You are here: / IN THESE MARITIME LAW ACTIONS STEMMING FROM A FATAL BOATING ACCIDENT, THE...

Search Results

/ , ,

IN THESE MARITIME LAW ACTIONS STEMMING FROM A FATAL BOATING ACCIDENT, THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF BUOYS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this boat-accident case, determined that the town was not entitled to summary judgment. Four boat passengers were killed and others were injured. The complaints alleged the town was negligent in the placement of buoys:

Maritime law, which is applicable in this case, recognizes a general theory of liability for negligence… . “[N]egligent conduct on the navigable waters that causes loss to another constitutes a maritime tort”… . Once the Town set a channel through the use of navigational aids, it had a duty to maintain those navigational aids in a reasonable and prudent manner … .

Upon applying maritime law, we conclude that the Town failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although the Town submitted evidence suggesting that the accident may have been at least partly caused by negligence on the part of the boat’s operator, the Town failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating the lack of any triable issues of fact regarding the Town’s comparative fault based on its placement and maintenance of the buoys … . Sugamele v Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 01118, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AS ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS AND SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR BRINGING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s law firm (Villar firm) was entitled to attorney’s fees for work done before the firm was discharged without cause, the contempt action brought by the firm against defendant for failure to pay the fees as ordered by the court was valid and defendant should have been held in contempt, and the contempt proceedings were not frivolous or designed to harass. Therefore sanctions for bringing the contempt proceedings should not have been imposed:

To prevail on a motion to hold another party in civil contempt, the movant is “required to prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct” … . The movant in a civil contempt proceeding need not establish “that the disobedience [was] deliberate or willful” … . “Once the movant establishes a knowing failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant’s showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order” … . …

“In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a] …). “[C]onduct is frivolous if . . . (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] …). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the Villar firm pursued the contempt motion to harass the parties for settling their case … . Rhodes v Rhodes, 2019 NY Slip Op 01113, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

/ , ,

FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN AN ANDERS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO NONFRIVOLOUS ISSUES WARRANTING APPEAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL, HERE THE MISSING ISSUE WAS DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, announced a new rule concerning when new counsel should be assigned because an Anders brief did not demonstrate the absence of any issues which could be raised on appeal. The defendant had pled guilty and received the agreed upon sentence, which was the minimum sentence allowed. The defendant had also waived his right to appeal. The Anders brief addressed the plea and sentence (finding no appealable issues) but did not address the waiver of appeal. The Second Department determined there was no need to assign new counsel to the appeal because whether the waiver of appeal was valid or not, the result would not be affected:

… [A]n Anders brief will not be deemed deficient under Step 1 of the Matter of Giovanni S. [89 AD3d at 252] analysis when assigned counsel fails to identify an issue, if it is demonstrable from the face of the brief that the missing issue would be inconsequential. We do not suggest that this new “Matter of Giovanni S.-Murray rule” be applied where any missing issue would not be inconsequential. Since the brief would be sufficient under these circumstances, the court would then proceed to Step 2 of the Matter of Giovanni S. analysis, which requires an independent review of the record to determine whether counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct. This refinement safeguards the indelible right of a criminal defendant to a conscientious, effective, and zealous advocate that lies at the heart of Anders protection … . At the same time, it recognizes a measure of practicality, that congested courts operating under tight budgets, with limited personnel, and finite taxpayer money, not be required to engage in Sisyphean efforts that cannot, as a matter of law, lead anywhere. People v Murray, 2019 NY Slip Op 01101, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

/

INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, but defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. “The plaintiff allege[d] that he was injured … when a differential block and chain fell onto his head as he and his coworkers were preparing a hoisting apparatus to remove and replace a broken roll-up gate on the defendants’ premises:”

” [T]he statutory requirement that workers be provided with proper protection extends not only to the hazards of building materials falling,’ but to the hazards of defective parts of safety devices falling from an elevated level to the ground'” … . Here, the defendants are liable whether the plaintiff’s coworker accidently dropped the differential while preparing to use the hoisting apparatus to remove the old roll-up gate, or the differential fell because it was inadequately secured … . …

However, unlike Labor Law § 240, which includes repair work, Labor Law § 241(6) is limited to those areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is being performed (compare Labor Law § 240[1], with Labor Law § 241[6]). In this case, Labor Law § 241(6) is inapplicable because the plaintiff was not performing work in the context of construction, demolition, or excavation … . Barrios v 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01046, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE INSIDE THE BUILDING SHE WAS WORKING IN, THE JURY COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THE ICE WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS BASED ON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence was properly denied in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. Plaintiff’s job was removing asbestos from a building. After getting out of her asbestos suit in the decontamination room and walking in the interior of the building she slipped and fell on ice. The Second Department held that the jury could have rationally concluded someone participating in the construction project was negligent:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the jury verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence and for judgment as a matter of law. There was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . The jury could have credited the plaintiff’s trial testimony that she slipped on a large patch of ice on the floor of a building that did not have heating on a cold January day, and therefore, rationally conclude that “someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care, or acting within a reasonable time, to prevent or remediate the hazard, and that plaintiff’s slipping, falling and subsequent injury proximately resulted from such negligence” … . Bocanegra v Chest Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01048, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

/ , ,

NO SHOWING THAT POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY INCREASED THE RISK OF REOFFENSE, APPELLATE DIVISION EXERCISED ITS OWN DISCRETION AND REDUCED DEFENDANT’S RISK LEVEL FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant should have been adjudicated a level one, not a level two risk:

Although defendant was diagnosed with PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] and may have sustained a TBI traumatic brain injury], the record is devoid of evidence that any such mental impairment “is causally related to a[ ] risk of reoffense” … . …

Nor is the continuing nature of the crime sufficient to support the upward departure because, even if additional points were assessed for risk factor 4, i.e., continuing course of sexual misconduct, defendant’s total risk factor score would not result in defendant’s classification as a presumptive level two risk … . Further, there is no basis for an upward departure where, as here, the alleged aggravating factor is adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines … . Finally, although we conclude that defendant’s actions in taking the victim across state lines constitute an aggravating factor that is, “as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” … , we further conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure based on that factor under the circumstances of this case. We therefore substitute our own discretion … . People v Logsdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 00998, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

/ ,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY OR VISITATION ORDERS BY FAMILY OR SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the order of protection prohibiting contact between father and daughter should be subject to orders of Family or Supreme Court:

Here, the order of protection issued in this criminal proceeding bars all contact between defendant and his child, and cannot be modified by a subsequent visitation order of Family Court or Supreme Court unless it is first modified or vacated by the criminal court … . We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the order of protection should be subject to any subsequent orders of custody and visitation, and we therefore modify the judgment by amending the order of protection in favor of defendant’s biological daughter so that contact will be allowed if ordered by Family or Supreme Court in a custody, visitation or child abuse or neglect proceeding … . People v Smart, 2019 NY Slip Op 01043, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

/

CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO INCOME ABOVE THE STATUTORY CAP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the court did not correctly apply the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

… [T]he court erred in applying the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to the combined parental income in excess of the statutory cap … . It is well settled that “blind application of the statutory formula to [combined parental income] over [the statutory cap], without any express findings or record evidence of the [child’s] actual needs, constitutes an abdication of judicial responsibility and renders meaningless the statutory provision setting a cap on strict application of the formula”… . Here, in awarding child support on income above the statutory cap, the court considered only the father’s financial situation. “[T]he court made no factual findings that the child[ ] [had] financial needs that would not be met unless child support were ordered to be paid out of parental income in excess of [the statutory cap],” and we conclude that, “even if the court had made such a finding, there is no evidence in the record to support it” … . Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we fix the father’s basic child support obligation on the basis of the combined parental CSSA income up to the cap amount … . Benedict v Benedict, 2019 NY Slip Op 01042, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SOME ISSUES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on some issues in this slip and fall case. The decision addresses too many issues to fairly summarize here. The court noted that Supreme Court should not have granted relief (dismissal of cross-claims) not requested in the motion papers. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a delivery area behind defendant Cafe in a plaza owned by defendant Pixley. There was some evidence the Cafe exercised control over at least part of the delivery area (snow removal):

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of the Café’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that the Café had constructive notice of the icy condition; the court also erred in denying that part of Pixley’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that Pixley had actual notice of the icy condition. Johnson v Pixley Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01040, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

/ ,

THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSES, THIS IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PLEA TO THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, reversing County Court, determined the waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective in that there was no indication of the time and date of the alleged offenses (rape). Although defendant had waived his right to appeal, the Fourth Department vacated his guilty plea:

… [T]he written waiver does not contain any data whatsoever regarding the “date and approximate time and place of each offense to be charged in the superior court information,” as explicitly required by CPL 195.20. Notwithstanding that defect, County Court determined that the written waiver “fully complie[d] with the provisions of Sections 195.10 and 195.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law” and approved it accordingly (see CPL 195.30 [requiring judicial approval of indictment waiver upon determination that it complies with CPL 195.10 and 195.20]).

The ensuing SCI [superior court information] charged defendant with two counts of second-degree rape under Penal Law § 130.30 (1). Count one alleged that defendant, “between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” Count two alleged that defendant, “on a second occasion between approximately September 1, 2013 and September 9, 2013, in the City of Batavia, County of Genesee, State of New York, being eighteen years old or more, engaged in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old.” * * *

Because “an infringement of defendant’s right to be prosecuted only by indictment implicates the jurisdiction of the court” … , the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stressed that the “[f]ailure to adhere to the statutory procedure for waiving indictment” is a “jurisdictional[ defect] affecting the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law’ ” … . People v Colon-colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 01039, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

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