You are here: / MOTHER ATTACKED HER SISTER WITH A KNIFE WHEN MOTHER’S CHILDREN WERE...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTHER ATTACKED HER SISTER WITH A KNIFE WHEN MOTHER’S CHILDREN WERE IN THE HOME, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE NEGLECT FINDING BY THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, THERE WAS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE CHILDREN WITNESSED OR WERE AWARE OF THE ATTACK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that mother attacked her sister with a knife while mother’s children were in the home supported the finding of neglect. There was no need to demonstrate the children witnessed the attack:

“To establish neglect pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B), a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” … .

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, an imminent danger of impairment to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the subject children should be inferred from the mother’s egregious conduct of attacking the children’s pregnant aunt with a knife while the children were in the home … . Furthermore, impairment or imminent danger of physical impairment should also be inferred from the subject children’s proximity to violence directed against a family member, “even absent evidence that they were aware of or emotionally impacted by the violence” … . Matter of Najaie C. (Niger C.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04935, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the failure to comply with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, because that issue was not raised by the defendant, the bank need not prove compliance in a motion for a default judgment:

… [T]he plaintiff’s unopposed renewed motion for a default judgment was facially adequate pursuant to CPLR 3215(f), and therefore, should have been granted … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate its compliance with RPAPL 1304, since the failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect, and that defense was never raised by the borrowers, who failed to appear or answer the complaint … . Moreover, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321 …). U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 04988, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/ , ,

HANDWRITTEN PROVISION OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONTROLS, THE LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT, BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BENEFIT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS UNIDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a letter of intent concerning the development of defendant-church’s property was not a binding contract because of a handwritten provision. Because there was no binding contract, the fiduciary duty, joint venture, covenant of good faith, and tortious interference with contract causes of action were properly dismissed. The unjust enrichment cause of action was properly dismissed because the benefit allegedly received by defendants was not identified:

“It is a fundamental principle of contract interpretation that when a handwritten or typewritten provision conflicts with the language of a preprinted form document, the former will control, as it is presumed to express the latest intention of the parties'” … . Here, there are inconsistent provisions in the letter of intent regarding whether the parties intended it to be a binding agreement. However, the parties modified the letter of intent, with a handwritten provision, to state that it is “not intended to constitute a binding contract.” Accordingly, this handwritten provision controls over the conflicting printed provisions stating that the letter of intent will become binding after a period of five days … . …

“To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a party must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . A bare legal conclusion that it is against equity and good conscience to retain an unidentified benefit is insufficient to adequately allege that an asserted enrichment was unjust … . Here, the complaint does not identify the benefit the defendants allegedly obtained or explain why it is against equity and good conscience to allow the defendants to retain such benefit. FoxStone Group, LLC v Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04916, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/ ,

VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OR REGULATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE, ONLY VIOLATIONS OF STATUTES CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant Delco’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence per se cause of action should have been granted. Negligence per se is shown by the violation of a statute, not, as here, by the violation of local ordinances, administrative rules or regulations. Plaintiffs alleged Delco, a painting contractor, caused a fire at plaintiffs’ residence. The Second Department held there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the causation element of the negligence cause of action:

Delco failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it performed electrical work in the area in which the fire started. Although representatives of Delco and Chestnut asserted in their deposition testimony that Delco was not hired to, and did not, perform any electrical work on the subject premises, those averments were contradicted by the deposition testimony of some of the tenant plaintiffs, who asserted that they had observed Delco performing electrical work in the apartment where the fire occurred, and that Delco was the only entity that performed repairs and other work at the premises generally, including electrical work. The foregoing circumstantial evidence set forth sufficient facts upon which Delco’s liability could be reasonably and logically inferred … . …

However, that branch of Delco’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the negligence per se causes of action asserted against it by the tenant plaintiffs should have been granted. “[V]iolation of a State statute that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability”… . In contrast, violation of local ordinances or administrative rules and regulations constitutes only evidence of negligence … . Here, the tenant plaintiffs did not allege that Delco violated any particular State statute. Rather, they only alleged violations of local laws … . Rivera v 203 Chestnut Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04976, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING A ‘MONSTER CLIMB’ WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED ON A ROADWAY WITH NO MATS BENEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by participating in a “Monster Climb” knowing she could fall and knowing there were no protective mats. The event was an obstacle course race sponsored by defendants and held at a public park:

… [T]he plaintiffs argued that the assumption of risk doctrine cannot apply unless the sport or recreational activity takes place at a permanent, designated facility. They also argued that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants unreasonably increased the risk of the Monster Climb obstacle by erecting it on a roadway without protective mats underneath it, by allowing an unlimited number of participants on the obstacle’s cargo nets at the same time, and by having staffers shout at the injured plaintiff to turn her body and hurry up. …

The “assumption of risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'”… . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Risks which are “commonly encountered” or “inherent” in a sport, as well as risks “involving less than optimal conditions,” are risks which participants have accepted and are encompassed by the assumption of risk doctrine … “It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . A participant’s awareness of risk is “to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Ramos v Michael Epstein Sports Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04973, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED STOLEN PROPERTY FOUND IN THE BOILER ROOM OF A GARAGE WHERE DEFENDANT AND TWO OTHERS WERE HIDING FROM THE POLICE AFTER A MUGGING; VICTIM WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN COURT, DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant was properly convicted of constructive possession of property taken during a mugging, even though defendant, although present, did not participate in the mugging and was acquitted of robbery. The First Department further held that the victim was properly allowed to identify the defendant at trial, despite the suppression of the showup identification. The defendant was convicted on the theory that he constructively possessed the stolen property which (apparently) was found in the locked boiler room of a garage where he and the other two men involved were found hiding by the police:

… [T]he People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the victim had a basis for her in-court identification of defendant independent of a previously suppressed showup procedure. A number of factors support the independent source finding ,,, , even when viewed in the light of modern scientific knowledge regarding identifications. The victim had an unobstructed view of defendant and the other two perpetrators, under good lighting, at close range, and had sufficient time to observe them while she was being attacked. …

Defendant’s presence, his hiding in an oily sump pit inside with the two robbers, and his attempt to physically resist detention compel the conclusion that defendant manifested a consciousness of guilt. Police testimony thus clearly established that defendant had been a participant in the criminal venture and that he exercised dominion and control over the room where the perpetrators were essentially trapped in close proximity to the stolen property, and thereby exercised dominion and control over, and thus joint constructive possession of, the property itself. People v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 04897, First Dept 6-18-19

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY SHE WAS NOT TICKETED; DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCREASED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO THE INCREASED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that defendant, in this traffic accident case, should not have been allowed to testify that she did not receive a traffic ticket. The court also noted that the trial judge properly determined the damages for past pain and suffering should be increased, but that the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to the increased amount. The trial judge had unconditionally increased the damages amount:

It is well established that “[e]vidence of nonprosecution is inadmissible in a civil action” … . In our view, however, that was the only error during trial … . We conclude that, “standing alone” … , the error was harmless, and therefore the court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought to set aside the jury verdict and a new trial on all issues (see CPLR 2002).

Plaintiff further contends that the jury’s damages award for pain and suffering materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries and that the deviation was not cured by the court’s increase of the award for past pain and suffering. We reject that contention. We conclude that the court properly determined that the jury’s verdict for past pain and suffering should be increased to $125,000 and that the award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The court, however, erred in unconditionally increasing the past pain and suffering award. ” [T]he proper procedure when a damages award is inadequate is to order a new trial on damages unless [a] defendant stipulates to the increased amount’ ” … . Queen v Kogut, 2019 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/ ,

ARGUMENT THAT PROBATION CONDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that defendant’s argument that the conditions of his probation were illegal survived a waiver of appeal and the failure to preserve the error:

Defendant further contends … that the court imposed several unlawful conditions of probation. Initially, we note that defendant’s contentions are not encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal because they are based on challenges to the legality of the sentence … . Additionally, although defendant failed to preserve those contentions for our review, there is a “narrow exception to [the] preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence’s illegality is readily discernible from the trial record” … , and that exception encompasses a contention that a “probation condition is unlawful because it is not reasonably related to rehabilitation or is outside the authority of the court to impose” … . We conclude that, inasmuch as defendant’s challenges to the conditions of probation here “implicate the legality of defendant’s sentence and any illegality is evident on the face of the record, those claims are not barred by . . . defendant’s failure to preserve them” … . …

With respect to the merits, the People correctly concede that the court erred in barring defendant from all use of the internet. The statute provides that a sentencing “court may require that the defendant comply with a reasonable limitation on his or her use of the internet . . . provided that the court shall not prohibit such sentenced offender from using the internet in connection with education, lawful employment or search for lawful employment” … . People v Castaneda, 2019 NY Slip Op 04860, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/ ,

GAP IN BATHROOM STALL DOOR AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, IN WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS PINCHED AND PARTIALLY SEVERED WHEN THE DOOR SLAMMED SHUT, WAS NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the gap in a bathroom stall door at a McDonald’s restaurant, in which infant plaintiff’s finger was pinched and partially severed when her brother slammed the door, was not an unreasonably dangerous condition. In addition, the court found the condition was open and obvious and there was no duty to warn. The dissent noted the testimony that McDonald’s now installs finger guards which raised questions of fact whether defendants were on notice the door presented an unreasonably dangerous condition:

Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the stall door did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . The affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert was ” speculative and not sufficiently probative to defeat defendant[s’] motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, we conclude that the alleged hazard posed by the bathroom stall door was also open and obvious, and therefore defendants had no duty to warn that the door presented a finger-pinching hazard … . Christopher J.G. v Derico of E. Amherst Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT REFLECT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged her bowel was perforated during surgery. The defense expert testified the bowel must be fully inspected as it is replaced, section by section. However, defendant surgeon testified he did not fully inspect the bowel. In addition the jury was asked to determine whether the bowel was subjected to a “focused inspection.” However there was no trial evidence equating a “focused inspection” with the standard of care. A new trial was necessary:

The weight of the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiff due, in no small part, to defendant’s testimony that he not only failed to perform a “focused inspection” of the bowel, but that “[he could not] not observe it” as he returned it into plaintiff’s abdomen. In not “observing” the bowel, defendant plainly could not have conducted a careful visualization of the body part as it was returned to plaintiff’s body; therefore he was plainly not performing a “focused inspection.” Defendant also admitted that “[he] didn’t specifically look for [bruising]” of the bowel, which his own expert testified is required when inspecting the bowel during an aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Defendant also testified that he only looked at the bowel’s top side. Although his expert did not testify that defendant was personally required to view the other side, she did explain that the other surgeon in the operating room must view that side so that both surgeons, collectively, can view the entire bowel. Defendant did not testify that he ensured that the assisting surgeon carefully viewed the back side of the bowel, segment by segment. Moreover, the assisting surgeon did not testify that defendant instructed her to do so. Inasmuch as defendant’s conduct does not meet the standard articulated by the expert witnesses, we conclude that the evidence so preponderates in plaintiff’s favor that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict … Monzon v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

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