You are here: / ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK REMAINED HIS ELECTORAL RESIDENCY; THEREFORE RESPONDENT WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined New York, not Connecticut, was respondent’s (Koffman’s) electoral residency. Therefore respondent was eligible to run for the State Senate in New York. Respondent had attended college in Connecticut and registered to vote a there during college:

Petitioner submitted proof that respondent had registered to vote and had voted in Connecticut from 2015 to 2018 instead of voting by absentee ballot in New York. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, respondent presented his affidavit and documentary evidence which demonstrated, among other things, that he was born and raised in New York; that he used his New York home as his permanent address; maintained his New York driver’s license; paid New York taxes; completed New York jury service while he was a student at Yale; lived in New York when school was not in session; returned to New York to live and work after graduation, and always considered himself a New York resident. * * *

Under the circumstances here, where there was ample proof that Koffman was a New York resident and that Koffman’s presence in Connecticut as a college student was temporary, together with the fact that he was not required under Connecticut law to renounce any voter registration in another state … , petitioner fell short of meeting his burden by clear and convincing evidence that respondent does not meet the residency requirement of the NY Constitution. Matter of Quart v Kaufman. 2020 NY Slip Op 02904, First Dept 5-14-20

 

/

BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Second Department, determined that, given the unique Covid-19-related circumstances in New York City, the belated filing of designating-petition cover sheets was not a fatal defect:

This election law proceeding involves the belated filing of cover sheets where the delay in filing is attributable to illness or quarantine because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. We hold that under the unique circumstances existing in New York City during the past few months, and the specific health challenges alleged here, the belated filing of these specific documents is not a fatal defect. In so holding, we note that no challenge has been presented to the number of signatures in the designating petitions and no claim of fraud has been alleged. Indeed, there is no evidence of specific actual prejudice presented. Although respondent Board of Elections contends that a cover sheet is necessary for administrative convenience, that cannot outweigh the right to ballot access in the current unique circumstances. Matter of Mejia v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02902, First Dept 5-14-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Mujumder v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02903, First Dept 5-14-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE AND DID NOT HAVE A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING, SHE WAS NOT AWARE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD BE MADE IN HER ABSENCE; DEFAULT ORDER VACATED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was deprived of her right to due process when findings of fact were made in her absence in this neglect proceeding. Although mother did not appear at a scheduled conference, mother was not aware findings of fact would be made:

A parent has a right “to be present at every stage of” a Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding as a matter of due process, but that right “is not absolute” … . Family Ct Act § 1042 provides that “a court may proceed with a hearing . . . in a parent’s absence, so long as the subject child is represented by counsel, and the absent parent may thereafter move to vacate the resulting order and schedule a rehearing” … . Vacatur of that order would ordinarily be warranted if, upon motion, the parent demonstrated “a meritorious defense to the petition, unless . . . [he or she] willfully refused to appear at the hearing” … . If the parent demonstrates that the default itself resulted from a deprivation of his or her “fundamental due process rights,” however, the default is a nullity and no showing of a meritorious defense is required … . …

… [A]lthough respondent was arguably on notice of the April 2018 conference, she did not receive notice that a potential fact-finding hearing might be conducted at it so as to satisfy due process … . Indeed, despite the references in the order of fact-finding to an inquest, there is no dispute that Family Court departed from “the proper course” of conducting a hearing in respondent’s absence by accepting the allegations in the petition as proven by virtue of respondent’s default … . It would offend due process to hold that respondent “default[ed] in attending a hearing that she did not know was going to happen and did not, in fact, happen” … . Thus, notwithstanding the failure of respondent to articulate a meritorious defense, Family Court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion. Matter of Arra L. (Christine L.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02829, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/ , , ,

PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE INJUNCTION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ private nuisance cause of action should not have been dismissed, but the public nuisance cause of action was properly dismissed. The Third Department noted that, because defendants’ property had been sold, the injunction aspect of the case was moot. The defendants had put in a parking area and a retaining wall which plaintiffs’ alleged blocked their view of oncoming traffic making it dangerous for plaintiffs’ to pull out from their driveway:

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants paved a significant area of their front yard and proceeded to park cars and trucks thereon, and, as a result, their view of oncoming traffic was significantly hindered when they used their driveway. As a consequence, they claimed that they suffered great anxiety, as they continually worried about being in a traffic accident. What plaintiffs can ultimately prove, or whether damages of this sort are recoverable, is not our concern when determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . Rather, “the dispositive inquiry is whether plaintiffs have a cause of action and not whether one has been stated, i.e., whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Here, after applying the strict standards of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action for private nuisance.

… “A public nuisance is actionable by a private person only if it is shown that the person suffered special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large” … . Plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants interfered with the use of a public place or public rights. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and the public (pedestrian, cyclist or motorist) are at risk of suffering a collision. “[W]here the claimed injury is common to the entire community, a private right of action is barred” … . Moreover, we find without merit plaintiffs’ claim that they suffer a special damage in that they will suffer liability as a result of any collision that might occur. Even were we to conclude that this claim is not completely speculative, the injury proposed by plaintiffs is not different in kind, but merely in degree, to that which may be suffered by the public as a whole. As such, it does not qualify as a “special injury” so as to allow plaintiffs to bring a public nuisance cause of action … . Duffy v Baldwin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02836, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/

REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S CRIME AND SENTENCE INFORMATION FORM AND HIS COMPAS RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTED; THE PETITION SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner-inmate had raised legitimate issues about the contents of his Crime and Sentence Information (CSI) form and his COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument requiring further proceedings in this Article 78 action. Specifically petitioner argued that references to “deviate” behavior and use of force in connection with sexual offenses were inaccurate:

… [W]ith respect to the CSI form, petitioner was not convicted of any crimes involving an element of “deviate” behavior … . Additionally, with regard to the challenged characterization in the COMPAS instrument indicating that petitioner committed a “[s]ex [o]ffense with [f]orce,” we note that petitioner was not convicted of a crime involving “force” or “forcible” contact … . Accordingly, to the extent that the inclusion of such references in the CSI form and COMPAS instrument could be perceived as misleading and be potentially prejudicial to “future deliberations concerning the petitioner’s status” … , we find that, at this stage of the proceeding, in the absence of a more developed record, petitioner has stated a potentially valid cause of action. Because respondent has yet to serve an answer in this matter, this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for this purpose … . Matter of Staropoli v Botsford, 2020 NY Slip Op 02840, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/ , ,

VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND THE RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DID NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE CORRESPONDENCE DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The initial foreclosure action was in 2010. That action was discontinued and the mortgage was subsequently assigned three times. After a second discontinuance, the third foreclosure action was commenced in 2017. The majority concluded that the discontinuances and related correspondence did not de-accelerate the debt, so the statute of limitations kept running from the initial action in 2010. The dissenters argued the debt had been de-accelerated by correspondence with the defendant:

… [T]he voluntary discontinuance of the first two actions, without more, did not constitute an affirmative revocation of the initial acceleration of the debt … . That is particularly so because plaintiff’s predecessors in interest moved to discontinue each action due to title concerns, without addressing the prospect of revoking the acceleration and resuming installment payments … . * * *

[The plaintiffs’] letters do not indicate a clear and unambiguous return to an installment payment plan and, for all practical purposes, do not actually evidence any real intent to de-accelerate the loan. In effect, “plaintiff simply put defendant[s] on notice of its obligation to cure a . . . default and then promptly embarked on the notices required to initiate a [third] foreclosure action” … . In our view, these notices do not constitute affirmative actions to de-accelerate the mortgage … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Creative Encounters LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; E-FILING WAS VOLUNTARY IN CHENANGO COUNTY SO FAILURE TO E-FILE WAS NOT A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment should have been denied and defendant’s cross motion to renew should have been granted. The court noted that Chenango County is a consensual or voluntary e-filing county and defendant’s hard copy filing should not have been rejected by the court (for failure to e-file):

… Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. Although defendant’s motion papers lacked specific details of the underlying circumstances for the delay, the delay herein was de minimis — one week — and should be excused … . Defendant timely opposed the motion, offering a meritorious defense. There is no indication that the default was willful or that plaintiff was prejudiced as a result of the late answer. Moreover, defendant appeared in the action when he opposed plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits … . …

Supreme Court confused the cross motion to renew with a motion to reargue and summarily denied it since it was not made within 30 days. This time period applies solely to motions to reargue (see CPLR 2221 [d] [3] …). Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v DiLorenzo, 2020 NY Slip Op 02845, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE QUESTIONING OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER ABOUT HER SEXUAL HISTORY TO PREVENT EMBARRASSMENT AND HARASSMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s protective order prohibiting plaintiff’s child from being questioned about her sexual history. The complaint alleged the child was raped during a sleep over at defendants’ home. The complaint alleged several theories of liability, including negligent supervision. Supreme Court held that the Rape Shield Law applied to this civil case. The Third Department determined it did not need to reach that issue, holding that the court had the authority to prohibit the testimony to protect the child from embarrassment:

… Supreme Court was required to balance plaintiff’s concern that the child’s sexual history is irrelevant, and that questions of this nature are nothing more than a form of intimidation and embarrassment, against defendants’ argument that the child had a motive to fabricate the allegations of the assault because of a purported pregnancy. The record reveals that Supreme Court undertook a balancing of these concerns.

We find that plaintiff met her burden of showing annoyance and embarrassment. The child’s sexual history, sexual conduct and pregnancies are not relevant or material to the elements of the causes of action for negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress or loss of services … . Moreover, it has been determined that there is limited value to testimony concerning the sexual past of a victim of a sexual assault; instead, it often serves only to harass the victim and confuse the jurors … . Lisa I. v Manikas, 2020 NY Slip Op 02846, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship of an incapacitated person (IP) without holding a hearing:

In April 2016, Fanny K. commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 seeking to be appointed as the guardian to manage Angeliki K.’s property located in Greece. After a hearing, the Supreme Court determined that Angeliki K. (hereinafter the IP) was incapacitated within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 and appointed Fanny K. (hereinafter the guardian) as the guardian of her property. In September 2018, due to the IP’s health problems and resultant inability to communicate in English, the IP was admitted to an assisted living and rehabilitation facility in Athens, Greece. In November 2018, the guardian moved for leave to change the IP’s place of abode from New York to the assisted living and rehabilitation facility, with the IP continuing to maintain her permanent residence in New York. The court, without a hearing, denied the motion and, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship due to a lack of a continuing nexus between the guardianship and New York.

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship, without a hearing, as a guardianship may be terminated “only on application of a guardian, the incapacitated person, or any other person entitled to commence a proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81 with a hearing on notice” (… see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.36[b], [c] …). Matter of Angeliki K. (Fanny K.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02786, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

/ , ,

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE THE PARENTS FOR CONTRIBUTION ON A THEORY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the third-party complaint brought by the defendant manufacturer and seller of a humidifier against the parents of the injured child, alleging negligent supervision of the child, should have been dismissed:

In March 2014, the then-10-month-old infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when she knocked over a humidifier and hot water spilled onto her foot. The infant’s father had placed the humidifier on the living room floor before leaving the apartment with the infant’s five-year-old sibling. The infant’s mother was in the living room when the accident occurred. In August 2014, this action to recover damages for the infant’s injuries was commenced against the defendants, which allegedly manufactured and sold the humidifier. In December 2015, the defendants commenced a third-party action against the parents for contribution. …

There is no legally cognizable cause of action to recover damages for injuries suffered by a minor child against his or her parent for negligent supervision … . Additionally, where a secondary right of contribution is dependent upon “the parent’s alleged failure to perform a duty owing to the plaintiff child, the absence of the primary cause of action defeats the . . . third-party complaint” … . Although there is an exception when the parent’s conduct implicates a duty owed to the public at large … , the acts complained of in the third-party complaint were encompassed within the intrafamily immunity for negligent supervision … . Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02776, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

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