You are here: / THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED...

Search Results

/ ,

THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, SEVEN YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED; IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE MUTUALLY REAFFIRMED TO BE VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the prenuptial agreement was not valid and enforceable. The agreement was not acknowledged in front of a notary in 2011 by the defendant. Plaintiff had signed and acknowledged the agreement in 2011. Seven years later, right before the divorce proceedings, defendant had his signature acknowledged and he filed the agreement:

… [W]e conclude that, when an acknowledgment is missing from a nuptial agreement, an acknowledgment and a reaffirmation by the parties is required to cure the defect. To hold otherwise would permit a spouse to act unilaterally to cure the lack of his or her acknowledgment at some later date, and would thereby permit that spouse to choose, based on circumstances that may have changed in ways unanticipated by the other spouse at the time of the initial signing of the agreement, whether to acknowledge the agreement and make it enforceable or to leave it unacknowledged and defective. When the parties mutually sign and acknowledge the agreement, it is clear that they are mutually binding themselves to the weighty decisions that they deliberated on. Thus, in order for the acknowledgment to have true significance and purpose, it must be done contemporaneously with the parties’ signatures or, if the acknowledgment occurs at a later date, the agreement must be mutually reaffirmed by the parties … . Anderson v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04640, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S HOMEOWNER’S POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR INTENTIONAL ACTS; THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY PLAINTIFF ON HIS NEIGHBOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not obligated to defend plaintiff (pursuant to plaintiff’s homeowner’s policy) because the injuries stemmed from an apparent assault by plaintiff on his neighbor (Salerno) and therefore involved intentional, not negligent, acts. The policy excluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts. Salerno sued plaintiff in tort:

In assessing whether a policy exclusion for injuries ” intentionally caused’ ” by the insured applies, a court must look to the pleadings in the underlying action and “limit [its] examination to the nature of the conduct [of the insured] as it is there described” … . The “analysis depends on the facts which are pleaded, not conclusory assertions” … . When a complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that an assault was committed negligently, an insurer has no duty to defend where the insured does not provide “evidentiary support for the conclusory characterization of [the] conduct as negligent or provide an explanation of how the intrinsically intentional act[] of assault . . . could be negligently performed” … . An insured may not “exalt form over substance by labeling [an underlying tort] action as one to recover damages for negligence” where the conduct is inherently intentional … .

Here, the second cause of action in the Salerno complaint contains no more than a conclusory characterization of plaintiff’s conduct as negligent without any supporting factual allegations. Thus, the complaint in the underlying action does not contain sufficient allegations of negligence to avoid the policy exclusion … . Scalzo v Central Co-op. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04639, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

THE SOLAR ARRAY IS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGE’S LAND AND IS THEREFORE TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY; THE ARRAY IS OWNED BY THE INSTALLER, NOT THE COLLEGE, AND IS THEREFORE NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the solar array installed on petitioner-college’s land was owned by the installer, Argos, not the college, and is taxable as real property because it is permanently attached to the land:

Respondents contend that the system constitutes taxable real property under RPTL 102 (12) (b). We agree. Pursuant to that statute, taxable real property is defined as “[b]uildings and other articles and structures, substructures and superstructures erected upon, under or above the land, or affixed thereto” (id.). “The common law relating to fixtures provides guidance in determining whether particular items fall within [that] statutory definition” … . “To meet the common-law definition of fixture, the personalty in question must: (1) be actually annexed to real property or something appurtenant thereto; (2) be applied to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty with which it is connected is appropriated; and, (3) be intended by the parties as a permanent accession to the freehold” … . …

… .RPTL 420-a (1) (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for . . . educational . . . purposes, and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon . . . such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation.” “Land and [structures] are separately defined as taxable forms of real property (see RPTL 102 [12] [a], [b]), and [parties to an agreement] may agree to their separate ownership” … . …

Here, it is undisputed that petitioner is a qualifying corporation, but Argos is not, and that the system is used for a qualifying purpose; therefore, whether the system is tax exempt depends on its ownership. Matter of Cornell Univ. v Board of Assessment Review, 2020 NY Slip Op 04636, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , , ,

THE ORAL STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION IS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the oral stipulation of settlement in this divorce action is invalid and unenforceable. The dissent argued defendant wife was not aggrieved because the parties contentions were resolved by the stipulation which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce:

… [T]he parties placed on the record an oral stipulation of settlement that, inter alia, provided for the distribution of the marital property. Although the oral stipulation contemplated the signing of a postnuptial agreement, defendant wife refused to sign such an agreement. Nevertheless, Supreme Court issued a judgment that acknowledged that the parties had placed on the record in open court an oral stipulation resolving all disputed issues, and that provided, inter alia, that the oral stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the judgment. …

We agree with defendant that the oral stipulation rendered in open court did not satisfy the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3), and it is therefore invalid and unenforceable. “In matrimonial actions . . . an open court stipulation is unenforceable absent a writing that complies with the requirements for marital settlement agreements” … . “More particularly, to be valid and enforceable, marital settlement agreements must be in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded’ … . McGovern v McGovern, 2020 NY Slip Op 04635, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , , , ,

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION CAN REVIEW THE RECORD OF A TRIAL AND FIND THE VERDICT UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; HERE THE RECORD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE DRIVER OF A NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY DUMP TRUCK ACTED RECKLESSLY BY PARKING THE TRUCK ON THE SHOULDER OF THE THRUWAY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, refusing to follow any decisions to the contrary, determined, despite the defendant’s failure to make a motion to set aside the verdict, the appellate court may review the record and render a judgment warranted by the facts. The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed the plaintiffs’ verdict in this traffic accident case. Defendant, an employee of the New York State Thruway Authority, was the driver of a dump truck parked on the shoulder of the thruway while other employees picked up debris in the median. The truck was parked 18 inches to the left of the fog line. Plaintiffs’ van drifted out of its lane and struck the back of the dump truck. The plaintiffs argued defendant was required by the relevant regulations to pull off “as far from traffic as feasible.” The Fourth Department held that, although failure to pull off the highway further than 18 inches may demonstrate a lack of due care, it did not demonstrate recklessness as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103:

… [A]t the time of the collision, defendant had parked the truck entirely outside of the travel lane approximately 18 inches to the left of the yellow fog line on or near the rumble strips located on the shoulder. Defendant had also activated multiple hazard lights on the truck, which consisted of regular flashers, two amber lights on the tailgate, beacon lights, and four flashing caution lights on the arrow board. Moreover, the undisputed evidence established that there were no weather, road, or lighting conditions creating visibility or control issues for motorists on the morning of the incident. Even if, as the court found, defendant knew or should have known that vehicles occasionally leave the roadway at a high rate of speed due to motorists being tired, distracted, or inattentive, we conclude that, here, it cannot be said that defendant’s actions were of an “unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and . . . done . . . with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . Alexandra R. v Krone, 2020 NY Slip Op 04631, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , ,

CLAIMANT’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS STUDENT-ON-STUDENT ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s petition for leave to file a late notice of claim on the school district in this student-on-student third-party assault case should not have been granted:

” In determining whether to grant such leave, the court must consider, inter alia, whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality’ ” … . …

… [C]laimant described the assault on her child as “unprovoked,” and the accident report prepared contemporaneously by a school nurse, which claimant submitted with her reply affidavit, describes a single punch resulting only in a headache and swollen face. Inasmuch as “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” …, we agree with respondent that the known facts failed to give “reasonable notice from which it could be inferred that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by [respondent]”. Matter of Mary Beth B. v West Genesee Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 04630, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BY OFFICERS WHO BELIEVED HE WAS DEFENDANT’S BROTHER FOR WHOM THERE WERE OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANTS; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE ARREST WARRANTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon seized from after he fled the police should have been granted. At the suppression hearing the officers testified they thought defendant was defendant’s brother and approached defendant because they aware of outstanding warrants for the brother’s arrest. To meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing, the People were required to prove the existence and validity of the arrest warrants, but no such proof was presented:

… ” [T]he arrest of a person who is mistakenly thought to be someone else is valid if the arresting officer (a) has probable cause to arrest the person sought, and (b) reasonably believed the person arrested was the person sought’ ” … . The ” reasonableness of the arresting officers’ conduct must be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest’ ” … . Thus, to establish a lawful arrest of defendant, the People were required to establish the existence of a validly issued arrest warrant for defendant’s brother or probable cause to arrest him … and, here, the People concede that the police arrested defendant based only upon the arrest warrants issued for defendant’s brother.

Contrary to the People’s position and the dissent’s assertion, we conclude that defendant challenged the existence and validity of the arrest warrants for his brother by questioning the police witnesses at the suppression hearing concerning the status of the arrest warrants and whether they were still valid … . Notably, the court acknowledged and “accept[ed] that the [d]efendant [was] in fact contesting the validity of [the] warrants.” Once defendant challenged the existence and validity of the arrest warrants, the People were ” required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the . . . warrant[s]’ ” … , or “reliable evidence that the warrant[s were] active and valid” … . Here, the People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as they failed to produce the arrest warrants themselves or other reliable evidence that the warrants were active and valid … . People v Dortch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04711, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT (MURDER SECOND) AND THE TOP COUNT (MURDER FIRST) IN THE ALTERNATIVE; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, noting that the issues need not be preserved for appeal, determined the jury should have been instructed to consider the top count, murder first degree, and the inclusory concurrent count, murder second degree, in the alternative:

… [T]he court should have instructed the jury to consider count two “only in the alternative as an inclusory concurrent count” of count one … . The court, … erred when it did not instruct the jury to consider counts one and two in the alernative and instead directed the jury to consider the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree for each of the two murder charges. That error resulted in the jury improperly returning a verdict convicting defendant of two identical counts of manslaughter in the first degree with respect to the same victim. We therefore … modify the judgment by reversing the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree under count two of the indictment and dismissing that count of the indictment … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 04702, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUE DEPENDS ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting that matter to allow defendant to move to withdraw his guilty plea, considering the issue in the interest of justice, determined defendant was not informed of the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. Because the ineffective assistance claim depends in part on matters outside the record, it can only be addressed in a motion to vacate the conviction:

… [D]efendant, a noncitizen, contends that his felony guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because Supreme Court failed to advise him of the potential deportation consequences of such a plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013], cert denied 574 US 840 [2014]). As a preliminary matter, we note that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal … . Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was required to preserve his contention under the circumstances of this case … , we exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . “[D]ue process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . Here, the record of the plea proceeding establishes that the court failed to fulfill that obligation … . As defendant contends and contrary to the People’s suggestion, “the case should be remitted to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation” … . People v Jumale, 2020 NY Slip Op 04697, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/

BECAUSE THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NO LONGER BE COMPLIED WITH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE VACATED; UNDER THE AGREEMENT DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE ON A SEPARATE INDICTMENT, BUT THAT SEPARATE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED AFTER APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the inability to comply the plea agreement required the vacation of the plea. The plea was based on the promise that defendant’s sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed under a separate indictment. That separate indictment was dismissed after appeal:

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in Livingston County convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree … . The plea satisfied another indictment pending against defendant in Livingston County (indictment No. 2014-042). Pursuant to the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment that was to run concurrently with a 10-year sentence previously imposed on defendant in Monroe County for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. We later reversed the Monroe County judgment and dismissed the indictment … . Defendant now contends, and the People correctly concede, that, inasmuch as his plea in Livingston County was induced by the promise of a concurrent sentence, which is no longer possible, the judgment must be reversed and the plea vacated … . This will result in the reinstatement of indictment No. 2014-042, which was satisfied by defendant’s plea … . People v Peterson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04691, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

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