You are here: / THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS...

Search Results

/ ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS ABANDONMENT CLAIMS IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING; PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner (Department of Social Services) did not meet its burden of proof on whether respondent had abandoned the child in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding:

“A finding of abandonment is warranted when it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to visit or communicate with the child or the petitioning agency during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the abandonment petition, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by petitioner” ( … see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a] …). It is presumed that a parent has the ability to visit and/or communicate with his or her child and, therefore, “[o]nce the petitioning agency establishes that the parent failed to maintain contact with his or her child, the burden shifts to the parent to prove an inability to maintain contact or that he or she was prevented or discouraged from doing so by the petitioning agency” … . …

The caseworker… only observed two … visitations, each for only a limited period of time, during which she acknowledged that respondent brought snacks for the child. Respondent was otherwise precluded from making any other attempts to contact the child — i.e., telephone calls — outside of her scheduled supervised parenting time. The caseworker … acknowledged that … respondent was hospitalized with an injury that required emergency brain surgery, which prevented her from exercising one of her scheduled visitations that month, and respondent subsequently executed a medical release so that petitioner could verify same. … [A]lthough the caseworker initially indicated that she had not had any contact with respondent since May 2019, during cross-examination she indicated that respondent had, in fact, called her one or two times during the relevant time period. Matter of Khavonye FF. (Latasha EE.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05753, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ ,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to quiet title should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion. The complaint stated a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15:

… [T]he court should not have converted defendant’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3211(c), since plaintiffs did not agree to “charting a summary judgment course,” and the case did not involve a “purely legal question without any disputed issues of fact” … . Conversion of the motion prejudiced plaintiffs, who had no opportunity to respond to the contentions raised by defendant for the first time in reply … . …

“To maintain a cause of action to quiet title [to real property], a plaintiff must allege actual or constructive possession of the property and the existence of a removable cloud on the property, which is an apparent title to the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid or inoperative” (…see RPAPL 1515; RPAPL 1501[1]). Here, the complaint adequately alleges facts that, if established, could support a finding that plaintiffs attained equitable title arising from the contract of sale they allegedly entered into with codefendant … for 25% of the property, as well as their payment of the agreed price and exclusive and actual occupancy of an apartment in the property … . Davis v Augoustopoulos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05772, First Dept 10-21-21

 

/ , ,

SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE ACTION WITHOUT DISCOVERY AND TRIAL; THE COURT SHOULD ONLY HAVE DECIDED WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter to a different judge, determined this breach-of-contract/preliminary-injunction/declaratory-judgment/Article-78 proceeding should not have been decided on the merits without discovery, the filing of a note of issue and a trial. The court should have decided only whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioner is a contractor hired by respondents to install a water system for snow-making for ski trails. Respondents terminated the contract for cause and petitioner brought an action for a preliminary injunction (prohibiting respondents from awarding the contract to others without competitive bidding), a declaratory judgment, and breach of contract:

… Supreme Court should have confined … its determination to whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. … Supreme Court prematurely resolved the merits of petitioner’s declaratory judgment cause of action and respondents’ counterclaims, without first affording the parties their rights to discovery and a jury trial on the claims/counterclaims raised in the plenary action (see CPLR 3103 [a]; 4101 …), and without a note of issue and certificate of readiness having been filed. Moreover, Supreme Court did not acknowledge or address petitioner’s third cause of action for breach of contract, even though the plenary action involves, at its heart, a contract dispute. Although petitioner also asserted a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, the award of declaratory relief hinges on the resolution of the contract dispute — that is, whether respondents wrongfully terminated the contract for cause under the terms of the contract. Matter of Murnane Bldg. Contrs., Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 05756, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not give counsel meaningful notice of a substantive jury note:

Pursuant to CPL 310.30, when a trial court receives a substantive jury inquiry, the court has two separate duties: “the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond”… . With regard to the former duty, the court must provide counsel “notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request” … . A “trial court’s failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note is a mode of proceedings error that requires reversal” … .

Here, although marked as a court exhibit, the trial transcript does not reflect that the Supreme Court showed or read verbatim to counsel a jury note, which stated: “We would like the DNA results in regards to the blood smear on the banister.” People v Carillo, 2021 NY Slip Op 05710, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR AN OIL SPILL DID NOT MEET THE STRICT CRITERIA FOR AN EXCLUSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the oil spill damage was covered by a policy exclusion. The policy endorsement relied on by defendant did not meet the strict criteria for an exclusion from coverage:

In order “to ‘negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . “[P]olicy exclusions are given a strict and narrow construction, with any ambiguity resolved against the insurer” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant did not point to an applicable policy exclusion. Rather, the defendant relied on the ELF [Property Remediation for Escaped Liquid Fuel and Limited Lead and Escaped Liquid Fuel Liability Coverages] endorsement, which provided additional coverage for the remediation of escaped liquid fuel in limited circumstances not present here. Such argument is unavailing. On its face, the ELF endorsement is not an exclusion. While the defendant argues that the existence of the ELF endorsement compels the conclusion that the policy itself excludes coverage for escaped liquid fuel under any circumstances not specified in the endorsement, policy exclusions are “not to be extended by interpretation or implication” … . As such, the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that an exclusion not subject to any other reasonable interpretation applied in this case … . Mulle v Lexington Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05707, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that because respondents had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss petitioner’s cause of action, the motion court should not have granted the relief sought by petitioner. Rather the respondents should have been allowed to answer the petition:

… [T]he Supreme Court improperly awarded [petitioner] the ultimate relief sought on the second cause of action. Upon denying the respondents’ pre-answer motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court should have permitted the respondents to answer the petition (see CPLR 7804[f] …). … [W]e remit the matter … for the service and filing of an answer and the administrative record. Matter of O’Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 05703, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; MOTHER AND CHILD WERE IN CONNECTICUT, FATHER RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required inquiries before finding New York did not have jurisdiction over this neglect proceeding. Mother and child lived in Connecticut and father resided in Westchester County:

The Family Court’s jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act … . Nevertheless, the court failed to make any determination as to whether, despite the child’s Connecticut residence at the time of the filing of the petition, it had jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 on the basis that New York was the child’s “home state” … . The court further failed to determine whether it had temporary emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76-c … .. In addition, although a criminal proceeding was allegedly pending in Connecticut, the court failed to determine whether a “proceeding concerning the custody of the child [had] been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction,” in which case the court would have been required to stay the proceedings and communicate with the court of the other state (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1] …). Finally, in the event that the court determined that it was an inconvenient forum and that Connecticut was the more appropriate forum, there is no indication that the court considered the required factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2][a]-[h]). Moreover, upon such a finding, the court is required to “stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[3]). Matter of Jenny M. (Thomas M.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05701, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a board which fell off a forklift. The boards were part of a fence which was being dismantled. Dismantling the fence constituted “demolition” and “altering” within the meaning of the statute. And the accident involved an elevation-related risk:

… [T]he disassembly and removal of the boards from the soccer field was a partial dismantling of a structure (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[16]), and constituted “demolition” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the disassembly and removal of the boards was also a significant physical change to the configuration of the structure … , and constituted “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s role in hauling away the boards after they had been removed by the defendant was an act “ancillary” to the demolition and alteration of the field structure, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff established that the forklift was being used to lift heavy soccer boards. The boards were stacked on top of the forks of the forklift, and lifted into the air so they could be transferred and stacked in the back of the box truck. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that a portion of the forklift had been removed so that it could fit through a certain doorway on the premises. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff and his coworkers were attempting to slide one of the boards from a stack on the raised forklift into the back of the truck. The stack was raised to a height of approximately 8 or 9 feet at the time of the accident. The plaintiff was struck in the head by a board, weighing approximately 200 pounds, when it slid sideways off the stack and over the cab of the forklift while the plaintiff stood at ground level. The plaintiff’s submissions … demonstrated that the forklift had been modified and lacked certain safety devices, including “load guides and/or guide rails,” which could have been used to “constrain the boards as they were moved from the elevated forks into the truck.” Hensel v Aviator FSC, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05697, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

DURING THE FUNERAL PLAINTIFF (ALLEGEDLY) LEARNED DECEDENT’S BODY WAS NOT IN THE CASKET; THE LOSS OF SEPULCHER ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s loss of sepulcher action properly survived summary judgment. During the funeral plaintiff learned the casket was empty:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, during the funeral service and burial intended for the decedent, the plaintiff became aware that the decedent’s body was not in the casket and the decedent’s body was not located for some period of time. Accordingly, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged actions or inactions did not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the decedent’s body and her right to find “solace and comfort in the ritual of burial” … . Gutnick v Hebrew Free Burial Socy. for the Poor of the City of Brooklyn, 2021 NY Slip Op 05696, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the hazard which caused plaintiff to trip was inherent in his job. A sheet of plastic had been placed over a pipe:

Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. “Owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a common-law duty to provide employees with a safe place to work,” and Labor Law § 200 “merely codified that duty” … . The duty does not extend “to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the placement of the plastic sheet on top of, as opposed to underneath, the installed pipe was a hazard that was part of, or inherent in, the work the injured plaintiff was hired to perform … . Fonck v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

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