You are here: / ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY...

Search Results

/ , , ,

ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ASPECT OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should not have summarily dismissed the declaratory judgment aspect of this hybrid declaratory judgment/Article 78 action. The Second Department found that Supreme Court had properly affirmed the denial of a special use permit for a dog kennel, but the Second Department reinstated the request for a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of a related local law:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have summarily dismissed the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220-23(D)(7) is unconstitutional. “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “‘Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action'” … . Here, since no party made such a request, the court erred in summarily disposing of the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220-23(D)(7) is unconstitutional. Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 2021 NY Slip Op 01416, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

/ , ,

BUDGETARY CONCERNS RELATED TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC JUSTIFED THE DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION TO CONTINUE SERVING ON THE BENCH TO 46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO REACHED THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 70 IN 2020 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a partial dissent, determined the Administrative Board of the NYS Unified Court System did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied certification to 46 of 49 Supreme Court Justices who reached the age of 70 in 2020. Retirement at age 70 is mandated by the NYS Constitution. But certification to continue serving on the bench can be granted by the Board. Here the Board based its decision to deny certification to 46 justices on budgetary concerns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic:

The Board minutes explain that the Board “declined to certify 46 of the 49 [Justices] applying for certification owing to current severe budgetary constraints occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic. Three [Justices], having specialized additional assignments[,] were certified.” The Board’s certification of three applicants reflects both an individualized assessment and a recognition — “at least impliedly” — that additional judicial services are necessary … . …”[W]hether the services of a particular Justice are ‘necessary to expedite the business of the court’ encompasses much more than a mechanical inquiry into the size of the courts’ docket divided by the number of Justices” … . Certainly, it should be recognized that the continued services of the petitioner Justices would advance the needs of the court in managing an expanding caseload. That positive contribution, however, is not the deciding factor, as the Board is charged with balancing the costs of certification with the overall needs of the court system … . … [T]he Board made the extremely difficult judgment call that certification would prove too costly under the economic dilemma presented. … [C]ertification would significantly disrupt overall court operations given that the alternative savings mechanism would require more than 300 layoffs of nonjudicial personnel. Achieving the proper balance for the court system was for the Board to determine. … In our view, the Board acted in accord with the governing standard and within the scope of its broad authority in basing its ultimate decision on the overall needs of the court system. Matter of Gesmer v Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., 2021 NY Slip Op 01376, Third Dept 3-9-21

 

/ , ,

REPORTING AN ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TO THE POLICE DOES NOT EVINCE MALICE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING THE REPORT; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the defamation action based upon defendant’s filing a sexual assault complaint with the police was protected by qualified immunity and the nature of the complaint did not evince the malice required to overcome the qualified immunity. The sexual assault trial ended in a hung jury and defendant agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal as the disposition of her charges against plaintiff. Plaintiff was formerly an assistant district attorney and defendant was a reporter for the Daily News:

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individuals who, like defendant, act “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of [her] own affairs, in a matter where h[er] interest is concerned” … . To overcome the qualified privilege protecting defendant’s statements to the police, plaintiff was required to sufficiently allege that she published the statements with actual malice, i.e., that defendant “acted out of personal spite or ill will, with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity, or with a high degree belief that [her] statements were probably false” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of alleging actual malice sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege attaching to defendant’s statements to the police. Even as alleged in the complaint, the statements are a straightforward rendition of the incident that defendant claims occurred during a car ride with plaintiff. There was nothing excessive or “vituperative” in the character of the reported statements that would support an inference of actual malice … . Indeed, it is difficult to see how defendant could have been more succinct or restrained in her description of the events while accomplishing her purpose: to report to the police that she had been the victim of sexual assault. Sagaille v Carrega, 2021 NY Slip Op 01369, First Dept 3-9-21

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined County Law 52, not General Municipal Law (GML) 50, applied to a “money had and received” lawsuit against the district attorney of New York County. Although the district attorney is considered a city employee for purposes the General Municipal Law, the district attorney is elected by the citizens of New York County and is subject to the provisions of the County Law. The General Municipal Law notice of claim requirement applies only to tort actions. However, the County Law notice of claim requirement applies to this action for money had and received. No notice of claim was filed:

Defendant falls back on the position that, even if no notice of claim was required under GML section 50-k, one was required under County Law section 52. …

Although this section also refers to GML sections 50-e and 50-i, the Court of Appeals has expressly held that it applies to non-tort claims … . Further, County Law section 52 applies to county employees … . Nevertheless, plaintiffs assert that in arguing for application of the County Law, the District Attorney is trying to have it both ways, since he claims to be a city employee for purposes of the General Municipal Law, but a county employee for purposes of the County Law. It is true that New York City law considers the District Attorney to be a city employee … . However, this is no reason not to apply County Law section 52, since there is no county-level government organization in the City of New York that could be considered the District Attorney’s employer for administrative purposes such as paying his or her salary. Moreover, the District Attorney is elected by the voters of New York County, not New York City. Finally, this Court has cited County Law section 52 in holding that a notice of claim is required before filing an action against the office of a District Attorney in the City of New York … . Slemish Corp. S.A. v Morgenthau, 2021 NY Slip Op 01370, First Dept 3-9-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not present sufficient evidence in support of their motion to change venue. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, who were hired to paint newly-constructed residential property, did substandard work. Suit was brought in the county of plaintiffs’ residence and business, New York County. The defendants sought to change the venue to Suffolk County where the property is located and defendants reside:

Where venue has properly been designated by the plaintiff based on the residence of either party, a defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief. The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue … …

… [D]efendants neglected to show with sufficient particularity the facts upon which nonparty McAulife is expected to testify. … Defendants did not submit an affidavit from McAulife, relying instead on counsel’s affirmation wherein he states that McAulife was “familiar with the work performed by defendants at 10 Two Trees Lane,” and “familiar with defendants in their business capacity.” Without further detail about when, where, and under what circumstances McAulife had occasion to become “familiar with the work,” defendants’ burden has not been met … . Defendants also fail to set forth McAulife’s name, address, and occupation, or how he would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue. The fact that the case involves work on a property located in Suffolk County does not justify an inversion of the burden of proof or relieve the moving party of its burden of establishing that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses would be served by a discretionary change of venue … . 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01371, First Dept 3-9-21

 

/

WHETHER PLAINTIFF USED ONE OR BOTH HANDS TO MANIPULATE A HOSE WHILE STANDING ON A LADDER WHICH COLLAPSED OR SLIPPED WAS RELEVANT ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he fell from an A-frame ladder which collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to support him. Plaintiff was using a hose to insert insulation and was supposed to keep one hand on the ladder at all times. Defendant argued plaintiff demonstrated at his deposition that he had both hands on the hose. The majority held, even if plaintiff used both hands to manipulate the hose, that would constitute comparative negligence which is not a bar to recovery:

… [D]efendant relied upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which he averred that he chose a wooden, A-frame ladder, which he described as “sturdy,” and placed so it was steady and free from “wiggling.” Plaintiff testified that, while standing on the steps of the ladder, he maintained a three-point safety stance, with his feet and one arm in contact with the ladder, and his other hand holding the hose that fed the insulation into the building’s overhang. Plaintiff indicated that the ladder began to move forward, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Defendant argued that this testimony established that the ladder “was adequate and properly placed” … , and that the testimony about plaintiff keeping one hand in contact with the ladder contradicted gestures he made during the deposition, where he seemed to indicate that “both [of his] hands [were] cupped around an imaginary hose,” thus posing issues of fact.

As Supreme Court found, the deposition testimony is not clear as to whether plaintiff maintained the three-point safety stance while on the ladder. Nonetheless, even if this disputed issue was resolved against plaintiff, this would merely present a factual question as to his potential comparative negligence, which “does not relieve defendant[] of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Bennett v Savage, 2021 NY Slip Op 01306, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/

COUNTY COURT’S TELLING DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT ADEQUATELY INFORM DEFENDANT HIS STATEMENT IN THE PROBATION INTERVIEW THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE BURGLARY WOULD TRIGGER AN ENHANCED SENTENCE; SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined that County Court’s telling defendant he would enhance defendant’s sentence if defendant did not cooperate with the Probation Department did not adequately inform defendant his sentence would be enhanced if he told the Probation Department he did not remember the burglary to which he entered a plea:

Prior to adjourning the matter for sentencing, County Court stated to defendant, “It’s important that you cooperate with the Probation Department . . ., because if you . . . didn’t cooperate with the presentence investigation report, then I could enhance the sentence and sentence you to more time.” County Court did not, however, expressly advise defendant (and defendant, in turn, did not agree) that he must provide truthful answers to the Probation Department, refrain from making statements that were inconsistent with his sworn statements during the plea colloquy and/or avoid any attempt to minimize his conduct in the underlying burglary … . Further, County Court summarily denied defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea upon this ground and, despite defendant’s request for a hearing, County Court made no further inquiry as to defendant’s allegedly inconsistent statements; rather, County Court simply concluded that defendant’s stated inability to recall the burglary at the time of his interview with the Probation Department constituted a failure to “cooperate” in the preparation of the presentence investigation report. Given the subjective nature of the court’s requirement that defendant “cooperate” with the Probation Department and the court’s corresponding lack of further inquiry, County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first affording defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Ackley, 2021 NY Slip Op 01293, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/ , ,

THE FORMER SURROGATE, NOW IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, CANNOT REPRESENT A CLIENT IN A CASE WHICH WAS BEFORE HER AS SURROGATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the former Surrogate, who is now in private practice, cannot represent a client in a proceeding which was before her as Surrogate:

Respondent contends that Surrogate’s Court erred in not granting her motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel. We agree. Just as a judge may not preside over a case that he or she was previously involved in as an attorney (see Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1] [b] [i]), an attorney may not appear for a client in a case that he or she previously presided over as a judge (see Judiciary Law § 17; … see also Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.12 [a]). To that end, Judiciary Law § 17 provides that a “former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her] in his [or her] official character.” This prohibition is “absolute” and “establishes a bright-line disqualification rule” … . By our reading, this statute clearly operates to disqualify petitioner’s counsel — who previously presided as the Surrogate over the probate of decedent’s will and the issuance of letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship to respondent — from now representing petitioner in his claims against respondent involving the same estate and the same trust … . To the extent that Surrogate’s Court determined that Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.00) rule 1.12 (a) would permit the former Surrogate to represent petitioner in this matter — a finding with which we do not agree — this rule cannot be relied upon to permit a representation agreement that is otherwise precluded by Judiciary Law § 17. Matter of Gordon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01294, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/

THE PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH THE GOAL OF FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION, AND THE CONCURRENT PERMANENCY PLAN TO RETURN THE CHILD TO THE CUSTODY OF MOTHER, HAD CONFLICTING END GOALS; THE PETITION TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN DIMSISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the end goals of two concurrent proceedings were contradictory and therefore the petition to terminate father’s parental rights should have been dismissed. The abandonment/termination of parental rights petition, which sought to free the child for adoption, was brought in the face of a permanency plan which sought to return the child to the custody of mother:

Respondent [father] contends that the abandonment proceeding, seeking to terminate his parental rights, was improperly brought against him as the permanency plan in place at the time of the hearing with respect to the mother was to return the child to the mother. We agree. … The statutory purpose of an abandonment proceeding is to free the child for adoption by terminating the parents’ rights to the child. Because this proceeding sought to terminate the rights of one parent in the face of an existent permanency plan that sought to reunite the child with the other parent, it did not serve that purpose. In circumstances such as this, dismissal of the petition is mandated … . Matter of Xavier XX. (Godfrey YY.), 2021 NY Slip Op 01295, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/ , , , , ,

THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seven-year statute of limitations in NYC’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM) was not preempted by the one-year statute of limitations for assault in the CPLR and the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action should have survived the motion to dismiss even though the S corporation (PDR) and the defendant (Rofe) may be one and the same. The complaint alleged plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted sexual touching by defendant Rofe during voice-over coaching sessions offered by defendant S corporation (PDR):

… [W]e find that the legislative intent of the VGM was to create a civil rights remedy or cause of action such as in VAWA, rather than to extend the statute of limitations for a particular class of assaults. Since the nature of the claim is for a civil rights violation (providing a remedy for those subjected to violence because of their gender), the seven-year limitations period provided in the Administrative Code is not preempted by the CPLR statute of limitations for assault claims. * * *

To be sure, defendants may be correct that PDR essentially has no corporate structure separate from Rofe. Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to distinguish between Rofe and PDR in their brief. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Rofe was an employee of PDR and, through the submission of additional evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, have also sufficiently alleged that there may have been other employees of PDR who either hired, or supervised Rofe or whom Rofe hired or supervised. The acts of a corporation’s agent and the knowledge acquired by the agent are presumptively imputed to the corporation … . Thus, Rofe’s knowledge (as an alleged agent of PDR) that an employee was potentially violent or prone to sexual assaults would normally be imputed to PDR, potentially requiring PDR to supervise that employee, and the cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision should be reinstated as against PDR … . Engelman v Rofe, 2021 NY Slip Op 01321, First Dept 3-2-21

 

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