where the legal position at issue was ruled upon in the context of a judgment” … .

In this action … defendants have taken a contrary position — i.e., plaintiff was employed by defendants as a special employee and, therefore, his sole remedy for compensation was to pursue workers’ compensation benefits. Allowing defendants to argue in this action that plaintiff was their employee, after they had disavowed an employer-employee relationship in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding and received a benefit from this position, would subvert the equitable policy behind the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Walker v GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00484, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE 14-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT DRIVER ACKNOWLEDGED HIS NEGLIGENCE ON THE STAND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the jury verdict finding the 14-year-old defendant driver of an all-terrain vehicle (a Gator) was not negligent was supported by the evidence. The Gator overturned and the 16-year-old passenger was injured. The defendant’s and plaintiff’s descriptions of the accident conflicted. The dissenters argued the defendant acknowledged he was negligent when he testified:

The jury heard … conflicting testimony regarding how defendant was driving at the time of the accident, whether that driving was what led to the Gator tipping over and whether defendant had any reason to believe that his actions posed a risk of harm given the acknowledged stability of the Gator and the fact that he and plaintiff had already performed several donuts without incident. It was for the jury to resolve these factual questions and determine whether defendant “fail[ed] to use that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same circumstances” and engaged in conduct posing a reasonably foreseeable risk to others … . ….

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant testified that he was 14 years old on the day of the accident, that he was operating the John Deere Gator Utility Vehicle (hereinafter Gator) and performing a “donut” at the time of the accident. He described a donut as “the action of turning the wheel of the vehicle while pressing the accelerator in order to get the back wheels to spin out.” He stated that he knew that the Gator was not intended as a recreational vehicle and also testified that, although he was aware of the manufacturer’s safety warnings pertaining to limitations on speed, the use of seat belts and the prohibition of anyone younger than 16 years old driving the vehicle, he disregarded many of those warnings at the time of the accident. Finally, he testified that, although he had always operated the Gator safely in the past, his parents were angry with him after this accident “because [he] was driving [the Gator] in a manner that was inconsistent with [his] entire past.” When asked if this manner was unsafe, defendant simply stated “yes.” Wright v O’Leary, 2022 NY Slip Op 00485, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/ ,

DESPITE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION EXCLUDING RESPONDENT FROM THE HOME, THE PETITIONER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE RESPONDENT WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; PEITIONER DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT HAD NEGLECTED THE CHILD BY COMMITTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence demonstrated respondent was a person legally responsible (PLR) for the child and respondent neglected the child by committing domestic violence in the child’s presence:

Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent was a person legally responsible (PLR) for the subject child, as well as for the child’s three older siblings. Respondent and the children’s mother were in a romantic relationship and lived together before the child was born, and they both represented to caseworkers that respondent was the child’s biological father. There is evidence that, although he was excluded from the home because of an order of protection against him, respondent maintained communication with the mother and slept at the home at least on occasion, sharing the mother’s bed. Respondent failed to appear or testify to dispute the evidence that he was the child’s biological father or a PLR for him … . The fact that respondent was excluded from the household before the child’s birth as a result of having committed acts of excessive corporal punishment against the child’s eldest sibling does not outweigh the evidence that demonstrates that he is a PLR for the child … . The finding that respondent is a PLR for the child is further supported by his failure to appear in court, “allowing the court to draw a negative inference against him” … . Matter of Tristian B. (Winston B.), 2022 NY Slip Op 00498, First Dept 1-27-22

 

/ , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION RE: A MISSING SURVEILLANCE TAPE; JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and setting aside the verdict, determined the trial judge should have given the adverse inference charge with respect to a missing video surveillance tape:

… [T]he court erred in declining to give an adverse inference charge with respect to a missing video surveillance tape. An order stating that plaintiff was entitled to such a charge had been issued during discovery upon plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126. Thus, the adverse inference charge was a discovery sanction, not a prospective evidentiary ruling … . While the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, that error was not harmless. Hegbeli v TJX Cos., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00502, First Dept 1-27-22

 

​

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was not liable to plaintiff, an employee of the contractor defendant hired to replace a staircase. Plaintiff was injured by a protruding screw attached to the new staircase:

… [D]efendant established prima facie that he did not create the allegedly unsafe condition in the unfinished staircase … . Although defendant testified that he tried to repair the old staircase before hiring the contractor, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the contractor removed the old staircase and that plaintiff was injured on a screw attached to the new staircase. The new staircase was built entirely by the contractor.

… [P]laintiff’s testimony that defendant gave the contractor instructions on where to place the staircase and general instructions on how he wanted the construction to proceed does not, without more, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant created the condition. On the contrary, the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor, as opposed to the giving of specific directions on how to do the work, cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal …

There is … no evidence in the record that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition in the unfinished staircase, as the protruding screw was not visible and apparent, nor is there any evidence showing that it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it … . Lara v Kadir, 2022 NY Slip Op 00504, First Dept 1-27-22

 

/

THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (12)) IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (1)); GUILTY PLEA VACACTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant pled to an offense which was not a lesser included offense of any offense in the indictment:

… [W]here the indictment charges two or more offenses in separate counts, a defendant may enter a plea of guilty to one or more of the offenses charged and/or lesser included offenses thereof” … . “For plea purposes only, lesser included offenses include not only those qualifying as such under the general statutory definition of lesser included crimes (CPL 1.20[37]), but also the specifically enumerated extensions of the lesser included offense concept, set forth in CPL 220.20(1)(a)-(k)” … .

Third-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of Penal Law § 220.16(12) is not a lesser included offense of third-degree possession in violation of Penal Law § 220.16(1). The former subsection was not charged in the indictment, does not qualify as a lesser included offense under the general statutory definition, and is not included in the class of crimes that are deemed lesser included offenses of criminal possession of a controlled substance pursuant to CPL 220.20(1)(i) … . People v Acosta, 2022 NY Slip Op 00509, First Dept 1-27-22

 

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