You are here: / RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN...

Search Results

/ , ,

RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the petition, determined that respondent, who had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, was not provided sufficient information before admitting to a probation violation. Because of the collateral consequences of a “juvenile delinquent” adjudication, the appeal is not moot, even though the period of respondent’s custody and care under the Office of Children and Family Services had expired. In addition, the error did not required preservation:

Initially, we note that preservation of this claim was not required … . Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) requires a court to advise a respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and to question both the respondent and his or her parent, if present, as to whether the respondent committed the act contained in the admission, whether the respondent is voluntarily waiving his or her right to a fact-finding hearing, and whether the respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders … . The May 2018 allocution did not meet these statutory requirements. Although Family Court did advise respondent, to some extent, regarding his rights, the failure to meet the statutory mandates rendered the allocution inadequate. Critically, although respondent’s mother was present, the court failed to question her regarding respondent’s waiver of the fact-finding hearing … or about his failure to attend counseling. Instead, respondent was merely asked whether he had sufficient time to speak to his parents about the allocution … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether respondent and his mother understood the possible specific dispositional orders that might result from his allocution … . Although it was stated that placement outside the home was an available option, the court did not “ascertain whether [respondent] and his parent[] were aware of the full extent of such a disposition” … . Matter of Elijah X., 2019 NY Slip Op 07464, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALTHOUGH POORLY DRAFTED, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEPARTED FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A SPINAL FUSION PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, although not well-drafted, raised a question of fact whether defendants’ departed from the standard of care for the placement of hardware in a spinal fusion procedure:

… [P]laintiff submitted the expert affidavit of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who opined, based upon his review of the relevant medical records and radiological images, including a CT scan taken shortly after the surgery, that Pedersen had improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws into the L3-L4 facet joint and that such improper placement constituted a deviation from the standard of care that ultimately caused Yerich to develop spinal and foraminal stenosis at L3-L4. Plaintiffs’ expert asserted that placing pedicle screws through the facet joints causes “damage[ to] the joint, reduces movement, [and] makes the spine unstable[,] which results in . . . spinal stenosis and foraminal stenosis requiring fusion,” as happened here. Although plaintiffs’ expert affidavit is not a model of precise drafting, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs …, we find that plaintiffs’ expert affidavit raises a question of fact as to whether Pedersen improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws through the facet joint, thereby causing injury. Yerich v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2019 NY Slip Op 07466, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

/

METHODS FOR DETERMINING WEEKLY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR SHORT-TERM EMPLOYMENT EXPLAINED, MATTER REMITTED FOR THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE AND RE-CALCULATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the benefits to be provided to the injured worker, based upon only 78 days of employment may have been wrongly calculated and remitted the matter:

Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) established claimant’s average weekly wage as $933.14, which was arrived at by dividing his total earnings ($12,130.76) by the number of weeks worked (13). The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) sought administrative review. Upon that review, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that claimant’s average weekly wage should have been calculated pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), using a 200 multiplier, and that, so calculated, claimant’s average weekly wage was $598.15. * * *

Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2), the average annual earnings of a six-day worker is 300 “times the average daily wage or salary . . . which an employee of the same class working substantially the whole of such immediately preceding year in the same or in a similar employment in the same or a neighboring place shall have earned in such employment during the days when so employed.” The carrier did not submit payroll records for similar employees or otherwise assert that such records were unavailable … . In the absence of such information, we cannot determine whether the Board properly rejected the method set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2) before resorting to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) to calculate claimant’s average weekly wage. Matter of Molina v Icon Parking LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07467, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

/

THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PETITION FOR PROBATE WAS PRESENTED FOR FILING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that the validity of the will should not have been determined at the stage when the petition to probate the will was presented for filing:

The question presented to Surrogate’s Court was not whether the purported will should be admitted to probate, but only whether the petition seeking probate of the subject will should have been accepted for filing. It appears that, in presenting their respective positions regarding the motion, the parties addressed, in detail, the validity of the will and whether it was properly executed and, in turn, Surrogate’s Court’s well-intentioned decision addressed those arguments and denied probate. That decision was premature (see SCPA 304, 1402 [1], [2]; 22 NYCRR 207.16 … ). There is a difference between accepting a probate petition for filing and admitting a will to probate. The former merely commences the legal proceeding to determine the validity of a purported will; the latter is but one possible outcome of that process. Here, Surrogate’s Court should have granted petitioner’s motion, directed the Surrogate’s Court Clerk to accept the petition and accompanying papers for filing, issued the appropriate citations and proceeded according to the procedures set forth in SCPA article 14. Matter of Noichl, 2019 NY Slip Op 07468, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

/ ,

DNA EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS A VIOLATION OF THE RAPE SHIELD LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly refused to allow defendant to present DNA evidence to demonstrate the complainant’s sexual history in this sexual offense case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the introduction of certain DNA evidence at trial. Introducing evidence of additional DNA donors not linked to the defendant for the purpose of demonstrating the complainant’s sexual history with persons other than the defendant falls “squarely within the ambit of the Rape Shield Law, which generally prohibits [e]vidence of a victim’s sexual conduct’ in a prosecution for a sex offense under Penal Law article 130 (CPL 60.42) because such evidence . . . serves only to harass the alleged victim and confuse the jurors'” … . Moreover, the evidence sought to be admitted was not relevant to any defense … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, introducing the evidence through a witness other than the complainant does not render the Rape Shield Law inapplicable … . People v Hubsher, 2019 NY Slip Op 07416, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMAIN VALID AFTER DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT CRIME WHEN THE INITIAL SENTENCE PROMISE COULD NOT BE FULFILLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because his consent to the waiver was not renewed after he pled to a different crime after the initial sentence promise could not met:

… [T]he Supreme Court was unable to fulfill its sentencing commitment because the sentence it had promised was illegal … . Although the defendant ultimately agreed to plead guilty to a different crime in return for a different sentence, the modification of the material terms of the original plea agreement “vitiated defendant’s knowing and intelligent entry of the waiver of appeal”… . Under such circumstances, “it was incumbent on the court to elicit defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal” … . Since the court did not obtain the defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal after the material terms of the original plea agreement were changed, the defendant is not precluded from arguing that the sentence imposed was excessive … . People v Ellison, 2019 NY Slip Op 07413, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , , , ,

ACTION AGAINST GAS COMPANY FOR CONTAMINATION OF REAL PROPERTY ACCRUED WHEN INJURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND WAS TIME BARRED; ACTION FOR NUISANCE RELATING TO REMEDIATION EFFORTS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION AND WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action against a gas company to recover damages for contamination of real property were time-barred, but the nuisance actions stemming from remediation efforts were not time-barred:

“Generally, an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property must be commenced within three years of the injury” … . “[T]he three year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances,” however, “shall be computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-c[2] …). “For purposes of CPLR 214-c, discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … .  …

… [T]he defendants here demonstrated that they undertook extensive efforts beginning in 1999 to inform and engage with property owners potentially affected by the contamination and remediation by conducting, among other things, door-to-door canvassing, direct mailings of newsletters and fact sheets, numerous public meetings, and highly visible and disruptive remediation work. The defendants also inspected the subject property twice in 2005 to determine whether certain remediation work between those inspections caused any damage, and mailed the results of their inspections to the plaintiff in 2006. … The defendants … established, prima facie, that the plaintiff should have discovered, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the primary condition upon which its exposure-related claims were based prior to January 22, 2007 … . …

We disagree, however, with the Supreme Court’s determination that the causes of action to recover damages for public and private nuisance allegedly arising from the defendants’ remediation work were time-barred … . These causes of action are subject to the limitations period in CPLR 214(4) rather than CPLR 214-c(2) because they do not seek “to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure” … .  Here, the papers submitted in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated that there was no dispute that the defendants conducted remediation work in close proximity to the subject property shortly after new tenants signed a lease to occupy the space in 2008 … . Onder Realty, Inc. v Keyspan Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07406, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

CO-OP DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE DISABLED COMPLAINANT BY REFUSING TO ALLOW HER TO KEEP A DOG IN HER APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Commissioner of the NYS Division of Human Rights had properly found the co-op discriminated against complainant (Hough) by refusing to allow her to keep a dog in her apartment:

To establish that a violation of the Human Rights Law occurred and that a reasonable accommodation should have been made, Hough was required to demonstrate that she is disabled, that she is otherwise qualified for the tenancy, that because of her disability it is necessary for her to keep a dog in order for her to use and enjoy the apartment, and that reasonable accommodations could be made to allow her to keep a dog … . The term disability, as defined by Executive Law § 292(21), means “(a) a physical, mental or medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques or (b) a record of such an impairment or (c) a condition regarded by others as such an impairment.”

Here, there was substantial evidence in the record to conclude that Hough suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, an impairment demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, and that she required the use of a companion dog to use and enjoy her apartment. There is sufficient evidence that having a dog would affirmatively enhance Hough’s quality of life by ameliorating the effects of her disability, thus demonstrating necessity within the meaning of the Human Rights Law … . Matter of 1 Toms Point Lane Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2019 NY Slip Op 07392, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

SURGEON, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN PERFORMING A HERNIA REPAIR, DEFENSE JUDGMENT REVERSED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in a medical malpractice case, determined the trial court should not have allowed the defendant doctor, who had no independent memory of the hernia surgery he performed on plaintiff, to testify about his usual custom and practice, or habit. The surgery involved placement of a mesh patch on the abdominal wall. In this case a portion of the patch had come off the wall and adhered to internal organs:

“Custom and practice evidence draws its probative value from the repetition and unvarying uniformity of the procedure involved as it depends on the inference that a person who regularly follows a strict routine in relation to a particular repetitive practice is likely to have followed that same strict routine at a specific date or time relevant to the litigation” … . To justify the introduction of habit evidence, “a party must be able to show on voir dire, to the satisfaction of the court, that the party expects to prove a sufficient number of instances of the conduct in question” … . …

Although habit evidence may be admissible in a medical malpractice action where the defendant physician makes the requisite showing, here, the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendant’s suturing of the Kugel Composix mesh patch represented a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances … . …

Although the defendant testified that he had performed hundreds of hernia repairs using mesh patches, he could not remember how many times he had used the Kugel Composix mesh patch before he performed the injured plaintiff’s surgery. He testified at his deposition that he had used the Kugel Composix mesh patch at least “a couple times” before he performed the injured plaintiff’s procedure. Although the defendant contends that the procedure for suturing the Kugel Composix mesh patch was the same as for other mesh patches, the Kugel Composix mesh patch had features that were different from other mesh patches, including a “pocket” intended to protect the intestines. Martin v Timmins, 2019 NY Slip Op 07391. Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/

VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED BEHIND A DISABLED VEHICLE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Perez defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted. Perez stopped his vehicle in the left lane behind a disabled vehicle when the driver of the disabled vehicle flagged him down. Plaintiff came to a stop behind the Perez vehicle and was attempting to go around the Perez vehicle when plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by the Chen vehicle. The Second Department held that the Perez vehicle furnished the condition for the traffic accident but did not cause the accident. The accident was caused by Chen’s failure to maintain a safe distance:

This evidence demonstrated that Perez’s conduct of stopping his vehicle in the left lane of travel with its hazard lights engaged was not a proximate cause of the collision between Chen’s SUV and the plaintiff’s vehicle, but rather merely furnished the condition or occasion for it … . Since the plaintiff was able to safely bring his vehicle to a complete stop behind Perez’s vehicle, where it remained stopped for approximately two minutes prior to the accident, any purported negligence on Perez’s part was not a proximate cause of the collision between Chen’s SUV and the plaintiff’s vehicle or of the plaintiff’s injuries … . The sole proximate cause of the accident was Chen’s failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance behind the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Kante v Tong Fei Chen, 2019 NY Slip Op 07390, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

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