You are here: / WHERE THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES MORE THAN ONE WAY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED OFFENSE,...

Search Results

/ ,

WHERE THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES MORE THAN ONE WAY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED OFFENSE, THE PEOPLE NEED ONLY PROVE ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the People are not required to prove all of the ways the indictment alleged the crime was committed. The People need only prove one:

” Where an offense may be committed by doing any one of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of the others'”… . Therefore, where ” the indictment charge[s] more than the People [are] required to prove under the statute,'” they are not required to prove that the defendant committed each of the charged acts … . Accordingly, the fact that the indictment charged the defendant with committing burglary in the third degree by both unlawfully entering and remaining in the subject premises did not require the People to prove both sets of facts and, since they proceeded only on the theory of unlawful entry, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury on that theory only. People v Bynum. 2019 NY Slip Op 03067, Second dept 4-24-19

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO INFORM INSURER OF A SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION ON AN UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s (State Farm’s) petition to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist benefits claim should have been granted. The insureds (McLaurin and Corbin) were involved in an accident with two other cars, one of which was uninsured. The insureds settled with the other insured party (Martinez) without informing State Farm:

“Where an automobile insurance policy expressly requires the insurer’s prior consent to any settlement by the insured with a tortfeasor, failure of the insured to obtain such prior consent from the insurer constitutes a breach of a condition of the insurance contract and disqualifies the insured from availing himself [or herself] of the pertinent benefits of the policy” … . It is undisputed that McLaurin and Corbin entered into the settlement of the Martinez action without State Farm’s consent. “Once the existence of a release in settlement of the relevant tort claim is established, the burden is on the insured to establish, by virtue of an express limitation in the release, or of a necessary implication arising from the circumstances of its execution, that the release did not operate to prejudice the subrogation rights of the insurer” … . Here, McLaurin and Corbin failed to establish that the release issued in the Martinez action did not operate to prejudice the subrogation rights of State Farm … . Matter of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v McLaurin, 2019 NY Slip Op 03057, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ ,

MOTHER’S REFUSING TO CONSENT TO AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM AND HER DELAY IN SCHEDULING AN INDEPENDENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL OR MEDICAL NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support educational neglect or medical neglect on the part of mother. The mother had refused to consent to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and had delayed in scheduling an independent neuropsychological evaluation, neither amounted to neglect:

Family Court Act § 1012(f) governs parental neglect as related to furnishing a child with an adequate education. Here, the petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother had not furnished the child with an adequate education under the statute. Neither the mother’s refusal to consent to the IEP for the 2016-2017 school year nor her failure to follow up with independent neuropsychological testing of the child constituted educational neglect under the circumstances presented.

Moreover, the petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing medical neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][A]; 1046[b]). While the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the mother delayed in scheduling an independent neuropsychological evaluation of the child, and that the child missed some doses of Adderall while he was staying at his father’s home, the evidence did not rise to the level of establishing a failure to supply the child with adequate medical care or demonstrate a resulting impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition  … . Matter of Jahzir Barbee M. (Racine B.), 2019 NY Slip Op 03050, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION OF TWO DRUGS TO SAMUEL D, A MENTALLY ILL PERSON, OVER SAMUEL D’S OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the state had demonstrated the administration of two drugs to Samuel D, a mentally ill person, over Samuel D’s objection was proper. But the state’s evidence concerning two other drugs was insufficient:

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment … , and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments” … . …

… [T]he petitioner failed to offer sufficient evidence at the hearing to establish by clear and convincing evidence its entitlement to medicate Samuel D. with Valproic Acid and Benztropine over his objection … . The minimal evidence presented at the hearing regarding these medications was insufficient for the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed course of treatment with respect to these medications was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to Samuel D.’s liberty interest. Matter of Samuel D. (Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.), 2019 NY Slip Op 03045, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ , , ,

MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, PURSUANT TO PETITIONER’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, THE RECORDS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical records of the victim of sexual assault could not be disclosed to the petitioner, who was convicted of the sexual assault, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. The medical records were protected from disclosure by the Public Health Law, the Civil Rights Law and the Public Officers Law:

“All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure” … . Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) provides that an agency may deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute … . Here, the medical records of the victim sought by the petitioner are exempted from disclosure by Public Health Law §§ 2803-c(3)(f) and 2805-g(3) … . Also, the medical records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which, with exceptions not relevant here, prevents any public officer from disclosing documents that would identify the victim of a sex offense … . Further, the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i) … . Matter of Crowe v Guccione, 2019 NY Slip Op 03044, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ , ,

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING WERE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS INVALID, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE AGREED TO BY PLAINTIFF WIFE WAS LESS THAN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT RENTAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was necessary to determine whether a separation agreement was invalid (unconscionable). The plaintiff wife did not have an attorney when the agreement was negotiated, but she consulted an attorney who advised her the support and maintenance were not sufficient to meet her needs. The amount of support and maintenance agreed to was less than the monthly rental for plaintiff’s apartment:

Given that the agreement’s support provisions were insufficient to cover the rent for the marital residence and other basic needs of the plaintiff and the children, as well as the lack of financial disclosure regarding the value of the defendant’s business, condominium, and actual income, questions of fact existed as to whether the separation agreement was invalid, sufficient to warrant a hearing … .  Given the lack of any financial disclosure, the Supreme Court should have exercised its equitable powers and directed disclosure regarding the parties’ finances at the time the agreement was executed, to be followed by a hearing to test the validity of the separation agreement … . Mizrahi v Mizrahi, 2019 NY Slip Op 03040, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ , ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the products liability cause of action against the builder of an in-ground swimming pool (Swim Tech) properly survived summary judgment and further determined the out-of-possession landlords’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff dove into the pool and struck his head on a slant portion of the pool wall/floor. With respect to the property owners’ liability, the court wrote:

An out-of-possession landowner who has assumed the obligation to make repairs to its property can be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition if it is established that the landowner created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Whether a dangerous condition exists on property so as to create liability on the part of a landowner depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . ” [T]he owner of a private residential swimming pool has a duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . A landowner also has the duty to warn of potentially dangerous conditions that are not readily observable … . ” To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendants] to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the owners failed to establish, prima facie, that the slanted wall in the deep end of their pool was not dangerous or that they lacked constructive notice of the condition … . McDermott v Santos, 2019 NY Slip Op 03039, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN METAL POLES BEING HOISTED BY A CRANE SLIPPED OUT OF A CHOKER AND STRUCK HIM, CLAIMANT DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE RE: THE CAUSE AND DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: WHETHER HIS CONDUCT IN SECURING THE POLES WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, CLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined claimant was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Claimant had secured metal posts with a choker. When the posts were lifted by a crane, they slipped out of the choker and struck claimant, cause traumatic brain injury. Claimant did not submit any expert opinion evidence. Defendant alleged claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a Labor Law § 240(1) “falling object” case, the claimant must demonstrate that, at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking …. Labor Law § 240(1) “does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; [a] plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute'” … .

Here, the claimants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence submitted by the claimants was insufficient to establish that the posts fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device, and the claimants further failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Houston v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03032, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/ ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE IN THIS INMATE-ON-INMATE THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this inmate-on-inmate third party assault case was properly granted.  Plaintiff, an inmate in county jail, was assaulted with a pool cue by another inmate (named Batts). The complaint against the county alleged negligent supervision:

… [T]he County defendants demonstrated that prior to the incident, the plaintiff and Batts had a friendly relationship and joked around with each other. They had no prior physical altercations with one another, and Batts had not been involved in any prior violent incidents with other inmates. The County defendants also demonstrated that prior to August 11, 2013, there had been no incident at the facility where an inmate had used a pool cue as a weapon to attack another inmate.

The County defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision by demonstrating that the assault by Batts upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … . As for the cause of action sounding in negligent entrustment, the County defendants established, prima facie, that they did not possess special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to Batts that rendered his access to the pool cue unreasonably dangerous … . Dickson v Putnam, 2019 NY Slip Op 03025, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT REPAIR, WHEN HE FELL FROM AN ELEVATED FORKLIFT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff injured engaging in routine maintenance of an HVAC unit, not repair. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from a forklift which was used to lift him up to HVAC unit in the ceiling:

“In determining whether a particular activity constitutes repairing,’ courts are careful to distinguish between repairs and routine maintenance, the latter falling outside the scope of section 240(1)” … . “Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'” … . …

At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that before the accident occurred, he determined that a belt was missing from the heating unit. Then, according to the plaintiff, while he was in the process of lowering a panel to see whether the pilot light to the heating unit was on or off, he slipped and fell. The plaintiff testified that, based on his experience, there was nothing extraordinary or unusual about a belt needing to be replaced or a pilot light going out on a heating unit. … [The] evidence showed that the plaintiff’s work “involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” and did not constitute “repairing” or any other enumerated activity … . Dahlia v S&K Distrib., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03023, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

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