You are here: / THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL...

Search Results

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the termination of mother’s parental rights. During the trial discharge of the child to mother, the petitioner made no effort to place in a school closer to mother and mother allowed the child to stay at the foster home on weeknights to attend school:

The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that in May 2016, the mother had adequate housing for the child, that in June 2016, she had completed her service plan and was having unsupervised parental access with the child, and that in July 2016, she was having overnight and weekend parental access. In November 2016, the Family Court directed that the petitioner implement a trial discharge to the mother, and a trial discharge commenced on December 23, 2016. Although at that time the mother resided in Manhattan and the child was attending school in Brooklyn, the petitioner did not provide any assistance with regard to transferring the child to a school closer to the mother in Manhattan, did not provide any assistance with the child’s transportation to and from his school in Brooklyn, and did not provide other appropriate services to the family. The trial discharge failed in April 2017. According to the petitioner’s witness, the trial discharge failed after the petitioner became aware that the mother had not taken the child into her full-time custody. According to the mother, the child spent weeknights with the foster mother in Brooklyn, because of the long commute between the mother’s apartment in Manhattan and the child’s school in Brooklyn. After the trial discharge failed in April 2017, the mother consistently attended her scheduled supervised parental access two hours per week until the petition was filed on August 7, 2017.

Under the circumstances presented, the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, during the relevant period of time, the mother failed to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, and further, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7] …). Matter of Tai-Gi K. (Nadine B.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00586, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/ ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PRESENTING ONLY HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure proceeding did not prove it had standing, that the defendant was in default, or that the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings La (RPAPL) 1304 were complied with. With respect to standing, the Second Department wrote:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the note, which contains an undated endorsement in blank, as well as affidavits from two vice presidents of loan documents for its loan servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo). In both affidavits … each vice president stated that review Wells Fargo’s business records relating to the subject mortgage loan had confirmed that the plaintiff was in possession of the note prior to November 7, 2012. Neither one identified the documents reviewed or any basis for the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the note more than two years prior to the subject review of Wells Fargo’s files. The only document relevant to this issue attached to either affidavit was a copy of the note with the undated endorsement in blank. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Campbell-Antoine, 2020 NY Slip Op 00578, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/

NO ONE AT THE DEFENDANT HEALTH CLUB WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK WAS CERTIFIED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AID AND THE EMPLOYEE DELAYED CALLING 911; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant health club for failing to aid plaintiff’s decedent when she had a heart attack at the club. The only club employee on duty, Higgins, was not certified to provide emergency aid and delayed calling 911:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the common-law negligence cause of action to the extent of granting partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ breach of their limited duty of care to render aid to patrons struck down by heart attack or cardiac arrest. In Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc. (20 NY3d 342), the Court of Appeals recognized that “New York courts have viewed health clubs as owing a limited duty of care to patrons struck down by a heart attack or cardiac arrest while engaged in athletic activities on premises” (id. at 350). The Court of Appeals has referred to this limited duty as the health club’s “common-law duty to render aid” (id. at 351 …). A health club fulfills this duty by, for example, calling 911 immediately, responding to the patron and performing CPR or other measures, or responding to the patron and then deferring to someone else with superior medical training … . Hamlin v PFNY, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00574. Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/ ,

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the motion to renew should not have been granted, explaining the criteria:

In general, a motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion … . It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation … . Indeed, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion … . Successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence. However, evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the prior motion; rather, the evidence must not have been available to the party at the time it made its initial motion and could not have been established through alternate evidentiary means … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Elshiekh, 2020 NY Slip Op 00570, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE CITY GAVE A PERMIT TO A BUS COMPANY TO USE A PARKING LOT, THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT RELINQUISHED ALL CONTROL OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the City did not demonstrate it relinquished maintenance responsibilities for a parking lot licensed to a bus company in this slip and fall case:

… [T]he City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it had no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. In support of its motion, the City submitted a copy of the permit agreement, as well as the deposition testimony of several City employees. The permit agreement provided that the bus company had some responsibility for maintenance of the premises, but that the permit also was revocable at will by the City, and the City reserved “the right at all times to free and interrupted access” to any portion of the premises. Moreover, the deposition testimony submitted by the City established, prima facie, that City employees made regular visual inspections of the premises.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff … , it cannot be said as a matter of law that the City relinquished control of the premises to the bus company such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition… . D’Angelo v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00569, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Supreme Court in this foreclosure action should not have, sua sponte, revoked the previous acceleration of the debt because plaintiff did not request that relief:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have revoked the previous acceleration of the mortgage debt and directed that the mortgage remain an installment contract, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not seek such relief in its motion or cross-move for it in response to the defendant’s cross motion … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Salko, 2020 NY Slip Op 00566, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/

THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF ITS PREDECESSOR; THE CORPORATE VEIL WAS PROPERLY PIERCED TO FIND THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found there was a de factor merger such that the successor corporation is liable for the torts of its predecessor, and further found that Supreme Court properly found the owner of the corporation was personally liable for damages awarded against the corporation. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

“Generally, a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor'” … . “However, such liability may arise if the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, the purchaser corporation was a mere continuation of the seller corporation, or the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations” … . Accordingly, “[a] transaction structured as a purchase of assets may be deemed to fall within this exception as a de facto merger” … .

“The hallmarks of a de facto merger are the continuity of ownership; cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the [predecessor] as soon as possible; assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the acquired corporation; and, continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation'” … . Where the acquired corporation is “shorn of its assets” and becomes a “shell,” legal dissolution is not required to support a finding of de facto merger … . “[I]n non-tort actions, continuity of ownership is the essence of a merger'” … . * * *

[Re: piercing the corporate veil:] It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate ” that the corporation was dominated as to the transaction attacked and that such domination was the instrument of fraud or otherwise resulted in wrongful or inequitable consequences'” … . Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form include whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . Bonanni v Horizons Invs. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00563, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/

DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS TRAVELLING TOO FAST AND WHETHER HE KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver, Perrone, did not eliminate questions of fact concerning whether he was negligent in travelling too fast for conditions or in keeping a proper lookout. Plaintiff bicyclist was struck while trying to see around a construction wall separating the bicyclist from the traffic:

Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law … . “In order for a defendant driver to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the driver must demonstrate, prima facie, inter alia, that he or she kept the proper lookout, or that his or her alleged negligence, if any, did not contribute to the accident” … . The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the trier of fact … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Perrone was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident. In particular, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Perrone kept a proper lookout or was traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed as he approached the intersection in light of the conditions then present … . Ballentine v Perrone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00562, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The plaintiffs attempted to raise an evidentiary issue and theory of liability for the first time in opposition to the motion:

… [T]he plaintiffs improperly alleged, for the first time, a new theory claiming that other employees of the hospital were negligent in failing to properly administer Decadron and Heparin in accordance with the prescription of the plaintiff’s attending physician. ” A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars'” … . Bacalan v St. Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00561, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

/

CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractual provision limiting damages was enforceable. Plaintiff, Astoria, owned a power station and hired defendant, Rileu, to overhaul a steam boiler, which exploded. The contract limited Riley’s damages to one and a half times the contract price:

A clear contractual provision limiting damages is enforceable, unless there is a special relationship between the parties, there is a statutory prohibition against it, or it is against public policy because the conduct of the party seeking to enforce it was grossly negligent … . Here, Riley established, prima facie, that the clear limitation of liability provision contained in the addendum to the contract was part of an arm’s length transaction between the parties, two sophisticated commercial entities, and is thus valid and enforceable … . Riley further established, prima facie, that there was no special relationship between it and Astoria, that there was no statutory prohibition against the limitation of liability provision, and that the provision was not against public policy … . Astoria Generating Co., LP v Riley Power, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00560, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

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