You are here: / PROBATIONARY CITY EMPLOYEE WAS NOT GIVEN SEVEN DAYS NOTICE OF HIS TERMINATION,...

Search Results

/ ,

PROBATIONARY CITY EMPLOYEE WAS NOT GIVEN SEVEN DAYS NOTICE OF HIS TERMINATION, REMEDY IS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE SEVEN DAYS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a probationary city employee, was not given the requisite seven day's notice of termination. The remedy was to provide petitioner with seven days pay:

… [T]he petitioner correctly contends that, in terminating his employment, the City failed to comply with 4 NYCRR 4.5(b)(5)(iii). That regulation requires, among other things, that a probationer who is to be discharged from employment for unsatisfactory service receive written notice at least one week prior to termination (see 4 NYCRR 4.5[b][5][iii]). Here, the petitioner received written notice on the day his employment was terminated, and the City did not rebut the petitioner's assertion that he had not received oral notice prior to that date. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the City substantially complied with 4 NYCRR 4.5(b)(5)(iii)… .

Under the circumstances of this case, including that the petitioner was deprived of the required seven days' notice but was notified of his discharge prior to the expiration of his period of probation … , we deem it appropriate to award him the relief he has requested on appeal for the failure to comply with 4 NYCRR 4.5(b)(5)(iii), specifically, one day's pay, at the salary he was earning at the time of his discharge, for each of the seven days he was not provided the requisite notice … . The Court of Appeals has determined that such a remedy is appropriate in the analogous context in which a school authority fails to give a probationary teacher 30 days' written notice of termination, as required by Education Law § 3019-a … . Seven days of pay is what the petitioner would have received had the City complied with the applicable regulation by making the petitioner's discharge effective seven days after it provided the written notice. Matter of Santucci v City of Mount Vernon, 2018 NY Slip Op 06745, Second Dept 10-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROBATIONARY CITY EMPLOYEE WAS NOT GIVEN SEVEN DAYS NOTICE OF HIS TERMINATION, REMEDY IS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE SEVEN DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PROBATIONARY CITY EMPLOYEE WAS NOT GIVEN SEVEN DAYS NOTICE OF HIS TERMINATION, REMEDY IS TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE SEVEN DAYS (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the elevator maintenance company in this (allegedly)”misaligned elevator” slip and fall case. The maintenance company demonstrated it did not have notice of the condition and plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found”… . Here, the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of a misleveling condition, and that it did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition about which it should have been aware … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert, which was speculative, lacking in foundation, and conclusory, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … .

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the accident “was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence” … . Daconta v Otis El. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06716, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATORS (SLIP AND FALL, ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR  (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner's request for leave to file a late notice of claim in a potential Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Petitioner was struck by a falling plank when he was standing on a scaffold during renovation work at a school:

Although the petitioner made no attempt to proffer a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice claim, “[n]either the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative”; thus, “[t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the municipal parties acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual, or within a reasonable time thereafter. Notably, the record is devoid of evidence showing that any of the municipal parties was aware, prior to the commencement of this proceeding, that the petitioner's accident had occurred—let alone that the petitioner was claiming violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) … . Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a delay of four months following the expiration of the 90-day notice period does not constitute a “reasonable time” within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) … .

Further, the petitioner failed to present “some evidence or plausible argument” supporting a finding that the municipal parties were not substantially prejudiced by the four-month delay from the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … . Matter of Moroz v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined a rusty drainage pipe under the water at a town beach was a culvert within the meaning of the town code, requiring written notice of the condition before the town could be held liable for an injury, Infant plaintiff cut his foot on the pipe when he was walking in the water:

… [T]he Town demonstrated by the submission of the affidavit of its expert engineer, that the drainage pipe at issue is a culvert and, thus, falls within the ambit of the statute. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the nature of the subject drainage pipe.

“A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” … . “The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality's affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality's special use of the property” … .

Insofar as is relevant here, the Town established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect through the submission of, inter alia, the affidavit of an employee of the Town's Department of Highways, who averred that his search of the Town's records revealed no prior written notice of any hazardous condition of the culvert where the accident occurred … . Coventry v Town of Huntington, 2018 NY Slip Op 06715, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, WRITTEN NOTICE, TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined that the town's attempt to recover consulting fees and set up an escrow account in connection the petitioner's requests for a special use permit and a variance to construct an antenna for a ham radio exceeded the town's authority and was preempted by a federal regulation:

The petitioner is an amateur radio hobbyist who applied for a special use permit and an area variance that would allow him to construct a radio antenna structure on his property in the Town of LaGrange. The Town incurred more than $17,000 in legal consulting fees in connection with the applications, and informed the petitioner that he was required to reimburse the Town for these fees before any determination would be made with respect to the applications. The Town subsequently, as “an accommodation to the petitioner,” reduced the amount that it was demanding for previously incurred fees to the sum of $5,874, but also required the petitioner to maintain a minimum advance continuing escrow balance of at least $1,000 to cover the Town's future consulting costs in connection with the applications. We hold that, because the Town did not limit the consulting fees charged to the petitioner to those necessary to the decision-making function of the Town's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town exceeded its State-granted authority by requiring payment of the consulting fees and, moreover, violated a rule promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. Matter of Landstein v Town of LaGrange, 2018 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 10-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING  (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PREEMPTION, MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/VARIANCE (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/ANTENNA (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/RADIO (HAM RADIO ANTENNA, TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that several causes of action in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall case should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff's employer (nonparty Capitol) was hired as a subcontractor by Ruggles, which had a contract for signage and awnings with the operator of the retail store for which the work was done (Express). Express had hired Russco to act as the general contractor for the renovation work. Russco had the authority to hire all subcontractors with the exception of the signage and awning work:

Russco's [the general contractor's] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it on the ground that it is not a proper defendant under the Labor Law was correctly denied as there is an issue of fact as to whether its obligations as the general contractor on the project extended to the work performed by plaintiff. … … [T]he contract … provides that Russco is responsible for “taking all reasonable safety precautions to prevent injury or death to persons or damage to property” and that such responsibility extends “to the protection of all employees on the Project and all other persons who may be affected by the Work in any way” … . * * *

Ruggles is a proper Labor Law § 240(1) defendant because it was a statutory agent of Express, the owner of the project. It is undisputed that Express hired Ruggles as the sole contractor responsible for the manufacture and installation of all signage and awning work on the project, which was the work that plaintiff was performing when he sustained his injuries. Although Russco may be found liable based on its site safety obligations with regard to the signage and awning work, there is no question that, pursuant to the contract between Ruggles and Express, Ruggles was delegated the supervision and control over such work. Moreover, Ruggles may not escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on its delegation of the signage and awning work to Capitol, plaintiff's employer. White v 31-01 Steinway, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06685, First Dept 10-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, STATUTORY AGENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not fully advise counsel of the contents of a jury note:

We agree with defendant that the court violated the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note, and thereby committed reversible error … . The record establishes that, during its deliberations, the jury sent several notes, the first two of which are germane here. The first note requested that the jury be provided with a written copy of the court's legal instructions, and the second note requested, inter alia, a rereading of all of the court's legal instructions. The record reflects that the court informed the parties that the jury had sent several notes and indicated that the jury requested a rereading of the instructions, but the court did not mention the contents of the first note. Although the record establishes that ” defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the [first] note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel' ” … . We therefore “reject the People's argument that defense counsel's awareness of the existence and the gist' of the note satisfied the court's meaningful notice obligation, or that preservation was required. Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note—as it is in this case—preservation is not required' . . . Moreover, . . . [i]n the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal' ” … . People v Ott, 2018 NY Slip Op 06646, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that a failure to rule on a portion of a motion cannot be deemed a denial. Therefore the decision on appeal was reserved and the matter sent back for a ruling:

Defendant appeals from an order insofar as it failed to grant that part of his pro se motion seeking DNA testing of a rape kit and the victim's shirt and pants. The order addressed defendant's motion to the extent it sought to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, but did not address the motion to the extent it sought DNA testing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a). Inasmuch as County Court's failure to rule on that part of defendant's motion “cannot be deemed a denial thereof” … , we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a determination whether ” there was a reasonable probability that, had th[e rape kit, shirt and pants] been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant' ” … . People v Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 06645, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reserved decision and sent the matter back for a reconstruction hearing concerning whether the trial judge apprised defense counsel of the entire contents of a jury note. The court reporter submitted an affidavit indicating the transcript is incomplete and the judge's remarks about the jury note were inadvertently omitted:

… [T]he People stipulated to the record without seeking to amend the transcript (see CPLR 5525 [c] [1]; see also 22 NYCRR former 1000.4 [a] [1] [ii]), rely upon an affidavit that does not constitute a part of the underlying prosecution … , and have not submitted a supplemental transcript certified by the court reporter that would fall within the parties' stipulation to submit the trial transcripts to this Court … . It is well established, however, that “[p]arties to an appeal are entitled to have that record show the facts as they really happened at trial, and should not be prejudiced by an error or omission of the stenographer”… . Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we take judicial notice of our own records, i.e., the court reporter's affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis … .

In her affidavit, the court reporter averred that, although the transcript indicates that the court stated that the jury requested readbacks of the testimony of only four witnesses, the transcript inadvertently omits from the court's recitation of the note the jury's request for a readback of the testimony of a fifth witness—the medical examiner. The court reporter's affidavit thus indicates that a stenographic error may have resulted in a transcript that does not accurately reflect whether the court read the entire content of the note verbatim in open court prior to responding to the jury. We conclude that the alleged error in the transcript of the court's on-the-record reading of the note should be subject to a reconstruction hearing because “[t]he trial judge is the final arbiter of the record' certified to the appellate courts” … . People v Timmons, 2018 NY Slip Op 06644, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court's neglect finding in the interest of justice, in part because the finding relied on the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of the child:

… [T]he court determined that the mother neglected the children by forgetting to feed them, but the only evidence of such a danger is the uncorroborated out-of-court statement of one of the children. The mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in relying on that child's uncorroborated statement … . Nevertheless, we exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Although “[i]t is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child . . . where . . . the statements are corroborated” … , “repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate the child's prior account of [neglect]” … . Here, there was no corroboration of the one child's out-of-court statement, and thus the court erred in relying upon it to conclude that neglect occurred.

The court's further determination that the mother stopped taking her medication, and “that without . . . psychotropic medication [the] mother's mental health could rapidly deteriorate and she would endanger the safety and well-being of the children,” is belied by the testimony of the mother's counselor, the only witness who testified on that issue. The mother's counselor testified that the mother had been properly weaned off of those medications because they were impeding her functionality, and that the mother's ability to parent the children had increased after she successfully stopped taking those medications. Matter of Chance C. (Jennifer S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06642, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, HEARSAY, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (FAMILY LAW, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

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