You are here: / THE PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH...

Search Results

/

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

 

/ , , ,

THE DEFAULT NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT BECAUSE IT DID NOT STATE THE DEBT WAS DUE AND PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPER MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. The court held the action had never been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because no 90-day notice requiring the filing of a note of issue had been given. The foreclosure action was timely because the letter which defendants argued had accelerated the debt did not unambiguously state that the full mortgage debt had become due and payable immediately. However proof of the mailing of the the RPAPL 1304 notice was not sufficient:

The December 28, 2009 letter advised Mausler [defendant] that he was in default and that he could cure this default by making a payment “within thirty days from the date of this letter.” The letter further stated that “[i]f you do not cure this default within the specified time period, your obligation for payment of the entire unpaid balance of the loan will be accelerated and become due and payable immediately” … . Additionally, the letter provided that if the amount due was not paid, “foreclosure proceedings may commence to acquire the [p]roperty by foreclosure and sale” … . The Court of Appeals, however, recently explained that such language does not evince an intent by the noteholder to “seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event”… . Accordingly, contrary to defendants’ contention, the December 2009 letter did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt so as to trigger the applicable statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff relies on the affidavit from the loan servicing associate to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304. The associate, however, “did not attest to familiarity with or provide any proof of the mailing procedures utilized by the party that allegedly mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice” … . Wilmington Trust, Natl. Assn. v Mausler, 2021 NY Slip Op 01296, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/ , ,

A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR WHICH A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AFTER DECEDENT’S DEATH MAY NOT BE ENTERED IN DECEDENT’S NAME PURSUANT TO CPLR 5016 (d); THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN SETTLING THE ESTATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of settlement in favor of decedent which was the basis of a judgment entered after decedent’s death cannot, pursuant to CPLR 5016 (d), be entered in his or her own name, and therefore is not entitled to priority in settling the estate:

An “accepted offer to compromise pursuant to [CPLR] 3221” (CPLR 5016 [d]) refers to a precise mechanism, which allows a party against whom a claim is asserted, 10 days before trial, to “serve upon the claimant a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against him [or her] for a sum or property or to the effect therein specified, with costs then accrued. If within [10] days thereafter the claimant serves a written notice that he [or she] accepts the offer, either party may file the summons, complaint and offer, with proof of acceptance, and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly” (CPLR 3221). Here, there was no written offer or written acceptance; rather, the stipulation occurred on the record before Supreme Court, and the filing in the Clerk’s Office occurred after petitioner secured the judgment and order from Supreme Court … .

We decline to adopt the broad interpretation of CPLR 5016 (d), as petitioner urges … . The Legislature, in creating CPLR 5016 (d), set forth three distinct situations where a post-mortem judgment may be entered against the decedent in his or her own name, thus bestowing priority to the creditor. None of these three provisions was met here. Matter of Uccellini, 2021 NY Slip Op 01303, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/ ,

DESPITE A SMALL HOME OFFICE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCES IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. The NYC Administrative Code exempts abutting owner-occupied residential properties from liability. The fact that defendant had a small office where he edited photos did not change the purely residential nature of the property:

In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . This liability shifting provision does not, however, apply to “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” … . “The purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

Here, the appellant established, prima facie, that he was exempt from liability pursuant to the subject Code exception, and no triable issue of fact was raised in opposition. The appellant’s partial use of a room in his single-family home as an office to edit some photos in relation to his infrequent paid photography ventures was merely incidental to his residential use of the property … . The appellant was a retired photographer, and on occasion he would edit photos on his home computer in relation to two or three paid party photography jobs he did per year. The appellant did not claim a “home office” tax deduction, nor did he use this space in his home to edit these photos with any regularity. Zak v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01287, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

/ , , ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION TO EXCLUDE A MEMBER OF THE NATION FROM A PARCEL OF NATION LAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a land-possession dispute within the Unkechaug Indian Nation. The Nation first sought a Supreme Court ruling on the rightful possessor of the land (claimed to be Curtis Treadwell), thereby waiving sovereign immunity on that issue. Then the Nation, pursuant to its own internal Tribal Rules, determined Danielle Treadwell, who occupied a portion of the land, was an “undisirable person” and, based on that finding, could no longer occupy the property. The Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the “undesirable person” action taken by the Nation:

… [B]y bringing the April 2018 determination that Curtis was the rightful possessor of the subject property before the state Supreme Court, and seeking a declaration and enforcement, the Nation waived its sovereign immunity, though only as to that determination and its enforcement … . Accordingly, so long as the Nation relied on the April 2018 determination as its basis for excluding Danielle from the disputed portion of the subject property, the defendants’ counterclaims seeking inverse declarations could proceed along with the Nation’s action for declaratory relief. However, once the Nation proceeded to take the undesirability vote in September 2019 and issue the tribal resolution and directives based upon the membership’s vote, the Nation, pursuant to its own Tribal Rules, created a new and independent basis, under its sovereign authority, for excluding Danielle from the disputed portion of the subject property. The Supreme Court properly recognized that once it was informed of the 2019 undesirability determination, it could not take any action with respect thereto, as this was a sovereign act of the Nation outside the court’s subject matter jurisdiction … . Unkechaug Indian Nation v Treadwell, 2021 NY Slip Op 01286, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

/

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT CREATED AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER THE EASEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED TO ACCESS A PUBLIC ROAD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language in an easement indicating it is to be used for agricultural activities “and any use incidental thereto” did not support a finding, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the easement could be used to access a public road:

“Easements by express grant are construed to give effect to the parties’ intent, as manifested by the language of the grant” … . The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement” … .

… [T]he plain meaning of the phrase “and any use incidental thereto” contemplates a use incidental to the agricultural activities on easement A, specifically, not agricultural activities outside of easement A. The record contains no evidence demonstrating that the grantor intended to allow the owner of lot 9 to enter easement A for a reason other than to engage in agricultural activities there, and thus, at the very least, there is an ambiguity as to whether [defendant] may use easement A solely as a thoroughfare, warranting denial of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) … . Strong Real Estate, LLC v 55 Town Line, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01280, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant WFG, a title insurance company, should not have been granted summary judgment on the “apparent authority” cause of action. WFG had terminated its agency relationship with NMR and had served a temporary restraining order on NMR prohibiting NMR from issuing any title insurance underwritten by WFG. The day after the restraining order was served, NMR issued a policy to plaintiff on property which turned out to have been encumbered with millions of dollars of liens. WFG was able to prove NMR did not have actual authority to issue the policy, but did not demonstrate NMR did not have apparent authority to issue the policy:

In the absence of actual authority, a principal may still be bound by the actions of a person who has apparent authority … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction” … . The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact … . Failure to make such a showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … .

Here, WFG failed to establish, prima facie, that NMR Realty lacked apparent authority to issue the policy. WFG merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, which was insufficient to meet its prima facie burden as the party moving for summary judgment … . Schwartz v WFG Natl. Tit. Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01279, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this slip and fall case, determined plaintiff’s expert should have been allowed to testify:

The plaintiff Wendy Robins (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) fell after stepping onto a curb adjacent to an unfinished driveway apron leading to an underground parking garage in a condominium building that was under construction … . …

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness as to industry safety standards relating to the construction of sidewalks … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record shows no appreciable difference between the unfinished driveway apron where the injured plaintiff fell, which was left open to pedestrians, and the adjoining unfinished sidewalks, which were barricaded by a fence and barrels. Moreover, the absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance is not dispositive of the plaintiffs’ allegations based on common-law negligence principles … . Had the plaintiffs’ expert been permitted to testify, he could have addressed whether, under the circumstances presented, the defendants’ failure to barricade the driveway apron or otherwise warn pedestrians of its unfinished condition was a departure from generally accepted customs and practices and whether the defendants were negligent in failing to do so … . Robins v City of Long Beach, 2021 NY Slip Op 01277, Second Dept 3-3-21​

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DIRECTLY INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to allow defendant to move to withdraw his guilty plea, determined, although the co-defendant, in defendant’s presence, was informed of the possibility of deportation based upon the plea, the defendant, who did not speak English, was not directly so informed by the judge:

During that proceeding, the court posed a question directly to “Mr. Vidalis,” asking if the codefendant understood that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, to which the codefendant answered in the affirmative. The court then stated to the defendant, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” The defendant answered in the affirmative. The court then individually asked the codefendant and the defendant if they had fully discussed “the immigration consequences of this case with your attorney,” to which the defendant answered in the affirmative. However, the court did not specifically instruct the defendant, who required a Spanish interpreter to understand the court and had only a sixth-grade education, that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, nor did the court use the words “deported” or “deportation” in any statement posed directly to the defendant. * * *

… [W]hile the plea record demonstrates that the Supreme Court specifically advised the codefendant of the possibility that he could be deported as a consequence of his plea, the court, in addressing the defendant, simply asked, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” … . In light of the defendant’s limited education and need for a Spanish interpreter to understand the court’s remarks, the court’s limited inquiry as to whether the defendant understood “that” did not ensure the defendant’s understanding that he could be deported as a consequence of his own plea, as opposed to his mere recognition that the codefendant faced deportation consequences … . People v Tapia, 2021 NY Slip Op 01274, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

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