You are here: / DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL TORTURE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE JUROR EXPRESSED A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO INJURY TO ANIMALS AND THE COURT NEVER SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF SHOULD COULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of arson and torturing animals, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror who expressed her highly emotional reaction to the injury of animals should have been granted:

Defendant challenged this prospective juror for cause on the ground that “because of the animals, she couldn’t be fair and impartial.” County Court denied this challenge noting that prospective juror No. 16 had indicated that “it would be very difficult” and that “she would cry,” not that she had stated she could not be impartial. Defendant then exercised a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror No. 16, and later exhausted his peremptory challenges. Relative to the ability of prospective juror No. 16 to be fair and impartial due to her affinity for animals, despite being asked twice, she never unequivocally stated that she could be … . Thus, the court should have posed questions to rehabilitate the prospective juror “by obtaining such assurances or, if rehabilitation was not possible,” excuse her … . By failing to do so, the court committed reversible error, considering that defendant exercised a peremptory challenge to remove this prospective juror and exhausted such challenges … . People v Rios, 2021 NY Slip Op 01530, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/

THE LEGISLATURE PROPERLY EMPOWERED THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH SALARY INCREASES AND THE COMMITTEE DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the Committee on Legislative and Executive Compensation was properly created by the Legislature in the 2018 budget bill and the recommendations of salary increases did not exceed the scope Committee’s authority:

Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action seeking, among other things, declarations that (1) the enabling statute was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority under the NY Constitution, (2) the Committee exceeded the scope of any authority lawfully delegated to it, (3) the disbursement of funds according to the Committee’s report was unlawful under State Finance Law § 123, and (4) the Committee’s report was void under the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law art 7). Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). * * *

“While the Legislature cannot delegate its lawmaking functions to other bodies, there is no constitutional prohibition against the delegation of power to an agency or commission to administer the laws promulgated by the Legislature, provided that power is circumscribed by reasonable safeguards and standards” … . Although the NY Constitution vests in the Legislature the authority to “‘determine its own compensation'” … , plaintiffs have proffered no persuasive authority supporting the proposition that the Legislature may not delegate such authority to an independent body in the manner done here, so long as the Legislature makes the basic policy choice and provides reasonable standards and safeguards circumscribing the body’s authority. Delgado v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01534, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, even though plaintiff’s excuse for failure to comply with the 90-day demand to file a note of issue was not justifiable:

Because there was no compliance with the 90-day demand, the party seeking to avoid dismissal had to demonstrate a “justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” … . The opposition to defendant’s motion advanced only a conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure by plaintiff’s prior counsel as the justifiable excuse. Although the failure to detail and substantiate a claim of law office failure would justify dismissal of the complaint … , even when presented with an unjustifiable excuse, a court still retains some residual discretion to refuse dismissal of a complaint as a penalty under CPLR 3216 … .

… [S]ome of the delay in this case was not attributable to plaintiff. Taking into account that CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving of litigation delay” … , as well as the public policy of resolving disputes on the merits … , defendant’s motion, under the particular circumstances of this case, should have been denied to the extent that it sought dismissal of the complaint, and plaintiff’s cross motion should have been granted to the extent that it sought an extension of time to file the note of issue … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Shoumatoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 01537, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/ , ,

THE REPEAL OF THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW REQUIRING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the repeal of the religious exemption to the Pubic Health Law which allowed parents to refuse to vaccinate their children against measles was constitutional. The statute also allows a medical exemption, which was not repealed. The declaratoy-judgment complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

It is well settled that, “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that [one’s] religion prescribes (or proscribes)” … . As such, to state a federal free exercise claim, a plaintiff generally must establish that “the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct” … . Significantly, if the law is neutral and of general applicability, a rational basis is all that is required to meet constitutional muster under the First Amendment, even if the law “proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that [one’s] religion prescribes (or proscribes)” … . * * *

Those school children with medical exemptions have been advised by a physician that certain immunizations may be detrimental to their physical health (see Public Health Law § 2164 [8]). There are many arguments to be made as to how children formerly subjected to the religious exemption may also be detrimentally impacted, however, documented concerns as to the physical well-being of children with medical exemptions is a sufficient basis upon which to distinguish the two groups. Indeed, it would be irrational to sacrifice the physical health of some children in the pursuit of protecting public health. In attempting to address the vulnerabilities in its current immunization scheme, the Legislature was permitted to exercise such “broad discretion required for the protection of the public health” … . F.F. v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01541, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/ ,

RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS DENIED HER RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent juvenile was denied her right to a speedy trial in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. The respondent initially waived her speedy trial rights to allow a diagnostic evaluation, which would take 90 days. Before the evaluation was complete, in response to allegations that respondent was acting aggressively in the nonsecure facility where she was detained, Family Court ordered respondent to a secure facility, thereby making the diagnostic evaluation impossible. At that point respondent rescinded her speedy trial waiver:

… [A]lthough respondent waived her right to a speedy fact-finding hearing during the first appearance held on April 4, 2019, the waiver was expressly limited to the time necessary to complete the diagnostic evaluation. By entering an order on June 26, 2019 directing respondent’s transfer from Elmcrest Children’s Center to a secure facility, Family Court knowingly eliminated the possibility that the diagnostic evaluation would be continued and completed. Under such circumstances, respondent’s waiver of her speedy trial rights effectively expired on June 26, 2019. Consequently, Family Court should have commenced a fact-finding hearing within three days of June 26, 2019 or, alternatively, brought the parties before it and either obtained a further waiver of respondent’s speedy trial rights or set forth on the record its reasons for adjourning the fact-finding hearing beyond the prescribed three-day period … . Inasmuch as Family Court failed to do any of the foregoing and instead did not commence the fact-finding hearing until August 15, 2019, some 50 days after the expiration of respondent’s speedy trial waiver, we find that Family Court violated respondent’s right to a speedy fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Erika UU., 2021 NY Slip Op 01543, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/ ,

THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING AN UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT AFTER THE SCHOOL LEARNED OF A RUMOR THAT J.P. INTENDED TO FIGHT SOMEONE; WHEN CONFRONTED AND WARNED J.P. DENIED THAT HE INTENDED TO ASSAULT ANYONE; TWO DAYS LATER J.P. ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s child was assaulted at school by another child, J.P. The assistant principal had been warned that J.P. was going to fight with someone. The assistant principal warned J.P. of the consequences and alerted school security. When the assistant principal warned J.P. he denied that he intended to fight someone:

A necessary element of a cause of action alleging negligent supervision is that the district knew or should have known of J.P.’s propensity for violence … . The defendant established that the complaint and bill of particulars did not allege that J.P. had a propensity to engage in violence or that the district knew or should have known that J.P. had a propensity for violence … .

The defendant established, prima facie, that it was not made aware of any particularized threat against the child. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the defendant established that the assistant principal took reasonable steps to prevent J.P. from fighting by warning J.P. about the consequences of fighting, informing his mother of the alleged threat and the consequences of fighting, and informing the head of school security that there was an alleged threat that J.P. intended to fight someone, notwithstanding that the assistant principal was not aware of J.P.’s intended target. Under these circumstances, the defendant reasonably responded to a rumor of a threat and could not have anticipated that J.P. would have attacked the child two days later … . Further, the defendant established that “the incident occurred in so short a period of time that any negligent supervision on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries” … . Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 08277, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/ ,

THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CONDUCTING AN INVENTORY SEARCH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle should have been granted. The police did not demonstrate a lawful bas for impounding the vehicle and conducting an inventory search:

… [T]he People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . Although, at the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was “parked on the corner” at the time of the defendant’s arrest, there was no testimony that the vehicle was parked illegally or that there were any posted time limits pertaining to the space where the vehicle was parked. The People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle, and the officer testified that the vehicle was driven to the precinct because it was used in the commission of a crime. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, although the officer who performed the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle testified that the policy for conducting such searches was located in the Patrol Guide, the People presented no evidence demonstrating the requirements of the policy for impounding and searching a vehicle, or whether the officer complied with that policy when she conducted the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Rivera, 2021 NY Slip Op 08256, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/ ,

PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined petitioner, a journalist, was not entitled under the Election Law to examine 353 ballots cast in the primary election for Queens County District Attorney which was won by only 55 votes:

Election Law § 16-112 … only empowers the court to direct the examination of a ballot by a candidate whose name appeared thereon (or his or her agent). Thus, insofar as Election Law § 3-222 provides that voted ballots may be examined by court order, the court would not be empowered to direct the examination of ballots by the petitioner, who was not a candidate (or a designated agent of a candidate). Further, the petitioner has not set forth a purpose for examination of the affidavit ballots which could possibly have been intended by the legislature in enacting Election Law § 3-222 … .

Moreover, insofar as the petitioner does not claim to have any interest in the outcome of the primary election, the petitioner has failed to set forth any injury which the subject proceeding is intended to address so as to confer standing. In fact, the petitioner has not set forth any interest different from any other member of the public, aside from his desire to obtain access to information to aid in his career as a journalist. Moreover, any determination that the petitioner has standing to petition the court for access to the affidavit ballots at issue would be in contravention of the legislature’s clear intent “to guard against unjustified erosion of the policies of ballot secrecy and finality” … . Matter of Hamm v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 08232, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes o action should have been granted. In addition defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have been granted, Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold with no railing when a piece of concrete fell from the ceiling and knocked him off the scaffold:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, through his deposition testimony that the scaffold he was using lacked any safety railings and that he tried to grab onto something as he fell from the scaffold but “there was nothing to grab” … . …

Similarly, the plaintiff met his prima facie burden with respect to so much of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action as was predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-5.3(e), by establishing that the scaffold lacked safety railings in violation of that regulation and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . * * *

[Re; the Labor Law 200 cause of action:] … [T]he defendants … demonstrated … that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . The defendants … further demonstrated … that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any alleged defect in the concrete ceiling. Since the concrete ceiling had been covered by a drop ceiling until the drop ceiling was demolished … , any alleged defect in the concrete ceiling was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection … . Leon-Rodriguez v Roman Catholic Church of Sts. Cyril & Methodius, 2021 NY Slip Op 08228, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER DISCOVERY WAS CLOSED TO RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY STEMMING FROM FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE DOOR WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CLOSED ON HER HAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill of particulars after discovery was complete should not have been granted and defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the door of a retail store closed on her hand as she was pushing a cart with merchandise through the doorway. She alleged the door was not properly maintained. After discovery she sought to amend her bill of particulars to allege there was a crack in the floor which caused the cart to get stuck as she was attempting to pass through the doorway:

“While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise” … , “once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances” … . In such a case, leave may properly be granted “where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant” … . However “where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging new theories of liability not raised in the complaint or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious” … . “In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom” … .

… [T]he proposed amendment to the bill of particulars raised an entirely new theory of liability well after discovery had been completed, and was advanced only in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her delay in seeking the amendment … , and the proposed amendment was prejudicial to the defendant … . * * *

… [T]he defendant [out-of-possession landlord] demonstrated its … entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting, inter alia, the lease, which established that the tenant enjoyed complete and exclusive possession of the demised premises at the time of the plaintiff’s injury and that the defendant was not responsible for maintenance of the door. King v Marwest, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 08225, Second Dept 3-17-20

 

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