You are here: / ALTHOUGH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S NUMEROUS INAPPROPRIATE...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S NUMEROUS INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial. The errors were not preserved by objections, but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice. The prosecutor’s remarks are detailed in the decision and are too numerous to include here:

The prosecutor denigrated any possible defense, invoked the jury’s sympathy for the complainants based upon irrelevant evidence, vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses, and misstated the law on circumstantial evidence … . People v Beck, 2021 NY Slip Op 04556, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ ,

BECAUSE A LIBERTY INTEREST IS AT STAKE, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, reversing the revocation of the suspension of the order of commitment, determined respondent was entitled to an opportunity to be heard because a liberty interest is at stake:

“The court may suspend an order of commitment upon reasonable conditions and is also authorized to revoke such suspension at any time for good cause shown” … . However, given the liberty interest at stake, the Family Court, before revoking a suspension of an order of commitment, must provide to a respondent an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension … . Here, because the father was deprived of this opportunity, we must reverse the order of commitment appealed from and remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing and a determination thereafter of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension. Matter of Gast v Faria, 2021 NY Slip Op 04549, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ ,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL; PROOF OF A GENERAL INSPECTION ROUTINE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this black-ice slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological records submitted to demonstrate there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall were not certified as business records and were otherwise insufficient. The evidence of a routine inspection practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice:

… [T]he defendant relied upon, among other things, climatological data for Poughkeepsie Airport and Danbury Municipal Airport in Connecticut, as well as spotter reports of snowfall accumulation in neighboring towns. However, because these records were not certified as business records, they were inadmissible (see CPLR 4518[a] …). In any event, the climatological data and spotter reports gathered from nearby areas were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … . Moreover, the climatological data was inconsistent and contradicted the parties’ deposition testimony, transcripts of which the defendant also submitted in support of its motion, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the plaintiff’s accident … . * * *

… “[M]ere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, the testimony of the defendant’s witness, at best, established the defendant’s general inspection practices with respect to snow and ice on the defendant’s property … . Thus, absent specific evidence that this area was inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall, the defendant cannot rely on this testimony in meeting its prima facie burden … . Johnson v Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04543, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ , , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

/ ,

THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA) PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IN THE SPECIAL LINCOLN SQUARE DISTRICT ON A SPLIT-LOT, I.E., A LOT THAT STRADDLES TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, EACH WITH ITS OWN LIMITATIONS ON USE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, reversing Supreme Count, determined the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) properly approved the construction of a building in the Special Lincoln Square District. The project is on a zoning lot that straddles to zoning districts, each with its own limitations on uses, a so-called split-lot:

This Court has held that a split lot is treated as a single lot when assessing compliance with a zoning requirement that applies equally to both zoning districts of the split lot and that the split-lot provision is applied on a “regulation-by-regulation basis” … . ZR § 82-34, the relevant bulk distribution regulation, provides that “[w]ithin the Special District, at least 60 percent of the total floor area permitted on a zoning lot” must be below a height of 150 feet from curb level. There is no dispute that the project complied with ZR § 82-34. Practically speaking, this provision directly regulates the distribution of a building’s floor area and indirectly regulates height by restricting much of a zoning lot’s floor area to the part of a building below a cutoff. Every square foot that needs to be below the 150-foot ceiling to comply with ZR § 82-34 reduces the number of square feet that could be above it. ,,, As noted by BSA, “the Special District’s bulk-distribution regulations do operate to reduce the height of buildings in the Special District — only not to the extent [petitioner] wish[es]” … . … BSA held that this regulation applies to both … zoning districts because it is located in a “Special District.” … ZR § 82-34’s imposition of the bulk distribution regulation within the Special Lincoln Square District creates … commonality … so as to override the split-lot provision’s prohibition against transfer of floor area between the two zoning districts, and permits the two zoning districts to be treated as one. Under these circumstances, we find that BSA’s determination to apply ZR § 82-34 to the project’s zoning lot was rational. City Club of N.Y. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 2021 NY Slip Op 04533, First Dept 7-22-21

 

/

CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined claimant agent was not an employee of broker-dealer AXA and therefore was not entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits:

AXA Advisors LLC is a broker-dealer registered to sell life insurance policies and annuities, stocks, mutual funds and other investment products. Claimant began working for AXA under a three-year “training allowance” agreement in 1993. After that agreement terminated in 1996, claimant entered into a new agreement as a licensed agent, and he continued working in that capacity until AXA terminated the agreement in 2015. * * *

The record reflects that, under the 1996 agreement, claimant did not have a set work schedule or work location, he was not assigned a sales territory and did not have to turn in any reports. Claimant was not supervised, could work from home and could use his own computer. Claimant had to pay for the cost of his liability insurance and was not paid for any expenses. AXA required reimbursement from claimant for the cost of business cards and stationery and claimant had to pay for the use of AXA’s clerical staff and office space. Claimant was responsible for developing his own client base and, although AXA would sometimes provide a sales lead, claimant testified that he did not have to pursue it. Claimant determined what products best suited his clients’ needs and he could sell the products of AXA’s competitors. AXA did provide claimant with promotional materials, and claimant was paid by commission, with the commission rate set by AXA or whichever company offered the product that he sold to the client. Matter of Lee (AXA Advisors LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 04518, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

/

THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A DANGEROUS ROAD TO GET TO HIS WORKPLACE; THE INJURIES SUFFERED WHEN CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WERE THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the unavailability of parking for work created a special hazard. Therefore claimant’s being struck by a vehicle while walking to his place of employment resulted in a compensable injury:

… [C]laimant, a food service worker at Montefiore-Nyack Hospital, sustained serious injuries when he was struck by a motor vehicle while walking towards the hospital entrance prior to the start of his work shift. * * *

… [T]he Board could reasonably determine that a special hazard existed due to the unavailability of parking along the eastern side of Route 9W, requiring claimant to, at a certain spot without a crosswalk, cross Route 9W — a dangerous public roadway — to access the loading dock entrance, which, significantly, was not used by the public and regularly used by claimant … . Further, based upon the regular use of the loading dock entrance by claimant and other food service workers, combined with the close proximity of the accident to the loading dock area, there was a close association of the access route with the premises, as far as going and coming are concerned, permitting the conclusion that the accident happened as an incident and risk of employment. Matter of Cadme v FOJP Serv. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04525, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

/ ,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES SIGNALING FOR 100 FEET BEFORE MAKING A TURN, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUCK WHICH MADE THE TURN WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT; DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, overruling a City Court decision, reversing the jury verdict in this truck-bicycle traffic accident case, determined the jury should have been instructed on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision requiring that a turn signal be activated for 100 feet before turning. The truck was at a stop light and plaintiff testified the truck’s turn signal was not on when she pulled up to the stop light next to the truck. When she started riding straight through the intersection, the truck allegedly made a right turn and ran over her. The driver (Murphy) testified he put his signal on and then made the turn. The trial court instructed the jury on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision which applies to parked cars and which does not have the “100-foot” signaling requirement. The Second Department found that the truck was not “parked” within the meaning of that provision:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) provides that “[a] signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” Under Vehicle and Traffic § 1163(a), Murphy was required to signal his intention to turn right at the subject intersection. Thus, since a signal of intention to turn was required, the clear and unambiguous words used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) also required Murphy to give such signal “continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet” that he traveled before making the turn. The provision makes no exception for vehicles that are stopped at a red traffic light … .

… Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d), which applies … to vehicles moving from a parked position, and which does not require a vehicle to signal its turn 100 feet before making it, is inapplicable. Murphy’s truck was not parked within the meaning of “park or parking” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129. Rather, it was stopped at a red light … . To the extent that People v Brandt (60 Misc 3d 956, 961 [Poughkeepsie City Ct]) holds otherwise, we overrule it.

The precise and specific duty established in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) bore directly on the facts to which the parties testified, and, therefore, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give that charge … . The statute establishes a standard of care, the unexcused violation of which is negligence per se … .  Moore v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04483, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ , ,

THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC WHICH OWNED THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITION SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS MEMBER STATUS; HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LLC COULD BE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this premises liability case, determined the sole member of the LLC (Romanoff) which owned the premises was not liable, but there was a question of fact whether the LLC had constructive knowledge of the defective railing which collapsed when plaintiff leaned on it:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Romanoff, as a member of the LLC, cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of that status alone … , and the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence as to the existence of circumstances that would entitle him to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability on Romanoff … .

… [T]he Romanoff defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the LLC did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . In support of their motion, the Romanoff defendants submitted … evidence that the porch railing that collapsed had not been physically inspected in the eight months following the purchase of the premises. They also failed to demonstrate that the alleged dangerous condition of the porch railing was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. … [T]he Romanoff defendants relied upon the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that, as he leaned onto the railing to shake dust out of a blanket, he felt the railing move as soon as he made contact with it, and it did not appear to be attached to anything. Hayden v 334 Dune Rd., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04481, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ , ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT ATTACHED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records referred in the affidavit of the banks servicing agent were not attached:

Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit made by the party'” … . Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit executed by a “Document Execution Specialist” who was employed by the plaintiff’s servicing agent … . The affiant asserted that she had personal knowledge of the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action based upon her review of various business records. However, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which the affiant relied in her affidavit, her factual assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay, and her affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate “proof of the facts constituting the claim” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hossain, 2021 NY Slip Op 04480, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

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