You are here: / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR...

Search Results

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), PARENTAL NEGLECT AND DANGER FROM GANGS IN HONDURAS WAS DEMONSTRATED, APPELLATE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN FACTUAL FINDINGS ON A SUFFICIENT RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child’s motion for findings enabling him to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) should have been granted:

“This Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the hearing court, and where, as here, the record is sufficiently complete to make our own factual determinations, we may do so” … . Based upon our independent factual review, we conclude that the record supports a finding that reunification of the child with one or both of his parents is not a viable option based upon parental neglect … . The record reflects that the child’s parents did not provide him with adequate supervision or medical care, and that they failed to meet the child’s educational needs. Furthermore, the record also supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return to Honduras, his previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. The child indicated that he was assaulted by gang members in Honduras on multiple occasions, once leaving him with a broken rib and a scar on his head, and that he had witnessed a drive-by shooting at his school which resulted in the death of his schoolmate. In addition, the child stated that the gang members tried to recruit him, but he refused to join, and that the gang members were “killing people if they didn’t want to join.” The child stated that he “felt scared all the time and could no longer live a normal life,” and that he “basically stayed inside [his] house all the time” out of fear that he “was going to be attacked again” … . Matter of Victor R. C. O. v Canales, 2019 NY Slip Op 03789, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

/

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror should have been granted:

The challenged panelist made a statement reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude the rendering of an impartial verdict (see CPL 270.20[1][b]), and the court did not elicit an unequivocal assurance that in rendering a verdict based on the evidence, the panelist could set aside any bias … . The juror expressly stated that he was “not sure” he could be impartial in a case involving a registered sex offender. His general statement about needing to hear the facts did not address his ability to overcome the specific bias he had expressed. “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another”  … . People v Rodriguez, 2019 NY Slip Op 03734, First Dept 5-14-19

 

/ ,

JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN A DRAFT WHICH WAS DISCARDED BY THE JURY, AS OPPOSED TO A NOTE OF WHICH COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, THEREFORE THE PROHIBITION OF RECONSTRUCTION HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE HANDLING OF JURY NOTES DID NOT APPLY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a substantive concurrence, determined, based upon a reconstruction hearing held by Supreme Court at the direction of the Appellate Division, a jury note found in the court file by appellate counsel was a draft that was discarded by the jury. Therefore the strict requirements surrounding notification of counsel of the contents of notes from the jury, and the prohibition of reconstruction hearings in that context, did not apply:

We recently held that where the record does not establish that counsel was provided meaningful notice of the contents of a substantive jury note, “the sole remedy is reversal and a new trial,” not a reconstruction hearing (People v Parker, 32 NY3d 49, 62 [2018]). However, the purpose of the reconstruction hearing at issue here was not to determine whether the court complied with the counsel notice requirements of CPL 310.30 and People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 276 [1991]). Instead, the hearing was to determine whether, in the first instance, Exhibit XIV reflected a “jury . . . request [to] the court for further instruction or information” (CPL 310.30) such that those obligations were triggered. Moreover, the finding of the courts below, following the reconstruction hearing, that Exhibit XIV was a draft note that the jury discarded is supported by the record and, thus, beyond our further review. People v Meyers, 2019 NY Slip Op 03658, CtApp 5-9-19

 

/ ,

THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the so-called Scarangella exception may apply where the manufacturer sells its product to a rental business; and (2) the jury instruction misstated the law concerning a manufacturer’s liability where its product is sold to a rental business. The Scarangella case carved out an exception to strict products liability which may apply when the manufacturer has made a safety feature optional and the buyer chooses not to purchase it. Here the plaintiff was operating a Bodcat loader when he was crushed by a small tree which came into the cab. Bobcat sells a cab enclosure (“door kit”) which may have deflected the tree. The rental company, Taylor, which purchased the Bobcat and rented it to plaintiff, did not outfit the rented Bobcat with the door kit. The trial court held that the Scarangella exception is never available to a manufacturer where the product is sold to a rental company. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held the Scarangella exception can be available where a rental business is the purchaser, depending upon the evidence:

[In Scarangella] we held that a product is not defective — and a manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for a design defect based upon a claim that optional safety equipment should have been a standard feature — when the following three conditions are met: “(1) the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and (3) the buyer is in a position, given the range of uses of the product, to balance the benefits and the risks of not having the safety device in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . When these elements are present, “the buyer, not the manufacturer, is in the superior position to make the risk-utility assessment, and a well-considered decision by the buyer to dispense with the optional safety equipment will excuse the manufacturer from liability” … . * * *

Having deemed Scarangella to be wholly inapplicable, neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division examined whether Bobcat raised a triable question of fact warranting a Scarangella charge. … For purposes of resolution of this appeal, it is sufficient to observe as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented at this trial, that Bobcat was not entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the Scarangella exception. Whether a Scarangella instruction will be appropriate on retrial is a matter for the trial court to determine based on the evidence presented at that time.  Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03657, CtApp 5-9-19

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF-TENANT IS DISABLED BY DEPRESSION, DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S REFUSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT CONSTITUTED DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, THE LANDLORD’S LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S LEASE TERM TO THREE MONTHS CONSTITUTED IMPERMISSIBLE RETALIATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenant’s discrimination and retaliation claims against defendant landlord should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff demonstrated his need for an emotional support dog (he suffers from debilitating depression) and further demonstrated the landlord’s denial of his request to keep a dog was discriminatory, and the landlord’s reduction of the lease term to three months constituted impermissible retaliation:

… [T]he parties have strictly limited their arguments on appeal on the question of discrimination to two narrow and carefully circumscribed issues: (1) whether defendant has a qualifying disability within the meaning of the FHA [Fair Housing Act] and the HRL [Human Rights Law] and (2) whether the accommodation he requested was “necessary to afford [him] equal opportunity to use and enjoy [his] dwelling” as provided in the statutes (42 USC § 3604 [f] [3] [B]; see Executive Law § 296 [18] [2]). * * *

… [B]ased upon defendant’s significant limitations in the major life activities of working and interacting with others, we are satisfied that he is disabled within the meaning of the FHA … . …

The HRL’s definition of disability is broader than those used in the federal disability statutes … . The HRL does not require a showing of a limitation in a major life activity, but instead defines disability, as pertinent here, as “a physical, mental or medical impairment . . . [that] is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques” (Executive Law § 292 [21] [a]). Defendant’s therapist, a clinical psychologist, testified in some detail regarding the clinical techniques used to diagnose depression and defendant’s specific symptoms … . …

… [W]e find that defendant “offered sufficient evidence that having [an emotional support] dog would affirmatively enhance his quality of life by ameliorating the effects of his disability,” and thus demonstrated necessity within the meaning of the FHA and the HRL … . * * *

We are satisfied that plaintiff’s actions were sufficiently adverse to constitute interference with the exercise of defendant’s rights. Notably, discrimination against a disabled person in the terms or conditions of a lease is prohibited by the FHA and its implementing regulations … . Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel, 2019 NY Slip Op 03718, Third Dept 5-9-19

 

/ , ,

INCLUSION OF CLAIMANT’S PHOTOGRAPH ON A WALL OF SHAME DEPICTING PERSONS ARRESTED DURING OPERATION SAFE INTERNET, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN, CONSTITUTED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION SUPPORTING A $300,000 DAMAGES AWARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the Court of Claim’s decision awarding claimant $300,000 in this defamation-by-implication action against the state was supported by the evidence. Claimant had been arrested during Operation Safe Internet, but only because of the alleged Internet communication by claimant’s roommate. Claimant was arrested solely for possession of drugs and his case was subsequently adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ultimately dismissed with the record sealed. In a televised news conference about an initiative to “investigate and prosecute crimes involving the online sexual exploitation of children, ” under a sign saying “Internet Crimes Against Children,” claimant’s photograph was one of 61 on a “wall of shame” depicting those who had been arrested during the investigation:

… [W]e now adopt a two-part test to determine whether the first element is met in causes of action alleging defamation by implication, requiring proof (1) that the language of the communication as a whole reasonably conveys a defamatory inference, and (2) that such language affirmatively and contextually suggests that the declarant either intended or endorsed the inference … . * * *

… [W]ithout providing more information to the public regarding the underlying facts of claimant’s case, to a reasonable viewer, the communication as a whole falsely implied that claimant, whose photograph was on the wall of shame, had engaged in a sexual crime against a child … . * * *

… [W]e find that claimant has established that the context of defendant’s communication as a whole can be reasonably read to affirmatively suggest that defendant intended or endorsed the defamatory inference that claimant was arrested for a crime involving the online sexual exploitation of a child  … . In fact, the very placement of claimant’s photo in the array strongly suggested to the public that defendant intended and endorsed the message that claimant belonged on the “wall of shame” because of his fictional crime against children. Further, the use of a small, unreadable label listing the crime for which claimant was actually arrested, which was the particular manner in which the true facts were conveyed, supplied “additional, affirmative evidence suggesting that the defendant intend[ed] or endorse[d] the defamatory inference” that claimant had been arrested for a crime involving the sexual exploitation of a child … . Partridge v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03715, Third Dept 5-9-19

 

/ ,

OHIO FIREARMS DEALER DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK SUFFICIENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER HIM, A GUN PURCHASED IN OHIO BY AN OHIO RESIDENT WAS SOLD ON THE BLACK MARKET IN NEW YORK AND WAS USED IN NEW YORK TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that an Ohio firearms dealer (Brown) did not have “minimum contacts” with New York sufficient for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302) over him. A gun sold by Brown to Bostic, an Ohio resident, in Ohio, was sold on the black market to a member of a gang in Buffalo, New York, who shot plaintiff:

Defendant Charles Brown, a federal firearm licensee, was authorized to sell handguns only in Ohio and only to Ohio residents, which he primarily accomplished through retail sales at gun shows held in various locations in Ohio. Brown did not maintain a website, had no retail store or business telephone listing, and did no advertising of any kind, except by posting a sign at his booth when participating in a gun show. In a series of transactions in 2000, Brown sold handguns to James Nigel Bostic and his associates. Prior to the transaction involving the gun at issue here, Brown consulted with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ensure its legality. For each transaction, the necessary forms required by the ATF were properly completed and submitted, the purchaser passed the required Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check before the firearms were transferred, Brown verified that the purchaser had government-issued identification demonstrating Ohio residency, and notification of the purchases was timely sent to local law enforcement and the ATF as required by the federal Gun Control Act (see 18 USC § 922). During the transactions, Bostic indicated he was in the process of becoming a federal firearms licensee and was acquiring inventory for the eventual opening of a gun shop. * * *

… “[A] non-domiciliary tortfeasor has minimum contacts with the forum State . . . if it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” …,”thus invoking the benefits and protections of [the forum state’s] laws”… . This test envisions something more than the “fortuitous circumstance” that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of defendant … . Put another way, “the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum” cannot establish the requisite connection between defendant and the forum “such that [defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there” … .

The constitutional inquiry “focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation'” … . Significantly, “it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction” … . Williams v Beemiller, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03656, CtApp 5-9-19

 

/ , ,

NEW TRIAL ORDERED BECAUSE THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE VERDICT SHEET COULD NOT BE REMEDIED AFTER THE JURY WAS DISCHARGED, THE JURY HAD AWARDED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT $1 MILLION IN A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT STEMMING FROM BULLYING BY OTHER STUDENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a new trial was necessary because of an inconsistency in the jury’s answers on the verdict sheet. The trial court attempted to cure the inconsistency after the jury was discharged by speaking with the jury foreman, who was still in the courthouse when the problem was noticed. The jury had awarded plaintiff-student $1 million in a negligent supervision suit against a school district stemming from bullying by other students:

The taking of this verdict was fatally flawed. Pursuant to CPLR 4111 (c), when the answers on a verdict sheet “are inconsistent with each other and one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall require the jury to further consider its answers and verdict or it shall order a new trial” … . The jury’s consideration of question No. 5 was inconsistent with its answer to question No. 4 and should have been brought to the jury’s attention with a curative charge, followed by a return to deliberations to resolve the inconsistency … . However, because the jury had already been discharged, this was not possible and Supreme Court’s consultation with the jury foreperson alone, although done in open court, could not take the place of full jury reconsideration … . In essence, the window of opportunity for Supreme Court to fix the problem closed when the other jurors left the courthouse. Supreme Court’s subsequent efforts, while well intentioned, were futile and, given this timeline, our only course of action is to order a new trial … . Motta v Eldred Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03714, Third Dept 5-9-19

 

/ , ,

TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR TO QUESTION DEFENDANT ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE SANDOVAL RULING, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the trial judge implicitly changed the Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about the underlying facts of prior convictions:

Prior to the trial, the Supreme Court conducted a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), after which the court ruled that, should the defendant testify on his own behalf, the People would be permitted to ask whether he had two prior felony convictions. However, the People were not permitted to elicit the underlying facts of either of those crimes. …

Without seeking an amendment of the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor then asked whether he was being arrested that day in 2008 “because there was a DNA match of [him] committing a burglary.” Defense counsel objected, the objection was overruled, and the defendant denied that this was true. The prosecutor persisted in that line of inquiry, and asked whether the defendant had been convicted of burglary in the third degree in 2009. The defendant responded that “[y]es [he] was convicted of a case in 2008.” Nonetheless, without asking for a modified Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor brought up, no less than six times, that the 2008 conviction was for burglary and involved DNA, going so far to ask the defendant to “explain” the facts of his 2008 conviction, with the court instructing the defendant to do so. In one instance, after asking the defendant to confirm that he was charged in the instant case with burglary in the second degree, the prosecutor remarked, in effect, that the instant crime was “the same type of DNA hit that happened back in 2008.” …

The defendant here was denied … [the right to make an informed choice whether to testify] when, after making what he believed to be an informed judgment and taking the witness stand, the Supreme Court implicitly changed the ruling upon which he relied by allowing the prosecutor to continue her course of prejudicial questioning despite objections from defense counsel. People v Walters, 2019 NY Slip Op 03632, Second Dept 5-8-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT FALSE ARREST AND POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the defendant was properly prohibited from cross-examining a police officer about four federal lawsuits filed against the officer:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in prohibiting the defendant from cross-examining a police witness with respect to the allegations of false arrest and/or police brutality in four federal lawsuits filed against that witness. “Where a lawsuit has not resulted in an adverse finding against a police officer . . . defendants should not be permitted to ask a witness if he or she has been sued, if the case was settled (unless there was an admission of wrongdoing) or if the criminal charges related to the plaintiffs in those actions were dismissed. However, subject to the trial court’s discretion, defendants should be permitted to ask questions based on the specific allegations of the lawsuit if the allegations are relevant to the credibility of the witness” … . “In cross-examining a law enforcement witness, the same standard for good faith basis and specific allegations relevant to credibility applies, as does the same broad latitude to preclude or limit cross-examination” . “First, counsel must present a good faith basis for inquiring, namely, the lawsuit relied upon; second, specific allegations that are relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness must be identified; and third, the trial judge exercises discretion in assessing whether inquiry into such allegations would confuse or mislead t… he jury, or create a substantial risk of undue prejudice to the parties”… . Here, the complaints in each of the identified actions contain only allegations of unlawful police conduct by large groups of officers, and did not set forth specific acts of misconduct against the police witness individually. Thus, cross-examination of this witness regarding the federal lawsuits was properly denied … . People v Crupi, 2019 NY Slip Op 03614, Second Dept 5-8-19

 

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