You are here: / WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE TWO POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGES RELATED TO DISTINCT...

Search Results

/ ,

WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE TWO POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGES RELATED TO DISTINCT EVENTS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions and vacating the sentences, determined there was no evidence the two possession-of-a-weapon charges were based upon distinct events. Therefore consecutive sentences should not have been imposed:

County Court should not have imposed consecutive sentences upon the defendant’s conviction of the two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, among other things, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Here, there was no showing that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes were separate and distinct and consequently, consecutive sentences could not be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.25[2 … ).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we reverse the judgments of convictions, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and remit the matters … for further proceedings, at which the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent to the plea agreement, should they be so advised … . People v Adams, 2021 NY Slip Op 02808, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER NEW YORK OR YEMEN WAS THE CHILDREN’S HOME STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have found New York did not have jurisdiction over this custody dispute without holding a hearing pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The issue is whether New York or Yemen was the children’s home state:

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70, “[w]here a minor child is residing within this state, either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and on the return thereof, the court, on due consideration, may award . . . custody of such child to either parent.” Here, since the children reside outside of this State, reference must necessarily be made to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A; hereinafter UCCJEA), which provides, inter alia, that “a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a] …). The UCCJEA defines “home state” as “the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]).

Here, the Family Court was required to hold a hearing as to the issue of whether New York or Yemen was the children’s home state, as there are disputed issues of fact regarding the circumstances under which the parties moved with the children from New York to Yemen … . Matter of Kassim v Al-Maliki, 2021 NY Slip Op 02800, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ , , ,

FAMILY COURT, UPON REMITTAL AFTER A PRIOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL, DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD FOR REVIEW OF ITS ORDER RE: FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court, upon remittal after a prior reversal, did not create a sufficient record to allow review of its order re: father’s parental access schedule:

“In determining custody and [parental access] issues, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child” … . “Generally, [parental access] should be determined after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child” … .

“A trial court must state in its decision ‘the facts it deems essential’ to its determination” … . “Effective appellate review, especially in proceedings involving child custody determinations, ‘requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the record is not sufficient for this Court to conduct an intelligent review of the evidence.

Furthermore, the children are of such an age and maturity that information regarding their preferences is necessary to create a sufficient record to determine their best interests … . Matter of Georgiou-Ely v Ely, 021 NY Slip Op 02796, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ ,

RATHER THAN TERMINATING MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SUSPENDED JUDGMENT TO GIVE MOTHER A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR REUNIFICATION WITH HER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the termination of mother’s parental rights was not demonstrated to be in the child’s best interests. Judgment should have been suspended so mother could prepare for reunification with the child:

At the dispositional stage of a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the Family Court must make its determination based solely on the best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act § 631). Depending on the best interests of the child, the court has to either dismiss the petition, suspend judgment for up to one year, or terminate parental rights (see Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633[b]; Social Services Law § 384-b[8][f]). A dispositional order suspending judgment provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child (see Family Ct Act § 633 …). …

… [I]t is undisputed that the mother engaged in regular phone conversations with the child at least once a week; that, since March 2019, following a difficult pregnancy with her younger child which impeded her ability to travel from her apartment in upper Manhattan to the agency in Jamaica, Queens, where visitation occurred, she had been regularly visiting the child; that the child continued to refer to the mother as her mother and her foster parent as her auntie; and that there is a strong bond between the mother and the child and between the child and the mother’s younger child, who resided with the mother. In addition, the mother had completed a drug treatment program and was drug free, attended a parenting class with intentions to attend additional classes, underwent a mental health evaluation, and was receiving therapy and preventive services. Further, following the child’s placement in foster care, the mother, who, at the time that she gave birth to the child, was 20 years old and living in a group home, having entered foster care herself at the age of 17, obtained an associate’s degree and secured an apartment. Moreover, in a related derivative neglect proceeding filed with respect to the mother’s younger child, the mother was granted a suspended judgment which expired in July 2020. Matter of Grace G. (Gloria G.), 2021 NY Slip Op 02795, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action, the defendants properly raised plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed … to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained two additional pages, the first entitled “Allonge to Note” and the second entitled “Note Allonge.” However, as the defendants correctly contend, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to indicate that the purported allonges were so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). …

… [S]ince the proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, the defendants could properly raise this defense for the first time in their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the burden of establishing prima facie compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was with the plaintiff … . …

… [I]n order to establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted two affidavits from its “authorized signer,” Tracy A. Duck. However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, neither affidavit was sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Among other things, Duck did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that purportedly sent the notices … . Moreover, the business records attached to Duck’s second affidavit were insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . LNV Corp. v Almberg, 2021 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff demonstrated the emergency room exception applied and defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice an independent surgeon:

In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for the negligence or malpractice of an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself or herself … . However, as an exception to this rule, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician … .

Here, the plaintiff satisfied her prima facie burden of demonstrating that the emergency room exception applies by producing evidence that the decedent was brought to the Hospital’s emergency room by ambulance, did not request treatment by a particular physician, and was assigned to Reichman’s care by the Hospital … . Goffredo v St. Luke’s Cornwall Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02788, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE CORD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL MAY HAVE BEEN OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not establish that the cord or wire over which plaintiff tripped and fell was not inherently dangerous, even if the cord was open and obvious:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell over a cord or microphone wire while attending an event at certain property purportedly owned by the defendants … . She commenced this action against the defendants and one other defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion on the ground that the condition of the wire or cord was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The plaintiff appeals.

In support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the cord or wire was not inherently dangerous … . Franzo v Town of Hempstead, 2021 NY Slip Op 02787, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of liquid on the dance floor in the area of plaintiff’s slip and fall:

The defendants did not submit any evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed. In support of their motion, they submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of Hercules Sirico, the catering hall owner, who testified that the wood dance floor would be cleaned on an as-needed basis by one of the porters, of whom he was in charge. Sirico also testified that, on the night of the subject party, he entered the ballroom where the party was being held multiple times to make sure that members of his staff were doing things properly, but did not stay in the ballroom during the entire party. Although Sirico testified that, while he was in the ballroom, he always took a look at the dance floor and did not notice any wetness or liquids on it, he also testified that every time he was in the ballroom, the dance floor was always packed, with more than 100 people dancing, that guests would get drinks at the “constantly busy” mobile bar situated just “shy” of the dance floor, and bring the drinks onto the dance floor, and that no one stopped or warned the guests from doing so. Further, the defendants submitted the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, during which the plaintiff testified that when he went to dance, he was slipping and sliding on the dance floor because it was wet, that there were a lot of people on the dance floor with drinks, and that it was “very dark” in the ballroom. Ellis v Sirico’s Catering, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LADDER WAS INTENDED FOR USE AS A STAGE PROP BY ACTORS AS OPPOSED TO AN OSHA COMPLIANT LADDER; EVEN WHERE A LABOR LAW 200 ACTION WILL NOT LIE, A COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE VIABLE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ALTERING THE LADDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law 200 cause of action against Center Line should have been dismissed but the common law negligence cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Although the decision doesn’t spell it out, it appears that defendant Center Line altered the ladder in question by gluing on an extra rung. Apparently the ladder was to be used by actors and Center Line argued it was a stage prop and was not intended for use an OSHA compliant ladder. The viable contract-based “Espinal” negligence theory was based upon launching an instrument of harm (altering the ladder):

Even assuming that Center Line is a proper Labor Law § 200 defendant, it cannot be held liable under the statute. This case is a means and methods of work case, and there is no proof that Center Line had authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work … .

A claim for common-law negligence may lie even though there is no Labor Law § 200 liability … . A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line negligently created or exacerbated a dangerous condition so as to have “launche[d] a force or instrument of harm” … . Although Center Line augmented the ladder as directed by Production Core, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line could have reasonably anticipated that the gluing of the rung to the top of the ladder would pose a hazard and likely to cause injury … . While plaintiff and the codefendants claim that Center Line dangerously altered the ladder despite knowing that the ladder was structural and climbable, Center Line claims that the ladder was a prop ladder that was not meant to be OSHA compliant, and that it augmented the ladder in reliance on Production Core’s assurances that the top portion of the ladder would not be ascended by the actors. Such raises an issue of fact for the jury to decide. Mullins v Center Line Studios, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02756, First Dept 5-4-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FOR REPEATEDLY PUNCHING THE VICTIM AFTER THE VICTIM WAS HANDCUFFED AND RESTRAINED FACE DOWN ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the assault and offering a false instrument for filing convictions of a police officer who unnecessarily repeatedly struck the victim after the victim was handcuffed and restrained:

The evidence supports the court’s finding that defendant, an experienced police officer, lacked a reasonable ground to believe that it was necessary to punch the victim repeatedly to prevent the victim from biting him, both when the victim was rear-cuffed and lying face down on the floor of an apartment building lobby and being effectively restrained by defendant and another officer, and after defendant subsequently brought the victim to the building’s rear stairwell without seeking the assistance of any of the other officers present (see Penal Law §§ 35.05[1], 35.15[1], 35.30[1][a]). The evidence also supports the conclusion that all of defendant’s punches were unjustified, and also supports the alternative conclusion that even if the initial punch were justified, the subsequent punches were unjustified, and these punches caused additional injury … .

The evidence also established that defendant intentionally caused concededly false statements or information to be written on officially filed forms … . People v Saladeen, 2021 NY Slip Op 02760, First Dept 5-4-21

 

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