You are here: / THE PROPONENT OF THE WILL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DECEDENT KNEW THE NATURE...

Search Results

/

THE PROPONENT OF THE WILL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DECEDENT KNEW THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY HE WAS DISPOSING AT THE TIME THE WILL WAS EXECUTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a strong dissent, determined that Alice, the decedent’s sister, did not prove the decedent knew the nature and extent of the property he was disposing at the time the will was executed:

Alice testified that the decedent told her his total assets amounted to $200,000. The decedent then told the attorney who prepared the will that his total assets amounted to $1.5 million, when in fact, with the annuity, his assets, including nonprobate property consisting of an IRA in the amount of $258,299, are valued at more than $2.6 million. This amount does not include the CDs the decedent claimed were held in trust for his grandchildren, which are not listed on the inventory of assets filed with the Surrogate’s Court. * * *

On the day he executed the will [December 15], the 83-year-old decedent, who had stage IV prostate cancer, had been a patient at WPH for two weeks, since December 1, 2014. He was admitted with a fever, generalized weakness, pneumonia, bilateral pleural effusion, and a 30-to-40-pound weight loss over the prior three to four months. During those two weeks, he had a choking incident on December 4, which caused respiratory and cardiac arrest and resulted in intubation and transfer to the ICU, and a second incident on December 13, two days prior to executing the will, during which he developed respiratory arrest, was transferred to the CCU, and was sedated with morphine. At times, during the day before he executed the will, as well as on the morning of the day of the execution, the decedent exhibited an inability to follow instructions, disorientation, confusion, inability to benefit from education, impulsive behavior, and a potential to injure himself. On both the day prior to the execution of the will and the day the will was executed, the decedent was intubated and on a ventilator and unable to speak. The decedent was also sedated with lorazepam the day before the execution of the will. Matter of Falkowsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 05122, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

/

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING FELL OVER WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT WHILE STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action. The scaffold fell over when plaintiff attempted to move it while standing on it. There was evidence one of the wheels, which was attached with wire, became detached:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated that he was directed to work on a Baker scaffold in order to perform his task of installing tracks on the ceiling, that the scaffold he was using was the only scaffold available to him, that as he was working without assistance, he tried to move the scaffold while he was standing on it, and that after the scaffold toppled over he observed that one of its wheels was detached. The plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of his foreman … who averred … that there were no nuts and bolts securing the wheels to the scaffold, and that the wheels were kept in place with the use of wire. Shortly after the accident, [the foreman] also observed that one of the wheels of the scaffold had become detached from its frame.

… [The] defendants failed to present a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident … . Masmalaj v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 05119, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFTER HIS ATTORNEY WAS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the court did not make sure defendant intelligently waived his right to counsel after his attorney was permitted to withdraw:

A divorce litigant has a statutory right to counsel for the custody portion of the litigation (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iii], [v]; Judiciary Law § 35[8]). Here, the defendant’s attorney was permitted to withdraw during the trial, and the defendant proceeded pro se. However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the defendant was unequivocally, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his right to counsel … and failed to inquire whether the defendant understood the risks and disadvantages of appearing pro se. … [W]e … remit the matter … for a new trial … . At that time, the court should conduct a more detailed inquiry to determine whether the defendant is eligible for assigned counsel. Brandel v Brandel, 2021 NY Slip Op 05116, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

/ , , , ,

THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) FINDING THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY LIABLE FOR A BEDBUG INFESTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a judgment as a matter law (CPLR 4401), finding the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) liable for a bedbug infestation of plaintiffs’ apartments, should not have been granted:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 should not be granted unless, affording the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the nonmovant against the moving party … . A court considering a motion for a directed verdict “must not ‘engage in a weighing of the evidence,’ nor may it direct a verdict where ‘the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question'” … .

… [T]he evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to NYCHA, did not establish that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of NYCHA … . The evidence included the plaintiffs’ testimony, as well as the parties’ competing expert testimony regarding the appropriate protocols for the treatment of a bedbug infestation and competing conclusions by the expert witnesses as to whether NYCHA’s bedbug eradication efforts were appropriate. Although a landlord’s violation of a municipal ordinance, including, as relevant here, Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 27-2017 and 27-2018, may constitute some evidence of negligence for the jury to take into account, it does not constitute negligence per se … . Aponte v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 05114, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there were triable issues of fact concerning whether defendant Ovation breached its common-law or contractual duty to procure insurance for plaintiff Concrete. Allegedly, Ovation had represented to Concrete that the insurance had been procured but did not verify that the coverage, to be provided by the insurer, was in place:

In general, “insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so” … . A claim of liability for a violation of this duty may sound in either contract or tort … . To state a claim based upon violation of the insurance broker’s common-law duty, the client must demonstrate that the broker failed to discharge its duty either by breaching the agreement with the client by failing to obtain the requested coverage or by failing to exercise due care in obtaining insurance on the client’s behalf … .

Here, the Ovation defendants failed to establish … that Ovation did not breach its common-law or contractual duty to Concrete. Even assuming [there was a request] that Concrete be added to the existing policy … the deposition testimony submitted by the Ovation defendants … demonstrated that Ovation agreed to obtain insurance for Concrete and then represented that it had done so without verifying this fact. … [T]he Ovation defendants failed to establish, … the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Ovation undertook a duty to Concrete which it then failed to discharge. Alpha/Omega Concrete Corp. v Ovation Risk Planners, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05113, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE PROPERLY RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO CALL THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY INTO QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department explained the People’s burden of proof when relying on hearsay evidence at a suppression hearing. Here the transit officers who witnessed defendant commit “farebeating” (providing probable cause) were not called to testify. The hearsay was deemed admissible under Aguilar-Spinelli and the defendant did not call the accuracy or reliability of the hearsay into question by cross-examination or the presentation of evidence:

Defendant’s main argument on appeal is that the People failed to meet their burden of coming forward with evidence demonstrating probable cause with respect to the underlying theft of services arrest — which created the circumstances for the testifying officer’s discovery of defendant — because they did not present any testimony from the Transit Bureau officers who had firsthand knowledge of the farebeating offense.  …

Probable cause may properly be established based on hearsay testimony … , such as the officer’s testimony about what he was told by the transit officers, so long as, under the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the People establish that there was “some basis” of knowledge for the underlying statement and that it was “reliable”… . The “some basis” requirement is satisfied where, as here, the information is based on personal knowledge … .

Although the People will fail to meet their burden at a suppression hearing where they rely exclusively on hearsay evidence and “the defense challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, whether by cross-examining the People’s witness or putting on a defense case” … , that is not the situation here, because defendant did not present any evidence, identify anything in the People’s case, or elicit any statements on cross-examination that undercut the veracity of the transit officers’ account of a farebeating, as relayed by the testifying officer … . The unsupported assertion in defendant’s moving papers that he was seized without reason was not sufficient to necessitate calling the transit officers as witnesses. People v Gerard, 2021 NY Slip Op 05089, First Dept 9-28-21

 

/

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WHO RECOVERED STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIM WAS LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE POLICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether the store security guard who detained him was licensed to exercise police powers or was acting as an agent of the police. Although the defendant had already pled guilty and was sentenced, the information available to the defendant did not identify the person who detained him and, therefore, defendant could hot have subpoenaed employment records to ascertain the security guard’s employment status:

Under People v Mendoza (82 NY2d 415, 425, 433—434 [1993]), defendant is entitled to a hearing on the purely factual issue of whether or not the security guard involved in his detention was licensed to exercise police powers, or acting as an agent of the police. * * *

… [T]he felony complaint provided no information regarding defendant’s arrest, and the VDF simply indicated that the arrest took place on “May 27, 2027,” at “9:04 PM,” “Inside Bergdorf Goodman at 754 Fifth Avenue.” The individual who allegedly recovered the stolen material from defendant’s handbag was neither identified by name nor as an employee of Bergdorf.

This information could not have helped defendant further investigate whether the security guard was a private or state actor status. People v Sneed, 2021 NY Slip Op 05095, First Dept 9-28-21

 

/ , ,

THE SENTENCE AGREED TO IN THE PLEA BARGAIN AND IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS LESS THAN STATUTORILY REQUIRED; THE SENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s sentence was illegal because it was less than statutorily required. Because the plea agreement included the illegal sentence, the sentence was vacated and the matter was remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

Defendant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) in 2019. Inasmuch as that conviction was within five years of the instant plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (1-a) (a) requires the additional penalty of either five days in jail or 30 days of community service. As no such penalty was imposed by the court, the sentence imposed is less than is statutorily required and, therefore, is illegal.

“Where the plea bargain includes a sentence which is illegal because the minimum imposed is less than that required by law, . . . the proper remedy is to vacate the sentence and afford the defendant, having been denied the benefit of the bargain, the opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing in accordance with the governing sentencing statute, with the opportunity for defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement … . People v Gary, 2021 NY Slip Op 05052, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

/

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to COVID-pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits because she was not employed at the time the benefits became available:

Claimant was ineligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits given her failure to work during the relevant period and contended that she was unable and unavailable to work due to one of the qualifying factors for pandemic unemployment assistance, namely, that she was “unable to reach [her] place of employment because [she was] advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19” (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). … The statutory directive that an applicant be “unable to reach the place of employment” presupposes that he or she has a place of employment to reach, however, removing from its scope individuals such as claimant who were not working or scheduled to start working at the time they were directed to self-quarantine (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). The Board read the statutory language in that manner and in accord with guidance from the United States Department of Labor — the federal agency tasked with providing operating instructions for the joint federal-state pandemic unemployment insurance program (see 15 USC § 9032 [b]) and from which we take judicial notice — that an individual “must have an attachment to the labor market and must have experienced a loss of wages and hours or [be] unable to start employment following a bona fide job offer” in order to obtain pandemic unemployment assistance … . Thus, as “‘the federal agency expressly concurs in the state’s interpretation of the statute, and the interpretation is a permissible construction of the statute,’ the interpretation is entitled to deference,” and it follows that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance … . Matter of Mangiero (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05062, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

/ ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE RECORDS WERE DESCRIBED; THE INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee in this foreclosure action relied on information in business records which were not provided along with the affidavit describing them:

The defendant argues … that the Supreme Court erred in confirming the referee’s report because the referee’s computation was premised upon unproduced business records. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, the affidavit executed by an employee of the plaintiff submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records she purportedly relied upon in making her calculations … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due under the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Clerge, 2021 NY Slip Op 05038, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

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