You are here: / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER...

Search Results

/ ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did have the authority to issue a sua sponte order vacating a consent order:

Upon the father’s admission to a willful violation of the support order and upon the father’s representation that he was employed, an order of disposition was entered upon the parties’ consent, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and committing him to a term of incarceration of five months, but suspending his commitment on the condition that he complied with the support order (hereinafter the consent order). Shortly after the consent order was entered, the Family Court received a telephone call, ostensibly from the father’s purported employer, informing the court that the father was not, in fact, employed. The court, over the father’s objection, sua sponte issued an order vacating the consent order (hereinafter the sua sponte order). The court then proceeded to a willfulness hearing, at the conclusion of which it issued the second order of disposition, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and directing that he be committed to the Orange County Jail for a period of six months unless he paid the purge amount of $19,839 (hereinafter the commitment order). …

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court lacked authority to issue the sua sponte order vacating the consent order (see CPLR 5019[a]) …). Moreover, the court issued the sua sponte order on the basis of unsworn statements made during a telephone call between the court and the father’s purported employer … . Accordingly, the sua sponte order must be reversed, and the commitment order, which was based in part on the sua sponte order, must be reversed as well. Matter of Schiavone v Mannese, 2019 NY Slip Op 01419, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

ORDER MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CHILD ESCAPED EL SALVADOR BECAUSE OF GANG VIOLENCE AND THREATS (SECOND DEPT).

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

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record establishes that the child met the age and marital status requirements for special immigrant status … , and the dependency requirement has been satisfied by the granting of the father’s guardianship petition prior to the child’s 21st birthday … . Further, we find that reunification of the child with her mother is not a viable option due to parental abandonment … . The record reflects that after the child came to the United States in February 2014, she did not live with the mother because the “mother did not want to support her,” and that the child lived in close proximity to the mother, but the mother only visited the child once, in March 2014, and did not visit or even contact the child from that time through the time the father made the subject motion in April 2018. We also find that the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return to El Salvador, her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. The record reflects that the child was threatened by gang members in El Salvador while walking home from school, that the gang members “wanted to recruit [the child] and have her sell drugs” and told her that “she had to join them or they would murder her and her family,” that the gang members started texting her to “extort money from her,” that the child was sent to live with a family friend, but the threats continued, and that the child left El Salvador to escape from the gangs … . Matter of Rina M. G.C. (Oscar L.G.–Ana M. C.H.), 2019 NY Slip Op 01407, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to vacate the default in this dog-bite case should not have been granted because it was untimely and unsubstantiated, but a full evidentiary hearing was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages:

… [A] court has the “inherent power to set aside excessive awards made upon default,” despite the fact that there is no reasonable excuse for the default … . “An unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an “open season” at the expense of a defaulting defendant'”… . In light of the evidence in the record, including the plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest, which was not supported by any expert testimony, and a police report of the incident which stated that the plaintiff suffered “minor injuries from an animal bite,” there are significant questions as to whether the award of the principal sum of $500,000, consisting of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, was excessive. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to stay enforcement of the default judgment and the settlement agreements based upon that judgment, and to direct further discovery. However, the court also should have stated in its order dated September 21, 2016, that the issues to be determined on the motion to stay enforcement of the default judgment are limited to the issue of damages. Loeffler v Glasgow, 2019 NY Slip Op 01401, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/

PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES BY THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenge to defense peremptory juror challenges should not have been granted:

“[A]lthough appellate courts accord great deference to trial judges’ step three determinations, . . . there is no record support for Supreme Court’s rejection of defense counsel’s race-neutral reasons for striking [two panelists]. The People simply failed to meet their burden that racial discrimination was the motivating factor” … . Defense counsel presented facially race-neutral reasons for challenging the panelists at issue based on their having been crime victims or relatives of crime victims … , and there was no evidence of disparate treatment by defense counsel of similarly situated panelists … . The record otherwise fails to support the court’s finding that the race-neutral reasons given for these challenges were pretextual. People v Bloise, 2019 NY Slip Op 01363, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/

MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE NAZI-OCCUPIED FRENCH GOVERNMENT DURING WORLD WAR II PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was properly denied. The suit seeks the return of a painting allegedly looted by the Nazi-occupied French government:

In weighing the relevant factors, the court correctly observed that plaintiff and several defendants maintained residences in New York … . Although defendants suggest that France is the more appropriate forum, they also argued below, and submitted expert affidavits in support of the position, that this action would be time-barred in that jurisdiction, an important factor to consider … . This Court observes that retaining this action would not be particularly burdensome; New York has previously entertained actions concerning Nazi looting of art during World War II … . That the originals of some documents are located abroad does not require dismissal, and it is noted that the key documents have already been translated for the court… . In light of the foregoing, defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of establishing that the action should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds … . Gowen v Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01350, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/ , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the reckless standard applied in this pedestrian-police car traffic accident case. The court noted that the governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply to this scenario:

The governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply in this case where plaintiff pedestrian was injured when she was struck by a police vehicle that was allegedly pursuing a vehicle that had committed a traffic infraction … . Instead, where a plaintiff alleges that a municipality and/or its employees were negligent in the ownership or operation of an authorized emergency vehicle while engaged in one of the activities protected by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the “reckless disregard” standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies … .

Here, a factual issue exists as to whether defendants were engaged in a protected activity under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), namely, proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[b][2]), while pursuing a vehicle for a traffic violation so as to apply the reckless standard of care as opposed to ordinary negligence principles … . Santana v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01348, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/ ,

$1 MILLION ATTORNEY’S FEE REQUEST CUT IN HALF BY SURROGATE’S COURT AND REDUCED A FURTHER $100,000 BY THE FIRST DEPT CITING EXCESSIVE CHARGES FOR IN-FIRM DISCUSSIONS AND UNNECESSARY WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly reduced by half the $1 million attorney’s-fees request, which represented 1/3 of the estate and trust assets. First Department further reduced the fees by another $100,000:

Respondent’s counsel sought approval for legal fees in the amount of $1,037,183 for their representation of respondent. The amount requested represented 33.7% of the estate and trust assets. The Surrogate noted that the fees were far in excess of a typical fee for the services performed by respondent’s counsel, concluded that the fees were excessive, and fixed the fees in the total amount of $520,000.

Although the Surrogate reduced the fees from the exorbitant amount originally requested, we conclude that the fees as reduced are still excessive given the size of the estate … . While there is no set formula for fee awards, upon our review of counsel’s time records and in the exercise of discretion, we conclude that a further reduction in the amount of $100,000 is warranted. This additional reduction is necessary to properly account for excessive charges for inter-office communications and discussions amongst members of the firm, and unnecessary work performed … . Matter of SR, 2019 NY Slip Op 01343, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/ ,

PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A WEAPON PROPERLY ADMITTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE DEPICTED WEAPON WAS USED IN THE CHARGED OFFENSE, JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY IN THE INDICTMENT AND DESPITE THE PEOPLE’S THEORY THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a photograph depicting defendant with a weapon was properly admitted into evidence despite the absence of evidence that the weapon in the photograph was the weapon used in the offense. The trial court properly instructed the jury on accessorial liability despite the absence of an allegation of accessorial liability in the indictment and the People’s theory that defendant shot the victim:

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting in evidence a photograph, taken less than two months before the shooting, showing a person, sufficiently established to be defendant, holding a revolver of the type used in the crime. This evidence was relevant to show that defendant had access to such a weapon, thus tending to establish his identity as the perpetrator, and there was no requirement of proof that the revolver in the photograph was the actual weapon used in the crime … . …

The court properly instructed the jury on accessorial liability, notwithstanding that no such language appeared in the indictment and the People’s main theory was that defendant personally shot the victim. There was no improper amendment of the indictment, because an indictment charging a defendant as a principal is “not unlawfully amended by the admission of proof and instruction to the jury that a defendant is additionally charged with acting-in-concert to commit the same crime, nor does it impermissibly broaden a defendant’s basis of liability, as there is no legal distinction between liability as a principal or criminal culpability as an accomplice” … . A theory that defendant intentionally aided a particular other person, who did the actual shooting, was supported by defendant’s own testimony. Although defendant claimed he had not shared the gunman’s intent, such intent could be inferred from the totality of the evidence. We reject defendant’s claim of unfair surprise, particularly because the theory of accessorial liability arose from defendant’s own testimony … . People v Alexander, 2019 NY Slip Op 01341, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPLORABLE MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING ACCESSING DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS, DELETING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND LYING UNDER OATH, IN DELAWARE COURT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s personal injury action should have been dismissed because of plaintiff’s misconduct in a Delaware court proceeding. The New York personal injury action alleged plaintiff was injured in an physical fight with the defendant which stemmed from the Delaware litigation. The Delaware court found that plaintiff had engaged in deplorable misconduct by accessing defendant’s privileged attorney-client communications, deleting relevant documents and lying under oath:

Plaintiff’s improper and willful access of defendant’s privileged communications and spoliation of evidence supports dismissal of his claims in this action (CPLR 3103[c]; CPLR 3126[3]; Lipin v Bender , 84 NY2d 562 [1994] [dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because her improper taking of the defendant’s attorney/client documents and work product caused prejudice to the defendant and irreparably tainted the litigation process]). Among the materials improperly accessed here was a privileged memorandum from defendant’s counsel about his strategy concerning the incident underlying this action. Further, plaintiff’s counsel referred to the contents of some of the privileged communications during motion practice in this litigation. Since “[p]laintiff’s knowledge . . . can never be purged,” and he would “carry [that knowledge] into any new attorney-client relationship,” we find that dismissal of the complaint is “the only practicable remedy here” … . Shawe v Elting, 2019 NY Slip Op 01374, First Dept 2-26-19

 

/

SOLICITATIONS FOR NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE MATERIALLY MISLEADING IN VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS 349, THE SOLICITATIONS IMPLIED THEY WERE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined solicitations for newspaper and magazine subscriptions were materially misleading, violating the General Business Law and the Executive Law:

… [W]e conclude as a matter of law that solicitations for newspaper and magazine subscriptions promulgated by respondents are materially misleading (… see generally General Business Law §§ 349; 350; Executive Law § 63[12]). The solicitations implied that they were sent directly from the publishers or their authorized agents and offered their lowest available rates. However, the record demonstrates that respondents had at best indirect relationships with publishers (some of whom expressly forbade respondents to sell their publications) and offered rates well above the standard subscription prices. …

The disclaimer on the back of the solicitations is insufficiently prominent or clear to negate the overall misleading impression that consumers are being offered standard publisher rates … . The disclaimer appears on the back of the solicitation, is not referenced on the front, and consists of two dense paragraphs of block text all in the same typeface, making it unlikely to be read by consumers. In addition, the disclaimer either does not address or directly contradicts several claims made on the front of the solicitation, and its use of the term “agent” implies a closer relationship with the publishers than respondents actually have. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Orbital Publ. Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01329, First Dept 2-21-19

 

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