You are here: / TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS...

Search Results

/ , ,

TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the transcript of the Family Court Act 1028 hearing (seeking the quick return of a child temporarily removed pending a fact-finding hearing) should not have been used to replace the abuse/neglect fact-finding hearing because the proof requirements are different:

Family Court Act § 1028 permits a parent to apply for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed from the custody of the parent pending the fact-finding hearing on the issue of abuse or neglect … . “[A] section 1028 hearing is intended to give a parent an opportunity for a prompt reunion with the child, pending trial” … . In analyzing an application for a child’s return under Family Court Act § 1028, a court must engage in a test balancing the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal … . Section 1028 hearings, however, were not intended to replace fact-finding hearings, as the evidentiary standards are different. Family Court Act § 1046 provides that “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” at a fact-finding hearing, whereas evidence “[i]n a dispositional hearing and during all other stages of a proceeding under” Family Court Act article 10 need only be “material and relevant” … . A determination on an application pursuant to section 1028 “should not be taken as any indication of what ultimate determination should be made by the Family Court as to [a] petition alleging abuse and neglect” … . “At a fact-finding hearing, any determination that a child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” … .

CPLR 4517, which governs the admissibility of prior testimony in a civil action, is applicable here … , as the Family Court Act does not prescribe the issue of whether testimony from a prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may be admitted into evidence on the petitioner’s direct case in a fact-finding hearing. Pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3), prior trial testimony of a witness may be used by any party for any purpose against another party if the court finds that such witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. In this matter, the Family Court made no such finding.

Here, the Family Court should not have admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing transcripts of testimony from the hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. As ACS now correctly concedes, the caseworker’s testimony at the prior hearing, which included hearsay statements, actually formed the basis of the court’s neglect finding at the subsequent fact-finding hearing. Matter of Louie L. V. (Virzhiniya T. V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07592, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

/ ,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award should not have been confirmed because it was indefinite and nonfinal:

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited …, an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] … ). An arbitration award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” … , or “if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy” … .

Here, the appellant established that the arbitration award was indefinite and nonfinal inasmuch as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable that were incurred prior to the date of the award were to be distributed. Moreover, the provision at issue created a new controversy between the parties with respect to the distribution of those funds. Accordingly, that portion of the award should have been vacated and the matter remitted … . Matter of Rosenberg v Schwartz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07587, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

/

THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY HER INSURER OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s petition to permanently stay arbitration in this rear-end collision should have been granted. The insured sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits but did not timely notify the insurer of the accident:

The respondent, Irina Ostapenko, allegedly was injured when the vehicle she was driving was struck in the rear by another vehicle that then left the scene. The vehicle Ostapenko was driving was insured by the petitioner. Ostapenko filed a request for uninsured motorist arbitration. The petitioner commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration. In an order … , the Supreme Court, among other things, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. The petitioner appeals.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. The subject insurance policy required the insured or someone acting on the insured’s behalf to report the collision within 24 hours or as soon as reasonably possible to a “police, peace or judicial officer or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.” Ostapenko’s failure to comply with this requirement in the absence of a valid excuse vitiates coverage … . Matter of Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v Ostapenko, 2019 NY Slip Op 07586, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

/ , , , ,

THE ZONE OF DANGER THEORY OF LIABILITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF THE INJURED PARTY; PETITIONERS’ CHILDREN WITNESSED THE FATAL INJURY TO ANOTHER STUDENT WHO WAS NOT RELATED; PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school district should not have been granted. The petitioners are the parents of students who were participating in football training when the pole or log they were carrying dropped and fatally injured another student. The late notice of claim asserted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon the petitioners’ children being in the “zone of danger.” However, the “zone of danger” theory can be raised only by the immediate relatives of the injured party:

“The zone-of-danger rule . . . allows one who is himself or herself threatened with bodily harm in consequence of the defendant’s negligence to recover for emotional distress resulting from viewing the death or serious physical injury of a member of his or her immediate family” … . Here, the petitioners’s children were not immediate family members of the decedent. Thus, they have no legally cognizable claim to recover damages for emotional distress they allegedly sustained from witnessing the accident … , or based upon the District’s alleged refusal to provide continued counseling and maintain the coaching staff support system, as such damages are a financial consequence of their emotional trauma … . Moreover, the District demonstrated that, under the circumstances presented, it was not authorized to pay for continued outside counseling services for the petitioners’ children, and the record reflects that the District provided ongoing counseling from mental health professionals employed by the District. Under the circumstances, the proposed claim against the District is patently meritless … . Matter of Kmiotek v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 07583, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

/

MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; CUSTODY PETITION MAY BE HEARD JOINTLY WITH A PERMANENCY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined than mother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing and noted that a custody petition may be heard jointly with a permanency hearing:

The appeal from the order dated September 27, 2018, has not been rendered academic by the permanency hearing order dated November 13, 2018, which apparently changed the permanency goal from working toward legal guardianship by the maternal grandmother to guardianship by a different relative. The order appealed from denied the mother’s petition for custody, and the issue of whether that order was proper will continue to affect the mother’s rights … .

Custody determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . Here, the record does not reveal the existence of circumstances that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the general right to a hearing … .

However, the petition for custody may be heard jointly with any permanency hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act article 10-A (see Family Ct Act § 1089-a[a] …). Matter of Barcene v Parrilla, 2019 NY Slip Op 07575, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

/

UNLOADING A HEAVY AIR CONDITIONING COIL FROM A TRUCK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that unloading a heavy coil from and truck was an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiff was injured when an air conditioning system coil that weighed at least 300 pounds and was being transported secured to two dollies fell on his leg as he and three coworkers unloaded it from a truck. After plaintiff and his coworkers had brought the coil to ground level on the truck’s lift gate and were attempting to move it off the lift gate, a wheel of a dolly became caught in a gap on the lift gate, and the coil tipped over.

In view of the weight of the coil and the amount of force it was able to generate, even in falling a relatively short distance, plaintiff’s injury resulted from a failure to provide protection required by Labor Law § 240(1) against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential … . Moving the coil safely required either hoisting equipment or a device designed to secure the coil against tipping or falling over … . Ali v Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 2019 NY Slip Op 07544, First Dept 10-22-19

 

/

INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment  on the Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s work was not “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and was not part of the general contractor’s (Greenlight’s) contract with the apartment owners (the Dixons):

Because plaintiff Martin Topoli’s work installing window shades at the time of the accident does not constitute “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), that claim is dismissed …. The Labor Law § 241(6) claim is also dismissed, since plaintiff’s work is separate and distinct from the larger construction project … . Third-party defendants and apartment owners, Rebecca Dixon and Adam Dixon, modified the contract with general contractor Greenlight Construction Management Corp. to remove the provision and installation of window treatments from the scope of its work. The Dixons directly contracted with plaintiff’s employer for the installation of the window shades after the construction work was completed and they had moved in to the apartment. Greenlight’s return to the work site after the completion of construction, done to accommodate the Dixons’ new desire for larger window valances, was limited in nature and separate from plaintiff’s work. Topoli v 77 Bleecker St. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 10-22-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, setting aside the verdict, and ordering a new trial, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted prior to the close the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff had brought an action against the City of New York pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging he had not received a fair trial:

The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand alone cause of action (see e.g. Garnett v Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F3d 265, 278-279 [2d Cir 2016]), which should not have been dismissed prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief. CPLR 4401 permits a party to move for a directed verdict “after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue.” “[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … , even if the ultimate success of a plaintiff’s cause of action is unlikely … . Cromedy v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 10-22-19

 

/ ,

THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, and another dissent, determined that the modification by the Appellate Division could not be appealed:

“[A]n Appellate Division reversal [or modification] based on an unpreserved error is considered an exercise of the Appellate Division’s interest of justice power” … . Moreover, the Appellate Division’s characterization of its own holding (i.e., “on the law” or “on the facts”) is not binding; in determining jurisdiction, we look behind that characterization to discern the basis of the ruling … . …

Here, it is undisputed that, in vacating the first-degree robbery count (without disturbing the second-degree robbery convictions …), the Appellate Division relied upon an unpreserved argument concerning the proper interpretation of and minimum proof required to establish the weapon display element of the first-degree offense … . As we have repeatedly recognized, for jurisdictional purposes an unpreserved issue of this nature does not present a question of law. Thus, the Appellate Division determination — the basis of the order of modification — was not “on the law alone” but was necessarily made as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Allende, 2019 NY Slip Op 07523, Ct App 10-22-19

 

/ ,

PROOF PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT ATTEMPTED THIRD OR FOURTH DEGREE LARCENY, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was not sufficient to support attempted third or fourth degree larceny. Apparently defendant used a sticky object to “fish” mail out of a mailbox. Although there were money orders in the mailbox, the money orders were not stuck to the object:

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient to demonstrate that defendant came dangerously close to taking property valued in excess of $3,000 or $1,000. There was no evidence that the items attached to defendant’s mailbox fishing apparatus had any monetary value, no evidence of the volume of the mail contained in the mailbox or whether it was physically possible for defendant to procure the two money orders deposited in the mailbox by the government investigators amidst the other mail, no evidence as to whether the fishing device was immediately reusable, and no evidence that defendant intended to make successive attempts at fishing out the contents of the mailbox in question. Furthermore, the fact that defendant stated he would be paid $100 for each mailbox fished does not establish that he came dangerously close to stealing property valued at more than $3,000 or $1,000. People v Deleon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07522, CtApp 10-22-19

 

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