You are here: / POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR...

Search Results

/ , , ,

POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the stop of defendant’s car was based upon reasonable grounds to believe petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128. Therefore the revocation of petitioner’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test was affirmed:

At the administrative hearing, testimony was elicited that, while on patrol at 1:00 AM on December 22, 2013, a police officer observed petitioner’s vehicle “make an erratic movement off the right side of the road, crossing the fog line and [moving] off the shoulder [with the vehicle’s] right front tire.” Once the vehicle left the paved roadway — and with the right-hand turn signal on — the officer saw the vehicle immediately move left, returning to its original lane of travel. After observing that there was no animal or other obstruction of the roadway that would have explained the “erratic jerking action,” the police officer pulled the vehicle over. During the stop, the officer noticed that petitioner smelled of alcohol and exhibited other signs of inebriation. Petitioner admitted that he “had a few drinks” and asked the officer to give him a ride home, failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test given at the scene. At the precinct, despite receiving the appropriate warnings, petitioner refused to take a chemical test, resulting in an administrative license revocation hearing. The police officer’s testimony at the hearing, articulating credible facts to support a reasonable belief that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) (failure to remain in lane), provided substantial evidence that he had probable cause to stop petitioner’s vehicle … . Any negative or adverse inference that was drawn from petitioner’s failure to testify at the administrative revocation hearing was permissible … . Matter of Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2019 NY Slip Op 02259, CtApp 3-28-19

 

/

A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined a new hearing on father’s relocation petition was required because the court may have put too much emphasis on the child’s enrollment in a particular school:

Family Court determined that it was in the best interests of the child to award the father physical custody of the child and to permit the child to relocate to New York City. In making this determination, we note that the court took into account the child’s relationship with the family members in each parties’ household, the child’s current school and Promise Academy, the parties’ relative fitness to provide a safe and healthy environment and the structure in each household to support the child’s educational needs. The court, however, conditioned such change of custody and relocation upon the child’s enrollment in Promise Academy for the 2017-2018 school year. In our view, by imposing such condition, the court erroneously elevated the child’s matriculation at Promise Academy from one factor to be considered in the best interests analysis to the sole dispositive factor. Inasmuch as no one factor is dispositive … , the order must be reversed and a new hearing to be conducted on the father’s modification petition within 20 days of this Court’s decision. Matter of Lionel PP. v Sherry QQ., 2019 NY Slip Op 02398, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

/ , , ,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a minimum wage order applicable to home health aides was not irrational or unreasonable. The matter was sent back for consideration of other grounds for class certification:

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24-hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24-hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL’s interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York’s Labor Law, inclusive of defendants’ alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL’s interpretation. Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02258, CtApp 3-26-19

 

​

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS APPEARED FOR THE 50-h HEARING, PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY REFUSED TO LET THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFY UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF COULD HEAR THE OTHER’S TESTIMONY, BECAUSE THE 50-h HEARING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BRINGING SUIT, PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that plaintiffs were precluded from proceeding with the lawsuit because, although plaintiffs appeared for the 50-h hearing, plaintiffs attorney refused to participate in the 50-h hearing unless each plaintiff was present when the other testified. The majority held that the 50-h hearing is a condition precedent to any lawsuit and the statute does not create a right for plaintiff’s to be present for each other’s testimony at the hearing:

The purpose of General Municipal Law § 50-h is to enable a municipality to make a prompt investigation of the circumstances of a claim by examining the claimant about the facts of the claim … . The oral examination of a claimant pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h serves to supplement the notice of claim and provides an investigatory tool to the municipality, with a view toward settlement … . “Compliance with a demand for a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a municipal defendant, and the failure to so comply warrants dismissal of the action” … . “A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality” … . …

” [A] court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact'”  … . Moreover, “[i]n the construction of statutes, each word or phrase in the enactment must be given its appropriate meaning” … , which is in derogation of the common law, is to be strictly construed  … . In strictly construing a statute, courts “will not go beyond the clearly expressed provisions of the act” … . Colon v Martin, 2019 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 3-27-19

​

/ ,

LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this school recess injury case was properly granted. Plaintiff, who was in eighth grade, was injured when her shin struck a knee-high fence as she attempted to jump over it, causing her to fall on a concrete walkway. She had been taking turns with her friends jumping the fence for 10 or 15 minutes:

The plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and her deposition that she did not see any school personnel outside the school building either before or at the time of the incident. …

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . However, “[s]chools are not insurers of safety, . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . Here, the defendant established … that the plaintiff was engaged in an age-appropriate activity that did not constitute dangerous play, and that the alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Chiauzzi v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

/ ,

THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, explained in detail the proof requirement for a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action, emphasizing the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court determined that the bank’s proof of standing was sufficient, but the proof of defendant’s default was not. The opinion is too detailed to be fairly summarized here and should be consulted for guidance in foreclosure actions:

From an appellate perspective, the recent flood of foreclosure appeals has revealed consistent and repeated confusion about some of the most fundamental aspects of the procedural, substantive, and evidentiary law that must be routinely applied in a foreclosure context. In an effort to provide additional clarity in this important area of the law, we deem it appropriate to collect and reiterate some of these foundational principles in the hope that such clarity will eliminate many of the disputes that make up an ever-increasing proportion of trial-level dockets. For the reasons that follow, we modify the order appealed from.

… [I]t bears noting that the business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a “writing or record” (CPLR 4518[a]). Although “[t]he foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business” … , it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Accordingly, “[e]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon,2019 NY Slip Op 02306, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

/ , , , ,

DECEDENT’S CONSENT TO SURGERY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, THE CONSENT WAS AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions should have been dismissed. With respect to the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, the court held that the submission of the informed consent form by the defendant did not violate the Dead Man’s Statute:

The plaintiff contends that Meyerson [defendant surgeon] cannot rely upon the portion of his expert’s affidavit which states that the decedent was aware of the risks of the procedure because he signed a consent form for a similar procedure in 2012, because this evidence would be inadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4519, the so-called Dead Man’s Statute. CPLR 4519 “precludes a party or person interested in the underlying event from offering testimony concerning a personal transaction or communication with the decedent” … .

While evidence excludable at trial under CPLR 4519 may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment so long as it is not the sole evidence proffered … , such evidence “should not be used to support summary judgment” … . However, the statute does not bar “the introduction of documentary evidence against a deceased’s estate. . . . [A]n adverse party’s introduction of a document authored by a deceased does not violate the Dead Man’s Statute, as long as the document is authenticated by a source other than an interested witness’s testimony concerning a transaction or communication with the deceased” … . Inasmuch as the expert’s affidavit as to the decedent’s execution of the form was predicated upon the medical records, which contained the decedent’s consent form for the prior surgery and on which the expert relied, and the records were properly authenticated and submitted on the motion, Meyerson properly relied upon the expert opinion to support his motion … . Wright v Morning Star Ambulette Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02381, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff instead relied on the “Affidavit of Mailing” of a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo. However, the affiant did not aver that she personally mailed the notice, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and, therefore, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …. Similarly, the presence of numbered bar codes on the copies of the 90-day statutory notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Offley, 2019 NY Slip Op 02377, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF THE KNIFE WAS DEMONSTRATED AT TRIAL, THERE WAS NO RECORD EVIDENCE THAT THE KNIFE POSSESSED BY DEFENDANT WAS A GRAVITY KNIFE, RELATED CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, under a weight of the evidence analysis, determined that the proof did not support the jury’s finding that the weapon possessed by defendant was a gravity knife:

Penal Law § 265.00(5) defines a “[g]ravity knife” as a “knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.” “[A] gravity knife, as so defined, requires that the blade lock in place automatically upon its release and without further action by the user” … . …

Although an officer demonstrated the operation of the knife at trial, the record contains “no contemporaneous description of what the jury saw” during that demonstration … . Further, there is no other evidence in the record that established whether or how the blade locked. In short, the People failed to create a record proving that the knife satisfied the statutory definition of a gravity knife  … . Thus, the weight of the evidence before us does not support a finding that the defendant’s knife was, in fact, a gravity knife … . People v Sauri, 2019 NY Slip Op 02359, Second Deplt 3-27-19

 

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