You are here: / INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT...

Search Results

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence the defendant and the 16-year-old victim and the 24-year-old were strangers. The risk assessment was therefore reduced by 20 points:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in assessing him 20 points under risk factor 7, which applies when, insofar as relevant here, the offender's conduct ” was directed at a stranger or a person with whom a relationship had been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization' “… . The 24-year-old defendant and the 16-year-old victim met while working at a local Red Cross; the two exchanged contact information and, months later, communicated through social media and by telephone before any sexual contact occurred. Under these circumstances, the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant and the victim were strangers at the time of the crime … . Moreover, the People “presented no evidence that defendant . . . targeted the victim for the primary purpose of victimizing her” … .

Without the 20 points assessed under risk factor 7, defendant is a presumptive level one sex offender … . People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06666, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))

/

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction by guilty plea, determined that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective:

A defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information (see CPL 195.20…). As relevant here, “[t]he offenses named [in a superior court information] may include any offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury”… , i.e., “the same crime as [charged in] the felony complaint or a lesser included offense of that crime”… . Inasmuch as attempted kidnapping in the second degree is not a crime charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense, the superior court information is jurisdictionally defective. “That defect does not require preservation, and it survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal and his guilty plea”… . People v Bennett, 2018 NY Slip Op 06663. Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER’S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there is no mechanism in the Criminal Procedure Law for a nonparty to intervene in a criminal case. Here a reporter sought information about the jurors who were deliberating a murder case. The court further found that the requirements for a CPLR 1013, 1014 motion to intervene were not met here:

… [I]t is well established that “[t]he Criminal Procedure Law provides no mechanism for a nonparty to intervene or be joined in a criminal case” … . Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the mechanism for intervening in an action set forth in the Civil Practice Law and Rules authorizes such an intervention in a criminal case (see CPLR 1013), we note that there is a statutory requirement that “[a] motion to intervene shall be accompanied by a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought” (CPLR 1014), and thus the court here would have “had no power to grant . . . leave to intervene” without a proposed pleading from the intervenors … . Consequently, in each appeal we must vacate the order [which denied the motion to intervene on other grounds] and dismiss the appeal. People v Conley, 2018 NY Slip Op 06647, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO INTEREVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 1013, 1014  (MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERVENE, MOTION TO (THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/REPORTERS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))NEWSPAPERS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/PRESS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDIA (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court should not have ruled on mother's petition to modify custody without holding a hearing. In addition the First Department noted that Family Court improperly relied solely upon the child's wishes and unsworn documentary evidence:

Family Court improperly determined the mother's modification petition and the father's petitions for enforcement, parenting time modification, and sole custody by suspending all contact between the father and child without a hearing … . Modification of custody or visitation, even on a temporary basis, requires a hearing, except in cases of emergency … . We have held that a hearing may be “as abbreviated, in the court's broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant” … . However, here, the court granted the drastic remedy of suspension of all contact between parent and child based solely upon its in camera interview with the child and its review of the motion papers and some portion of the court file, which included an unsworn and uncertified report by Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) and unsworn letters from the child's treating therapist and from therapists who had seen the parties and child for family therapy … . Matter of Kenneth J. v Lesley B., 2018 NY Slip Op 06625, First Dept 10-4-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff's legal malpractice action based upon advice to plead guilty to an election law violation was not viable because he pled guilty without any assertion of innocence. However, the legal malpractice action based upon the advice that his travel abroad would not affect his immigration status was viable. Plaintiff, a legal resident, was detained for four months when he attempted to return to the US from abroad:

We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim … . Plaintiff's claim that he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in reliance on defendants' negligent legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea is barred by his guilty plea and lack of any claim of innocence (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 [1987]… ).

However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v Lunney, supra, does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction … . Further, plaintiff's allegations that he relied on defendants' faulty legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in deciding to travel abroad after he pled guilty, resulting in his being detained and subjected to removal proceedings, state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06619, First Dept 10-4-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (ATTORNEYS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ELECTION LAW (IMMIGRATION LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT’S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when counsel conceded that defendant had a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil confinement. There was no strategic justification for waiving a CPL 330.20 hearing to determine which treatment/confinement track was appropriate for defendant:

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners (CPL 330.20[2]), who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[5]).

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[6]…).

The track is significant because it determines the level of the defendant's confinement and treatment. Track one is based on a finding of “dangerous mental disorder,” meaning that the defendant suffers from a “mental illness,” and that “because of such condition he currently constitutes a physical danger to himself or others” (CPL 330.20[1][c]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20] [defining “mental illness”]). Track two is based on a finding of “mentally ill,” without a dangerous mental disorder (CPL 330.20[1][d]). Track three is based on a finding of not mentally ill (CPL 330.20[7]).

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law”… . Thus, track designation is “vitally important in determining the level of judicial and prosecutorial involvement in future decisions about an acquittee's confinement, transfer and release” … . People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 06634, First Dept 10-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20  (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))

/

CORRECTION OFFICER’S FALL DOWN A STAIRWAY WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE ACT OF AN INMATE, THE RESULTING DISABILITY IS THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the hearing officer’s decision, determined that petitioner, a county correction officer, suffered a disability that resulted from the act of an inmate and was therefore compensable:

… [W]e find that petitioner has demonstrated that the injuries that he sustained from his fall occurred “contemporaneously with, and flowed directly, naturally and proximately from, the inmate’s” disobedient and affirmative act of descending down the stairs unexpectedly prior to receiving permission to do so … . Although “losing one’s footing — without more — does not constitute an affirmative act” … , petitioner’s misstep and fall flowed directly, naturally and proximately from the inmate’s act of being out of place without permission and startling petitioner by running down the stairs … . Having determined that petitioner’s injury was a natural and proximate result of an act of an inmate, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings on the issue of the permanency of petitioner’s alleged disability … . Matter of Garcia v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 06602, Third Dept 10-4-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CORRECTION OFFICER’S FALL DOWN A STAIRWAY WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE ACT OF AN INMATE, THE RESULTING DISABILITY IS THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT))/CORRECTION OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, CORRECTION OFFICER’S FALL DOWN A STAIRWAY WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE ACT OF AN INMATE, THE RESULTING DISABILITY IS THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that claimant's shoulder injury was not compensable because it did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Claimant's injury occurred when she scanned her parking pass to enter a parking garage. The garage was not owned by her employer, but there were spaces reserved for employees and the employer paid for parking. The majority found sufficient evidence to support the Board's ruling. But the dissenters argued this was not a case which required weighing conflicting evidence, therefore precedent allowing recovery for injuries in employee parking areas should control:

In concluding that claimant's injury was not compensable, the Board found that the parking garage was utilized by members of the public, as well as other businesses located within the same building as the employer. The Board further noted that the employer did not own or maintain the garage. These facts, which the Board credited, lead to the conclusion that the employer did not extend its premises to the area where claimant's injury occurred … . Although facts exist that would support a contrary result, given that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we discern no basis to disturb it … .

From the dissent: We respectfully dissent. The proper disposition of this case is not based upon our substantial evidence standard of review, as this is not a case where the Workers' Compensation Board was weighing and balancing conflicting evidence. There was no relevant conflicting evidence. The location and circumstances of the underlying event are not disputed; claimant does not challenge the factual findings, but instead addresses the appeal solely to the resulting legal determination. In this case, the Board was required to apply the policy established by precedent to the relevant undisputed facts. As the Board failed to properly apply this precedent in rendering the determination, we would reverse, based upon the law. Matter of Grover v State Ins. Fund, 2018 NY Slip Op 06601, Third Dept 10-4-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING GARAGES (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))

/

PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother's petition to modify a visitation order should not have been denied without a hearing:

” A party seeking to modify a prior visitation order must show that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the order such that modification is warranted to further the [child]'s best interests'” … . The best interests of the child must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances… , and “[s]upervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” … . “Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . A decision regarding child custody and visitation should be based on admissible evidence …

Here, the Family Court should not have, without a hearing, in effect, denied the mother's petition and limited the mother to parental access with the child supervised by the YWCA … . Matter of King v Peters, 2018 NY Slip Op 06538, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof did not support a finding that either parent had neglected the child. Apparently mother's boyfriend had spanked the child and bruising appeared over time. Mother had no reason to suspect her boyfriend would mistreat the child and the parents could not be faulted for not recognizing the significance of the bruising:

… [T]here was no evidence that the mother had any prior knowledge of the boyfriend's alleged propensity to mistreat the children, and there was no evidence that he had done so on any prior occasion. In fact, Sophia's medical records did not contain any indication of prior neglect, maltreatment, or abuse of any kind. As the DCFS's  [Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Service's] own expert testified at the hearing, “[Sophia] was a healthy little girl and this seemed to have happened out of the blue.” Under these circumstances, the mother did not neglect the children by leaving them in the boyfriend's care … .

Likewise, the mother's failure to recognize the significance of the pattern of bruising—which the medical expert conceded would not be apparent to a layperson—cannot be faulted. Moreover, the record supports both parents' position that the decision to wait until Tuesday morning to bring Sophia to the hospital was an acceptable course of action in light of all the surrounding circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]…) Indeed, the medical evidence showed that no treatment was required for the bruising, and that both parents had promptly sought treatment for the unrelated ankle injury.

As for the father, the undisputed evidence showed that the bruising occurred before Sophia was brought to the father's residence for a weekend visit. Further, the evidence established that it was the mother—not the father—who had left the children in the boyfriend's care. When the father took custody of Sophia on Saturday, she did not appear to be in pain, and after monitoring her throughout the weekend, the father, in consultation with the mother, agreed that Sophia should be seen by her pediatrician on Monday. Matter of Alana H. (Caitlin M.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06534, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD'S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND 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