You are here: / THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION...

Search Results

/ ,

THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL LICENSE HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Pistol License Section’s (PLS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a pistol licenses had a rational basis and should not have been annulled:

… [T]he denial of the petitioner’s application for a pistol license had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The PLS’s investigation of the petitioner’s application revealed a lengthy history of domestic incidents that involved, at various points, the petitioner, the petitioner’s wife, a close family member of the petitioner, and the close family member’s domestic partner. These incidents included heated verbal disputes, arguments where property was damaged, shoving matches, and a situation where the close family member wielded a loaded shotgun in the presence of police officers. During many of these incidents, the close family member was intoxicated; in several others, the close family member threatened suicide. These incidents provided a rational basis for denying the petitioner’s application … . Moreover, the petitioner’s rationale for not disclosing these incidents to the PLS—that the close family member was not a member of the petitioner’s “household” because the close family member lived in an allegedly private basement apartment in the petitioner’s home—was misleading and provided a “rational basis for the [PLS] to conclude that [the] petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard” … . Matter of Franzese v Ryder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07285, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the jury instruction for the “open run” defense was proper. Plaintiff was lying near train tracks with one leg over the rails when he was struck by the defendant’s train at night. The “open run” defense allows the train operator to proceed normally when someone is seen ahead on the tracks and assume he or she will get out of the way. The question raised by this case is whether the “open run” defense applies only in the daylight hours. The Second Department held the trial judge properly concluded the defense applied at night because the sound of the train would be heard by, and the light from the train would be seen to, anyone on the tracks. Although the jury was instructed on the “open run” defense, the uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated the train personnel sounded the horn and initiated an emergency stop when plaintiff was first spotted on the tracks. Any error in the jury instruction, therefore, would have been harmless:

… [W]e hold that the open run defense is not exclusively limited to cases involving daytime train accidents, but rather may be applicable under any circumstances in which an oncoming train would be readily observable to a person on or near the tracks making reasonable use of his or her senses. Kunnemeyer v Long Is. R.R., 2021 NY Slip Op 07281, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/ , ,

THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined Family Court did lose jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding when complainant turned 21. The court noted that even if the complainant is incapacitated (but not judicially declared incompetent) Family Court has jurisdiction:

In the context of a family offense proceeding, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is generally confined to whether a qualifying offense has been committed between parties in a qualifying relationship (see Family Ct Act §§ 115[e]; 812[1] … ), irrespective of the complainant’s age. Thus, the fact that the complainant attained the age of 21 during the hearing did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

To the extent the respondent’s motion may be construed as challenging the petitioner’s ability to prosecute this matter in a representative capacity for the complainant, this does not amount to a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the proceeding … . Indeed, “[a]n incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person” … , and courts must not “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such” … . Rather, insofar as the record raises questions of fact as to whether the complainant may require the assistance of a guardian ad litem to protect her interests, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s request to appoint a guardian to the extent of conducting a hearing to determine whether such an appointment was necessary pursuant to CPLR 1201… . Matter of Vellios v Vellios, 2021 NY Slip Op 07276, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/ , ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS OFFERED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR THE RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine the evidentiary foundation for the business records submitted by plaintiff bank (JPMorgan) in this foreclosure action was inadequate:

JPMorgan submitted, among other things, the affidavit of Nathan Abelin, a document management specialist for FNMA’s loan servicer, Seturus, Inc. (hereinafter Seturus), who, based upon his review of business records, attested to the defendant’s default in payment, JPMorgan’s standing to commence the action, and JPMorgan’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Although Abelin averred that he was personally familiar with Seturus’s record-keeping practices and procedures, the business records he relied upon and attached to the affidavit were created by JPMorgan and another entity. Abelin failed to lay a proper foundation for these records because he did not aver either that he had personal knowledge of those entities’ business practices and procedures, or that the records “were incorporated into [Seturus’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Seturus] in its own business”… . Accordingly, Abelin’s affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Allanah, 2021 NY Slip Op 07269, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/

A SENTENCE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE PURSUANT TO A CPL 440.20 MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence should not have been granted. A sentence may not be set aside as excessive pursuant to a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.20 motion:

The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion, and resentenced the … .

To the extent that the Supreme Court set aside the sentence as excessive, such determination was in error, as a “claim that [a] sentence is excessive may not be raised on a CPL 440.20 motion” … .

[T]he defendant did not show that the sentence should be set aside as illegal or unauthorized (see CPL 440.20). The sentence did not violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as there existed no exceptional circumstances warranting modification of the terms of imprisonment, which were within the statutory limits … . People v Chambers, 2021 NY Slip Op 07267, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/ , , , , ,

WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined the party-statement exception to the privilege afforded statements made in a peer-review “quality assurance” committee’s review of the medical treatment afforded a patient applied to all of the statements made by speakers who were not identified in the meeting minutes. The defendants, who were asserting the privilege, were unable to demonstrate the statements attributed in the minutes to the “committee” were not made by a party and therefore not subject to the party-statement exception to the privilege. In other words, the statements made at the meeting by unidentified speakers were discoverable by the plaintiff in this medical malpractice action:

Requiring a defendant who is asserting the quality-assurance privilege to identify who made the statements at a medical or quality assurance review meeting, so as to demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, will further the goals of the quality-assurance privilege … . By identifying the maker of the statements at the medical or quality-assurance review meetings, only those statements that are made by a party will be subject to disclosure, and only those statements entitled to protection from disclosure will be protected. … [I]n order to avail itself of the privilege afforded by Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2), the party asserting the privilege must demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, and thus must identify who said what at the meeting. …

… [T]he party-statement exception applied to those statements in the peer-review committee meeting minutes that were attributed to the committee, and for which there was no indication as to who specifically made the statements, as they were not entitled to the quality-assurance privilege set forth in Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2). Siegel v Snyder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07264, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

/ , ,

SILENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER; HERE THE NONPARTY DID NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE COMMON INTEREST, WORK PRODUCT OR TRIAL PREPARATION PRIVILEGES WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined silence did not constitute waiver of common interest, work product or trial preparation privileges with respect to subpoenaed documents:

“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and should not be lightly presumed” … . Accordingly, waiver should not be found absent “evidence from which a clear manifestation of intent . . . to relinquish [the right in question] could be reasonably inferred” … . Waiver “will . . . [not] be implied unless the opposite party is misled to his or her prejudice into the belief that a waiver was intended” … ; hence, a finding of waiver cannot be based upon “mere silence or oversight,” or upon “mistake, negligence or thoughtlessness” … . The burden of proving waiver rests with the party asserting it … . * * *

… [I]t is not alleged that appellant or his counsel expressly orally waived the privilege claims at issue, nor does the record reflect that appellant engaged in any gamesmanship with respect to his privilege claims or that he ever “misled [defendants-respondents] to [their] prejudice into the belief that a waiver was intended” … . Homapour v Harounian, 2021 NY Slip Op 07080, First Dept 12-21-21

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Department of Education (DOE) was immune from suit by a student who alleged injury in an afterschool program run two teachers (Polanish and Gallagher) called “Mind, Body & Sport” (MBS). The school principal’s approval of the program was a discretionary act and no special duty was owned plaintiff:

The school principal’s granting of a permit for MBS to operate on school grounds was a discretionary action taken during the performance of a governmental function, and thus, the DOE was shielded from liability by the doctrine of governmental immunity … . Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the DOE owed the infant plaintiff a special duty that would render the DOE liable to plaintiffs for negligent acts … . Likewise, as to the MBS flyer, the DOE cannot be held liable through the doctrine of apparent authority for issuance of the flyer without the required disclaimer. As with the approval of the permit, the school principal’s approval of the MBS flyer involved the exercise of her reasoned judgment and discretionary authority, thus entitling DOE to governmental function immunity … .

The DOE also cannot be held liable for negligently supervising Polanish and Gallagher’s conduct during the MBS program. That the DOE permitted MBS to run as an afterschool program on school grounds does not provide a basis for holding the DOE liable, since “[a] defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others, even where as a practical matter defendant can exercise such control” … . R.K. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07092, First Dept 12-21-21

 

/ , ,

THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE SIDEWALK/STREET ABUTTING THE COURTHOUSE, DESPITE THE “DEMAPPING” OF THE ABUTTING STREET AND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE “DEMAPPED” STREET TO THE DEFENDANT; THE ACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO QUIET TITLE TO THE OWNER’S LAND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the plaintiff’s action claiming ownership of, or an easement over, the sidewalk/street area abutting plaintiff’s property (the old Bronx courthouse) was properly dismissed, with exception of the claim of an easement by necessity. The street abutting the courthouse had been “demapped” by the city and conveyed to defendants before plaintiff purchased the courthouse property. The deed description of the courthouse property was unambiguous and was not altered by a hand-drawn circle around the property on the recorded tax map. The action was not precluded by the statute of limitations because it is an action to quiet title to the plaintiff’s land:

… [W]here, like here, the owner is in possession, the right of action to remove a cloud on title is a continuous one accruing from day to day, and this right is not barred by the statute of limitations until the cloud is continued without interruption for a length of time sufficient to effect a change of title as a matter of law … . “The reason for this rule is that while the owner in fee continues subject to an action, proceeding, or suit on the adverse claim, he or she has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its effect on his or her title, or to assert any superior equity in his or her favor”… . Accordingly, the owner may wait until his or her possession is disturbed, or his or her title is attacked, before taking steps to vindicate his or her right … . “The requirement of prompt action is imposed as a policy matter upon persons who would challenge title to property rather than those persons who seek to quiet title to their land” … . * * *

… [T]he deed contains no reference to the altered Tax Map, with the hand-drawn circle, purportedly intended to change the boundaries of the property. Nor is there any indication on the altered Tax Map of the circle’s purpose. If the parties wanted to change the boundaries of the property described in the deed and Current Tax Map to include a surrounding demapped street, they could easily have done so by making such notation on the deed and altered Tax Map. Liberty Sq. Realty Corp. v The Doe Fund, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07082, First Dept 12-21-21

 

/ , ,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and agreeing with the First and Second Departments, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits petitioner-sex-offender from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution:

Because petitioner was unable to locate housing in New York City that fulfilled the residency requirements imposed by SARA, even with respondents’ assistance (see Correction Law § 201 [5]), he remained incarcerated. * * *

We are guided … by a recent case concerning individuals in a situation akin to petitioner’s, in which the Court of Appeals held that “the temporary confinement of sex offenders in correctional facilities, while on a waiting list for SARA-compliant [New York City Department of Homeless Services] housing, is rationally related to a conceivable, legitimate government purpose of keeping level three sex offenders more than 1,000 feet away from schools,” and “[t]he existence of less restrictive methods of monitoring [individuals in these circumstances] during this period does not invalidate the use of correctional facilities” … . …

… “[i]n assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, they do not violate the [E]x [P]ost [F]acto [C]lause” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2021 NY Slip Op 07044, Third Dept 12-16-21

 

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