You are here: / ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FINDING, BASED UPON A HEARING, THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that although mother violated the terms of her suspended judgment, her parental rights should not have been terminated without a finding, based upon a hearing, that termination was in the best interests of the child:

A suspended judgment is intended to provide a parent who has permanently neglected his or her child with a brief period within which to become a fit parent that the child can be returned to in safety … . “A parent’s noncompliance with the terms of the suspended judgment during this grace period, if established by a preponderance of the evidence, may end with revocation of the suspended judgment and termination of his or her parental rights”… .

Family Court determined, and we agree, that numerous violations of the terms of the suspended judgment were established by a preponderance of the evidence. …

… [V]iolations that could warrant a revocation of the suspended judgment and termination of parental rights do not automatically have that effect… . It is instead the best interests of the child, which is “relevant at all stages of a permanent neglect proceeding, including at the revocation of a suspended judgment,” that determines the appropriate disposition … . Family Court did not make a best interests finding and, absent hearing evidence relating to “the child[]’s present circumstances and relationship with [respondent] and the effect upon the[] [child] of the termination of [respondent’s] parental rights and [the child’s] potential adoption,” it is unclear how Family Court could have done so … . Matter of Cecilia P. (Carlenna Q.), 2018 NY Slip Op 04993, Third Dept 7-5-18

​FAMILY LAW (PARENTAL RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FINDING, BASED UPON A HEARING, THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FINDING, BASED UPON A HEARING, THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT))/SUSPENDED JUDGMENTS (FAMILY LAW, PARENTAL RIGHTS,  ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FINDING, BASED UPON A HEARING, THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, PARENTAL RIGHTS,  ALTHOUGH MOTHER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HER SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FINDING, BASED UPON A HEARING, THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the planning board’s finding that a multi-family housing project would not have a significant impart on the environment was arbitrary and capricious. The matter was remitted for preparation of an environmental impact statement:

… [T]he full Environmental Assessment Form (hereinafter EAF) prepared by the project sponsor indicated that the proposed action would affect, among other things, aesthetic and historic resources and the character of the existing community, and that the parcel’s forestation would be reduced from 2.75 acres to .30 acres. In issuing its negative declaration, the Planning Board listed approximately 29 reasons supporting its determination. The Planning Board noted that the project would not significantly impact the adjacent Dwight Street-Hooker Avenue Historic District (hereinafter the historic district). However, in making that determination, the Planning Board merely relied upon a letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreations and Historic Preservation, which stated only that the proposed action would not have an adverse impact on the historic district. Such a conclusory statement fails to fulfill the reasoned elaboration requirement of SEQRA … .

With regard to the impact on vegetation or fauna, the EAF contemplates the reduction of the 3.4-acre parcel’s forestation from 2.75 acres to .30 acres. However, the negative declaration inexplicably stated that “[t]he proposed action will not result in the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna.” In the context of this project, the level of deforestation is significant.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the proposed action may have significant adverse environmental impacts upon one or more areas of environmental concern… . Thus, the Planning Board’s issuance of a negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Peterson v Planning Bd. of the City of Poughkeepsie, 2018 NY Slip Op 05049, Second Dept 7-5-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING  (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the insured made a misrepresentation to the insurer and whether the insurer timely disclaimed coverage for a dog bite. There were questions of fact whether the insured was asked about a prior bite by the dog and gave a false answer, and whether there had actually been a prior bite by the dog which would trigger a policy exclusion:

“When construing Insurance Law § 3420 (d), which requires an insurer to issue a written disclaimer of coverage for death or bodily injuries arising out of accidents ‘as soon as is reasonably possible,’ [the Court of Appeals has] made clear that timeliness almost always presents a factual question, requiring an assessment of all relevant circumstances surrounding a particular disclaimer[, and] cases in which the reasonableness of an insurer’s delay may be decided as a matter of law are exceptional and present extreme circumstances” … . “The timeliness of an insurer’s disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . The insurer has an obligation not only to promptly provide notice of disclaimer once it has reached that decision, but to promptly investigate and reach a decision on whether to disclaim … . …

[The insurer] argues that it was entitled to rely on [the insured’s] statement that the dog had not previously bitten anyone. As noted above, there is a question of fact regarding whether [the insurer’s] claims manager actually asked [the insured] if she knew of any prior biting events. If the claims manager never asked that question, the record evidence presents a triable issue of fact as to whether [the insurer] failed to conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation into the potential applicability of the canine exclusion … . If the claims manager asked that question and received a negative answer, as she averred, then [the insurer] would be justified in relying on the representation by its insured … ; however, given that the [insured] had owned the dog for only approximately one month, there would still be a triable question of fact regarding the reasonableness of [the insured’s] investigation. As neither party established, as a matter of law, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the delay in [the insured’s  disclaimer, neither party was entitled to summary judgment … . Battisti v Broome Coop. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 04992, Third Dept 7-5-18

​INSURANCE LAW (DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITES, INSURANCE LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLAIMERS (INSURANCE LAW, DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town planning board’s denial of petitioner’s application for a wetland control permit and site plan approval was properly annulled by Supreme Court. The planning board’s action departed from many prior determinations and the planning board did not set forth any factual reasons for the departure:

… ” [A] local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination on applications . . . and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion'”… . ” A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious'” … . Where an agency reaches contrary results on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation … . “An agency’s failure to provide a valid and rational explanation for its departure from its prior precedent mandates reversal’ regardless of whether the record otherwise supports the determination” … .

Here, the Planning Board failed to set forth any factual basis in the determination as to why it was departing from numerous prior determinations that, for example, permitted larger encroachments into wetland and wetland buffer areas and permitted encroachments of the same or similar type into those areas within the immediate vicinity of the petitioner’s lot. The Planning Board’s belated effort to provide such distinctions are not properly before this Court … . Matter of Nicolai v McLaughlin, 2018 NY Slip Op 05046, Second Dept 7-5-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING,  PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined there was sufficient evidence before the Grand Jury to support several counts dismissed by the motion court. The dismissed counts related to allegedly false information on business records about farm employees’ hours and pay and the employment of a minor (a 14-year-old killed operating heavy farm equipment) in violation of the Labor Law:

“To dismiss an indictment or counts thereof on the basis of insufficient evidence before a grand jury, a reviewing court must consider whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury” … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to ‘whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes,’ and whether ‘the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference'” … . * * *

Viewed most favorably to the People, we find that the evidence before the grand jury provided a prima facie case of falsifying business records in the first degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Although there was no proof that defendant himself compiled the relevant time sheets or submitted them to [the bookkeeper], the evidence established that employees reported their hours directly to defendant — who regularly paid them in cash off the books — and that defendant was solely responsible for the accuracy of the payroll information, personally certified the accuracy of two amended [the unemployment insurance] forms and instructed one of his employees to lie about the number of hours he worked. * * *

“[W]here an indictment count incorporates by reference the statutory provision applicable to the crime intended to be charged, it has been repeatedly held that this is sufficient to apprise [a] defendant of the charge and, therefore, renders the count jurisdictionally valid” … . Here, counts 14 and 15 of the indictment each begin by accusing defendant of the crime of prohibited employment of a minor in violation of Labor Law § 145, which provides that a knowing violation of a provision of article 4 of the Labor Law is punishable by a misdemeanor. While County Court correctly noted that Labor Law § 145 does not state a substantive offense, each count then goes on to specify the particular section of article 4 of the Labor Law which defendant is alleged to have violated, as well as the conduct forming the basis of the charges. People v Park, 2018 NY Slip Op 04985, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, FALSE BUSINESS RECORDS, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, GRAND JURY, EVIDENCE,  INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/MINORS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, LABOR LAW, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town, owner-operator of a skating rink, did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether it provided proper supervision at the rink. Therefore there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of assumption of the risk applied. Plaintiff alleged she was pushed to the ice by an unruly skater:

Participants in sports or recreational activities “will not be deemed to have assumed . . . unreasonably increased risks” … . “Thus, where reckless behavior that is over and above the usual dangers inherent in the activity of skating is claimed to have caused the injury, the issue of whether the proprietor was negligent in supervising the skaters turns on whether the proprietor had sufficient notice of the allegedly reckless conduct so as to permit it to prevent the injury through the exercise of adequate supervision” … . “The duration and nature of the allegedly reckless conduct are factors that bear on this issue” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the risk was unreasonably increased by the defendant’s alleged failure to properly supervise the skaters such that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk would not apply … . Laurent v Town of Oyster Bay, 2018 NY Slip Op 05028, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/ICE SKATING (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION (NEGLIGENCE, ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))

/

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home’s motion to vacate a default judgment, made more than a year after the default judgment, should not have been granted. The nursing home did not offer a reasonable excuse:

A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . “Such motion must be made within one year after service of a copy of the . . . order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party'” . “[A]lthough the Supreme Court has the inherent authority to vacate an order in the interest of justice even where the statutory one-year period under CPLR 5015(a)(1) has expired”… , here, the nursing home failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order … . In any event, the nursing home’s claim that its failure to appear or answer the complaint was caused by an internal mishandling of the pleadings was unsubstantiated and insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for its default … . Hairston v Marcus Garvey Residential Rehab Pavilion, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 7-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT)).DEFAULT JUDGMENT ( MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))

/

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the respondent’s sex offender management proceeding should be held in a closed courtroom and the record should be sealed to protect the identities of the victims in this high profile sex offense case:

Here, Supreme Court has taken steps to preserve the victims’ anonymity that include orders directing the media to withhold their names, sealing the trial record and granting anonymity to respondent. Nevertheless, our review of the factual details that may be discussed by petitioner’s experts persuades us that, in this particular case, media coverage of a public trial could well lead to the identification of the victims in the media, on the Internet or by those who followed the high profile proceedings in the past. The risk is particularly acute in view of the online presence that permits many of today’s media outlets to disseminate news beyond their subscribers and their local geographic area, in a form that may foster public discussion in comments or on social media, and which then remains permanently available.

Generally, public policy disfavors “limitations on public access to court proceedings” … . However, the right to such access is not without limitation and “must be balanced against other interests which might justify the closing of the courtroom to the public” … . We note that Mental Health Law § 10.08 reflects the strong public policy in favor of protecting the confidentiality of victims of sex offenses by including provisions that prohibit or limit the disclosure of identifying information … . Further, the controlling regulation cites “the nature of the proceedings and the privacy of the parties” as factors that may justify closing the courtroom during civil management proceedings … . Upon balancing the competing interests, we find that — in the limited and particular circumstances presented here — there is a significant risk that a public trial may compromise the anonymity of respondent’s victims. Thus, good cause has been shown to close the courtroom to the public during respondent’s civil management trial … . Matter of State of New York v John T.. 2018 NY Slip Op 05012, Third Dept 7-5-18

​MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT))/COURTROOM CLOSURE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT))

/

THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a grassy path used to walk from a parking lot to a school building constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The path had been cleared of ice and snow by a custodian but the plaintiff described the path as wet and muddy, as opposed to having ice and snow on it. There was a paved walkway to the school and there was testimony the grassy path should not have been cleared of snow:

“As the party seeking summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of demonstrating that it had maintained the property in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the specific allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . To that end, “the scope of a landowner’s duty is measured in terms of foreseeability” … . “Foreseeability of risk is an essential element of a fault-based negligence cause of action because the community deems a person at fault only when the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … .

Here, the evidence shows that defendant created the path on which plaintiff fell and, therefore, the only valid inference is that it was foreseeable that people would use the path once it had been cleared… . Thus, defendant had a duty to maintain the path in a reasonably safe condition … . However, whether “a dangerous condition exists is generally a question for the jury” … , unless “only a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” … . The deposition testimony established that defendant’s employee created the path, but there was no testimony regarding whether there was any additional maintenance. Also, although plaintiff testified that the path was wet and muddy, she could not recall if there was snow or ice on it. Therefore, a triable question of fact exists as to whether the path constituted a dangerous condition … . Ellis v Lansingburgh Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/FORESEEABILITY (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the individual defendants, officers or employees of the corporate defendant, are entitled to enforce the arbitration provision of the contract, even though they were not signatories:

The individual defendants, who were officers or employees of [defendant corporation] and did not sign the [agreement] in their individual capacities, are nevertheless entitled to enforce the arbitration provision, because any breach of the [agreement] would have to be the result of an action or inaction attributable to them. A rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by the corporate principal “is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement” … . Further, even a nonsignatory may be estopped from avoiding arbitration where he knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement with an arbitration clause … . Huntsman Intl. LLC v Albemarle Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04962, First Dept 7-3-18

​CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ARBITRATION (CORPORATION LAW, CONTRACT LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, ARBITRATION, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST 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