You are here: / SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN FRONT OF THE CHILD AND SHOWING PORNOGRAPHY TO THE CHILD...

Search Results

/ ,

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN FRONT OF THE CHILD AND SHOWING PORNOGRAPHY TO THE CHILD CONSTITUTED NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the dismissal of the sexual-behavior-related neglect allegations was error. The petition alleged masturbation in front of the child, having sex in front of the child, and showing pornography to the child. The 3rd Department concluded the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. Matter of Chloe L. (Samantha L.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06892, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/

CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant actor was not an employee of the School of Visual Arts (SVA). Claimant was paid $10 an hour for a couple of acting jobs at SVA:

Claimant, a professional actor who maintained his own website and IMDb listing to showcase his acting experience and credentials, was referred for the two assignments at issue by an SVA faculty member. Claimant readily acknowledged that he only provided services for SVA once or twice a year, that he was free to provide similar services for other entities, that he could decline to participate in SVA projects for any reason, that he signed a written invoice proclaiming his status as an independent contractor and that no deductions were taken from his pay. Although claimant insisted, contrary to the testimony offered by SVA’s representative, that the scripts provided to him were not authored — and the scenes in which he appeared were not directed — by students, a closer reading of claimant’s testimony nonetheless reveals that the “direction” that he purportedly received from SVA faculty members was minimal and for the purpose of teaching students how to direct. In short, despite other possible indicia of an employment relationship, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that SVA exercised overall control over important aspects of the professional services offered by claimant … . Matter of Ewens (School of Visual Arts, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 06894, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

THE ARRESTING DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS AS THE DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the arresting detective should not have been allowed to identify the person depicted in two surveillance videos as the defendant:

The court should not have permitted the arresting detective to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in two surveillance videos. In this case, the alleged difference in appearance — the addition of eyeglasses — was de minimis, and the jury had access to photos of defendant without eyeglasses … . The People do not point to any case in which lay opinion testimony was permitted based on such a slight change in appearance. Moreover, “no other circumstance suggested that the jury, which had ample opportunity to view defendant, would be any less able than the [officer] to determine whether he was seen in the videotape” … . Indeed, at the time of trial, the arresting detective was a 20-year veteran of the force and had 14 years experience investigating robberies and burglaries on the Lower East Side, where the incident occurred. He had made nearly 600 arrests and assisted in approximately 200 others. Stating twice that the perpetrator in this case was defendant carried significant weight in the eyes of the jury. Although the court provided limiting instructions, “[t]ruly prejudicial evidence cannot be erased from a juror’s mind by the court’s instructions” … . People v Challenger, 2021 NY Slip Op 06927, First Dept 12-9-21

 

/ , , ,

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff police officer and defendant police were co-employees pursuant a Police Mutual Aid Agreement between two municipalities, the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia. Plaintiff, a Glenville police officer, alleged defendant , a Scotia police officer, was negligent in firing her weapon at a suspect, thereby causing a bullet to strike plaintiff. Because the plaintiff and defendant were deemed co-employees pursuant to the agreement, General Obligations Law 11-106 prohibited plaintiff from suing in negligence:

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, a police officer may now assert a cause of action sounding in negligence “for injuries suffered while in the line of duty against entities other than municipal employers and fellow workers” … . The issue thus boils down to whether plaintiff and Peck [defendant] were acting as coemployees at the time of the incident, which would bar plaintiff’s action. Based primarily upon the operative provisions of the Agreement, we find that they were coemployees on the night of the incident, thereby insulating defendants from liability. Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 2021 NY Slip Op 06895, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department confirmed the finding that petitioner cursed at and threatened a correction officer. The concurrence noted that a body camera would have would provided crucial evidence in a case like this:

Although we can accept the explanation here that the correction officer had not been assigned a body camera on the day of the incident, the perplexing question that remains is why not? A recording of actual events would certainly assist in resolving credibility disputes such as the one at hand, either exonerating or condemning the actions of the facility’s employees … . We are mindful that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has taken steps since 2018 to implement a body camera pilot program and that legislation has been introduced in the State Assembly and Senate to amend the Correction Law to require respondent to establish a “[b]ody camera for correction officers pilot program” at maximum security facilities … . As is evident from this case, it appears that a comprehensive body camera program has yet to be established. Matter of Pine v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 06903, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE COVID VACCINATIONS; THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER ALLEGEDLY WANTED THE VACCINE, MOTHER OBJECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was required before allowing the children to be vaccinated against COVID. The attorney for the children (AFC) and father, reflecting the wishes of the children, asked for court-approval for vaccination. Mother objected to vaccinating the children:

Family Court gave the parties notice that it was considering the AFC’s request and directed the parties to submit their positions to the court in writing, thus providing some limited opportunity to be heard. Having reviewed those submissions, the court rendered its decision. The court made specific findings that the subject children “have been fully informed regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine” and that they “have the capacity to consent.” These factual findings were made without evidence and based solely on hearsay, through unsworn letters containing representations by counsel. This does not constitute a sufficient basis to support these findings.

Considering that providing a vaccine constitutes medical treatment, and given the general preference toward conducting a hearing in this type of situation, we find that a hearing was required before Family Court could grant petitioner’s request over respondent’s objection … . At such a hearing, the court must focus on whether respondent’s refusal to authorize vaccination constitutes “an acceptable course of medical treatment for [her] child[ren] in light of all the surrounding circumstances,” while heeding the Court of Appeals’ cautionary point that courts cannot “assume the role of a surrogate parent” … . As the Office of Children and Family Services’ guidance documents prohibit local agencies from administering a COVID-19 vaccine if the child refuses to consent, the hearing must address whether the subject children have been fully informed about COVID-19 and the vaccine and whether they have the capacity to consent. After the hearing, the court must carefully balance the risks and benefits of the potential vaccination to decide whether to authorize it for the subject children … . Matter of Athena Y. (Ashleigh Z.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06908, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE CHILD VICTIMS ACT COMPLAINTS WHERE DEFENDANT MOVES TO STRIKE “SCANDALOUS OR PREJUDICIAL MATTER” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, laid out guidelines for future pleadings in Child Victims Act (CVA) complaints alleging sexual abuse. The question before the court was how the statute allowing the striking of “scandalous and prejudicial matter” (CPLR 3024(b)) should be applied to CVA complaints. The court ultimately only struck one phrase which referenced “another survivor of [defendant’s] molestation…”. Although the denial of a motion to strike scandalous matter from a pleading is not appealable, the 2nd Department granted leave to appeal:

Based upon the conclusions directly reached here, there are bright lines that should be followed in the future:

— Factual allegations about a plaintiff’s own alleged sexual abuse will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) as they are central and necessary to giving notice of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions and occurrences, and the material elements of the cause(s) of action asserted.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s prior sexually-abusive conduct will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) where one or more causes of action includes, as a necessary element, what acts or propensities an institutional defendant knew or should have known by the time of the plaintiff’s own abuse.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s concurrent-in-time sexual abuse of another person will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) where one or more causes of action includes, as a necessary element, what acts or propensities an institutional defendant knew or should have known by the time of the plaintiff’s own abuse.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s subsequent relevant statements or conduct that specifically relate back to the sexual abuse of the plaintiff will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b).

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s statements or conduct involving a subsequent sexual abuse survivor, other than the plaintiff, may be stricken from a complaint under CPLR 3024(b) on the ground that they are scandalous or prejudicial and not necessary to the elements of the plaintiff’s specific cause(s) of action. Pisula v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06872, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/

THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

“[A] prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . Here, the prospective juror’s statements to the effect that she would expect the defense to present evidence raised a serious doubt about her ability to be impartial and her subsequent responses fell short of providing “unequivocal assurances of impartiality” … . People v Feddaoui, 2021 NY Slip Op 06859, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT, DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, DID NOT ADMIT HE POSSESSED A STOLEN “MOTOR VEHICLE,” AS OPPOSED TO A “MOTOR CYCLE,” AND THE JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge should have inquired further when defendant did not admit he possessed a “motor vehicle,” as opposed to a “motor cycle.” The court noted the issue may be raised on appeal without having moved to withdraw the plea:

As charged here, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree requires possession of “a motor vehicle . . . other than a motorcycle” … . During his plea allocution the defendant admitted to possession of “a motor cycle.” No further inquiry was made by the Supreme Court.

“[W]here a defendant’s factual recitation negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … . Where, as here, the court fails in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … .

Here, as the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court’s failure to inquire into the validity of the plea after the allocution clearly negated an essential element of the crime requires reversal of the judgment of conviction … . People v Douglas, 2021 NY Slip Op 06857, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ , , ,

CUSTODY MATTERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, DESPITE A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) despite the stipulation calling for arbitration, custody matters are not subject to arbitration; and (2) upon remittal the court must determine whether New York has jurisdiction and, if so, whether New York is an inconvenient forum. Plaintiff is a citizen of the US and defendant is a citizen of Israel. The parties lived together in New York:

The Supreme Court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the parties’ custody/parental access disputes on the basis that their stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, contained an arbitration clause … . “Disputes concerning child custody and visitation are not subject to arbitration as ‘the court’s role as parens patriae must not be usurped'” … .

Moreover, since the Supreme Court has made previous custody determinations concerning the parties’ children, the court, prior to determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, must first determine whether the defendant and the children have a significant connection with New York and whether there is substantial evidence in New York … . … If, upon remittal, the court determines … that it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody and parental access issues, it may exercise that jurisdiction, or it may decline to do so if it determines … that New York is an inconvenient forum … . Matsui v Matsui, 2021 NY Slip Op 06843, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

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