You are here: / ALTHOUGH FATHER MISSED PLEADING AND DISCLOSURE DEADLINES, THERE WAS NO...

Search Results

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER MISSED PLEADING AND DISCLOSURE DEADLINES, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OMISSIONS WERE WILLFUL; THEREFORE PRECLUDING FATHER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN THE CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father should not have been precluded from offering evidence in the modification of custody proceeding. Although father missed several court-imposed deadlines for responding papers and disclosure, the sanction was too severe:

… [A]lthough the father failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines for responsive pleadings and discovery, the record lacks any evidence of willfulness on the part of the father to warrant a drastic sanction of complete preclusion … . The father was represented by assigned counsel at the May 7, 2018 conference during which the initial discovery schedule was established. Shortly thereafter, the mother served a first demand for interrogatories and combined discovery demand. … In the meantime, the father was assigned new counsel who appeared for the July 16, 2018 conference, at which time the deadlines were extended. At the fact-finding hearing, the father’s counsel stated that delay in responding “is predominantly my fault and I will make that very explicitly clear on the record.” In light of the preliminary conference orders, counsel also made the meritless assertion that the mother’s discovery demands were ineffective for lacking court authorization. On the other hand, counsel did serve a response to the interrogatories — although that response was unverified. In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the father’s conduct was willful. Additionally, “modification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing with the parties given the opportunity to present in open court evidence as to the best interest[s] of the child” … . Here, the preclusion of all of the father’s testimony renders it difficult to determine the best interests of this child (see id.). Based on the foregoing, we remit the matter for a new hearing. Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC., 2020 NY Slip Op 01227, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/ , ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE MOTHER DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED AND DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge, sua sponte, should not have dismissed father’s modification of custody petition for failure to state a cause of action because mother did not request that relief. The Third Department went on to consider mother’s motion for summary judgment and deny it:

“[A] motion for summary judgment may be utilized in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding, but such a motion should be granted only when there are no material facts disputed sufficiently to warrant a trial” … . “In a custody modification proceeding, the controlling ‘material fact’ is whether or not there is a change in circumstances so as to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by modifying the existing custody arrangement” … .

Here, the mother failed to meet her initial summary judgment burden. There can be no dispute that only five months had elapsed since entry of the March 2018 order and, as such, the “automatic” change in circumstances provision incorporated in that order had not been triggered. The father, however, sought modification based upon several other alleged changes in circumstance, including that the mother had been disparaging the father in front of the children in violation of the March 2018 order and that she is living in a homeless shelter. The mother, in her motion for summary judgment, makes no mention of these allegations or otherwise attempts to refute them in any way. Matter of Anthony F. v Christy G., 2020 NY Slip Op 01228, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE COUNTY, PLAINTIFF SUED ON A NEGLIGENCE THEORY ONLY; THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s negligence claim arising from a contract properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff qualified for the Home Energy Assistance Program. Pursuant to that program, defendant installed a chimney liner pursuant to a contract with the county. Although plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the that contract and could have sued on that ground, plaintiff’s complaint sounded only in negligence:

Plaintiff could have … asserted a claim for breach of contract, but limited herself to a claim for negligence that will not lie “unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . It must, as a result, be shown that defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff “spring[ing] from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … .

In assessing whether such a duty existed, we note that defendants were engaged to install a stainless steel liner in plaintiff’s chimney “in a professional manner.” Plaintiff alleges that the contracted-for work was done improperly and prevented the adequate venting of furnace exhaust. She also alleges deficiencies beyond that work, however, contending that defendants negligently failed to address visible deterioration of the chimney and surrounding roof that allowed water to infiltrate the home and caused mold growth that damaged both the home and the personalty within it. In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff provided the affidavit of an engineer who opined that the obvious problems with the roof and chimney should have been addressed by defendants while they were repairing adjacent parts of the chimney. … It is further notable that the work was paid for by public funds and aimed at helping plaintiff meet her “immediate home energy needs” (42 USC § 8621 [a]), both of which show a “public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care” … . Jones v County of Chenango, 2020 NY Slip Op 01229, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/ , , ,

PETITION ALLEGED MOTHER FAILED TO GIVE ADHD MEDICATION TO THE CHILDREN; THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; BECAUSE FAMILY COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION TO REARGUE THE MOTION WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED RENDERING THE ORDER APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect proceeding should not have been dismissed without a hearing. The petition alleged mother was not providing ADHD medication to the children and the children were unable to focus in school as a result. The Third Department noted that, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, here Family Court addressed the merits of the motion to reargue and will be deemed to have granted the motion:

Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where “the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . Considering that Family Court scheduled and heard oral argument on the motion to reargue and, thereafter, issued a decision addressing the merits, we deem the court to have granted reargument, such that the December 2018 order adhering to the October 2018 order is appealable as of right … . …

“A parent’s unwillingness to follow a recommended course of psychiatric therapy and medication, resulting in the impairment of a child’s emotional health[,] may support a finding of neglect. However, what constitutes adequate medical care cannot be judged in a vacuum. The critical factor in this determination is whether the parent[ has] provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for [his or her] child in light of all the surrounding circumstances” … . Here, the petition and corresponding affidavit stated, among other things, that respondent failed to properly administer prescribed ADHD medication to the two oldest children and failed to bring them to scheduled doctor appointments, and that those children were struggling in school and were unable to focus because they were not receiving the proper dosage of medication. The petition states that these allegations are supported, in part, by information received from the children and their school. Petitioner further alleged its concern that respondent was either taking the children’s medication herself or selling it, along with the reasons for such concern. * * *

Despite the lack of allegations in the petition directly concerning the youngest child, the petition’s allegations could support a finding of derivative neglect of that child. Matter of Aydden OO. (Joni PP.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01232, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/ , ,

LOCAL LAW CREATING A SENIOR LIVING DISTRICT (SLD) WAS INVALID BECAUSE APPROVAL BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS REQUIRED; BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT PROPER, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, in a matter of first impression, determined a local law rezoning agricultural land as a senior living district (SLD) where a senior living community could be constructed was invalid. In order to avoid the requirement that the local law be approved by a supermajority (as opposed to a simple majority) of the town board, the local law called for a 100-foot buffer between the SLD and the surrounding properties. However, in this case, the land in the 100-foot buffer was to be used for access roads and other purposes which exclusively served the SLD. In that situation, the Third Department held, the approval of the local law requires a supermajority and the local law was therefore invalid. The Third Department also noted that, because the complaint sought a declaratory judgment, dismissal of the complaint was not proper. A ruling on the declaratory judgment was required:

… [T]he SLD cannot be used for its intended purpose without improvements in the buffer zone that will serve only uses in the SLD and will provide no public benefit. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the purported buffer zone is sufficient to defeat the supermajority requirements of Town Law § 265. Notably, in holding that the distance of a buffer zone from neighboring properties should be measured from the boundary of the rezoned area rather than that of the buffer zone, the Court of Appeals found that this statutory interpretation “is fair, because it makes the power to require a supermajority vote dependent on the distance of one’s property from land that will actually be affected by the change” (Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 7 NY3d at 315 [emphasis added]). Here, land within the buffer zone will actually be affected by the rezoning in such a way that it would neither be fair nor consistent with the spirit and intent of Town Law § 265 to deprive neighboring landowners of the power to require a supermajority vote. We find that where, as here, a proposed buffer zone will contain improvements that benefit only the rezoned area and are necessary to the intended uses of the rezoned area, Town Law § 265 should be interpreted to require the 100-foot distance to opposing and adjacent properties to be measured from the boundary of the buffer zone rather than that of the rezoned area … . Dodson v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 2020 NY Slip Op 01234, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/ ,

SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s alleged failure address sidewalk defects caused by tree roots was not affirmative negligence and therefore was not actionable in this slip and fall case:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City to the abutting property owner, except for sidewalks abutting one-, two-, or three-family residential properties that are owner occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes” … . Administrative Code § 7-210, however, “does not shift tort liability for injuries proximately caused by the City’s affirmative acts of negligence” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the abutting building at issue was not a one-, two-, or three-family residence, and that they did not affirmatively cause or create the alleged defect in the sidewalk … . Moreover, even assuming that the defendants were responsible for the maintenance of the tree and that the tree’s roots caused the alleged sidewalk defect, the defendants’ alleged failure to maintain the roots would, at most, constitute nonfeasance, not affirmative negligence … . Dragonetti v 301 Mar. Ave. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01144, Second Dept 1-19-20

 

/

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 action against the general contractor, El Sol. should have been dismissed. The accident involved the manner in which the work was done, not a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor. Because El Sol did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work, El Sol was not liable:

“Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, El Sol established, prima facie, that the accident did not arise from a dangerous or defective premises condition but from the method and manner of the work … . El Sol further established that it did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01140, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN THIS PEDESTRIAN HIT-AND-RUN ACTION WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION WHEN PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED A SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT TAXICAB COMPANY AND THE DRIVERS WHO WERE ON DUTY WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s acceptance of a settlement from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) did not automatically assign plaintiff’s claim to the MVAIC. Therefore plaintiff’s action against a taxi company and eight drivers who were on duty when plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by a taxicab, should not have been dismissed. It was a hit-and-run accident and plaintiff had not yet identified the driver:

Insurance Law § 5213(b) provides: “As a condition to the payment of the amount of the settlement the qualified person . . . shall assign his claim to the corporation which shall then be subrogated to all of the rights of the qualified person against the financially irresponsible motorist.” Thus, the statute provides that, upon payment of the settlement amount by MVAIC, the “qualified person,” i.e., the plaintiff, shall assign his personal injury claim to MVAIC. …”[T]he text does not say that acceptance of payment operates as an assignment by operation of law; neither does it make execution of an assignment a condition precedent to the receipt of payment. Rather, the statute obligates an individual who receives payment to assign her claim to MVAIC, giving MVAIC the enforceable right to obtain such assignment.” Thus, although the plain language of Insurance Law § 5213(b) requires the plaintiff to assign his claim to MVAIC as a condition of receiving a settlement from MVAIC, such language does not make the assignment automatic. * * *

… MVAIC … chose not to take an assignment from the plaintiff, but rather rely upon the plaintiff’s reimbursement from any damages award he receives as a result of the instant action. MVAIC’s determination as to how best to proceed to recoup the amount it paid to the plaintiff in settlement, while also being assured that the plaintiff was pursuing an action against a potential financially irresponsible driver, was within the broad powers granted to MVAIC, and was consistent with the purpose of the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation Act. Archer v Beach Car Serv., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01138, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH SOME MONETARY RELIEF WAS SOUGHT, THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE CLAIM WAS A DECLARATION VERIZON HAD WRONGFULLY DISCONTINUED CLAIMANT’S LIFELINE SERVICE; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is generally limited to money damages. Therefore the action, which was seeking a ruling that claimant’s Verizon Lifeline Service was wrongfully discontinued, was properly dismissed:

The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction determined by the Constitution and statute (see NY Const art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9). Its jurisdiction is generally limited to money damage awards against the State … . “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … .

Here, while the claimant alleges certain monetary losses, the essential nature of his claim is one seeking to compel the PSC [NYS Public Service Commission] to investigate and issue a determination on his complaint that Verizon wrongfully discontinued his Lifeline Service, which he alleges the PSC is required to do. The money damages sought are merely incidental to the primary question of the PSC’s investigation and regulation of Verizon with respect to the Lifeline Service program. Aliksanyan v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01137, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $3,000,000/$15,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DAMAGES AMOUNT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted.  The jury should have been instructed on implied assumption of risk in this skiing accident case involving a nine-year-old novice skier. Plaintiff struck a pole and fractured her femur. The jury awarded $3,000,000 in past damages and $15,000,000 in future damages. If defendants are found liable in the second trial, there will be a trial on damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to $950,000 past damages and $1,250,000 future damages:

… [O]n their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the movants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk … . The evidence submitted in support of the motion demonstrated that the injured plaintiff was a nine-year-old novice skier on a bunny slope, which is a part of the ski area specifically designed for beginners who are learning how to ski. The evidence submitted also included the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she believed it was safer to continue beyond the devices than to be struck by a passing skier if she fell. The devices warned skiers to slow down but did not warn them to stop. These facts presented a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was aware of and fully appreciated the risk involved in downhill skiing and the terrain of the bunny slope such that she assumed the risk of injury … .

At the close of the trial on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ request to instruct the jury on express assumption of the risk and implied assumption of the risk. While there was no evidence elicited at trial that the injured plaintiff expressly assumed the risk of injury, the evidence did support an instruction on implied assumption of risk. Specifically, a factual issue was presented regarding whether the injured plaintiff assumed the risk of skiing in the area where the PVC pipe was located. Although the injured plaintiff testified that the PVC pipe “blended with the snow,” the pipe had a brightly colored guide-rope attached to it on the day of the accident and was behind warning devices past which the injured plaintiff skiied … . Therefore, the court should have granted the defendants’ request to instruct the jury on implied assumption of the risk. Under the facts of this case, the failure to instruct the jury on implied assumption of the risk is an error warranting a new trial … . Zhou v Tuxedo Ridge, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01206, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

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