Page 973 – New York Appellate Digest

/ Criminal Law

PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the prosecutor’s closing argument rendered an indictment count duplicitous by suggesting the robbery count could apply to either a cell phone or a bicycle (different victims). The indictment count charged robbery of the cell phone:

The indictment, as amplified by the bill of particulars, charged defendant in the first count with robbery in the second degree, for forcibly stealing one victim’s cell phone, and in the second count with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, for possession of a bicycle, stolen from another victim, on which defendant attempted to flee the scene. In summation, the prosecutor repeatedly argued — in apparent response to defense counsel’s argument that the evidence showed that defendant abandoned the phone before striking one of his pursuers, and therefore that a robbery could not be established — that even if the court did not find that defendant used force to retain the phone, it could still find that he used force to retain the bicycle. Defense counsel objected to these arguments and the court overruled them.

We find that these arguments rendered the first count duplicitous by newly alleging that defendant was guilty under the first count if he forcibly stole either the phone or the bicycle (see CPL 200.30[1]). The lesser included offense of petit larceny, of which defendant was ultimately convicted, suffered from the same infirmity. People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/DUPLICITY (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))

March 01, 2018

FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, annulled the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s determination that a road within the Adirondack Park had been abandoned and therefore could not be used by snowmobilers. The determination reversed an earlier determination that the road had not been abandoned. The second determination was made pursuant to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) motion to clarify. The Third Department held that, although titled a motion to clarify, the motion was actually a motion to reconsider, the criteria for which were not met:

The motion was, in effect, one to reconsider the 2009 determination. Yet, no statutory authority exists for DEC to reconsider a final determination issued in an administrative enforcement proceeding. … While the regulations governing enforcement proceedings allow a Commissioner to reopen the hearing record to consider “significant new evidence,” the Commissioner may only do so “prior to issuing the final [determination]” … .

“In the absence of any statutory [or regulatory] reservation of discretionary agency authority to reconsider its determinations, New York applies a long-standing policy of finality to the . . . determinations of an administrative agency” … . “Public officers or agents who exercise judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties may not revoke their [quasi-judicial] determinations nor review their own orders once properly and finally made, however much they may have erred in judgment on the facts, even though injustice is the result” … . This is not to say, of course, that an administrative body may never reconsider a previously issued final determination. Under settled law, a final agency determination may be corrected if it suffers from an error that “was the result of illegality, irregularity in vital matters, or fraud”… . Likewise, an agency has the inherent authority to reconsider a prior determination to “correct its erroneous interpretations of the law” … , or upon a showing of new information or changed circumstances … .

In our view, [the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s] actions here ran afoul of the principle of finality attached to administrative determinations. Matter of Town of N. Elba v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01369, Third Dept 3-1-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK ( FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/FINALITY, POLICY OF (ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))

March 01, 2018

/ Social Services Law

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance properly interpreted the food stamp regulations. Petitioner’s application to continue her Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) (food stamp) benefits was denied. Petitioner had five children, two in college. The two college students were not counted as part of the household for SNAP purposes but the child support income petitioner received for the two college students was counted. So petitioner’s income was deemed too high for food stamp eligibility:

Pursuant to 7 CFR 273.7(a)(1), “[a]s a condition of eligibility for SNAP benefits, each household member not exempt under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must comply with the following SNAP work requirements,” including registering for work. According to 7 CFR 273.7(b)(1)(viii), students enrolled at least half time in institutions of higher education are only exempt if they meet “the student eligibility requirements listed in” 7 CFR 273.5(b), which includes students under 18, students with special needs, students in work study programs, or students employed for a minimum of 20 hours per week.

Similarly, 18 NYCRR 387.16(d) provides for the inclusion of income from nonhousehold members who have been disqualified for an intentional program violation, ineligible alien status, failure to attest to citizenship or alien status, or failure to comply with a food stamp work registration or work requirement as provided in 18 NYCRR 385.3. Under 18 NYCRR 385.3 and 18 NYCRR 387.1(jj), such students are not exempt from work requirements, and are not eligible for food stamps. Pursuant to 18 NYCRR 387.16(d) their income has to be included in household income.

The college students were not employed a minimum of 20 hours per week or otherwise eligible for an exemption. Accordingly, their income was properly included in household income. Matter of Leggio v Devine, 2018 NY Slip Op 01312, Second Dept 2-28-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/FOOD STAMPS (ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP) (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/SNAP (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Negligence

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff made out a prima facie case by demonstrating defendant, Gavitt, made a left turn across the plaintiff’s path and plaintiff entered an intersection. However Gavitt raised a question of fact by alleging plaintiff was speeding:

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that Gavitt was negligent in violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 “by making a left turn into the path of oncoming traffic without yielding the right of way to the plaintiff when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety”… . The undisputed fact that Gavitt was, in fact, unable to complete his left turn ” without being struck by [the plaintiff’s] vehicle'” … demonstrates that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 by failing to “yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which [was] . . . so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . “Regardless of which vehicle entered the intersection first, [the plaintiff], as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that [Gavitt] would obey traffic laws which required [him] to yield”… .

The plaintiff also demonstrated, prima facie, that Gavitt’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the plaintiff was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In this regard, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was traveling at 25 miles per hour immediately prior to the accident and, upon seeing Gavitt commence making the left turn in front of him, he immediately applied his brakes in an attempt to avoid colliding with Gavitt’s vehicle, but he was unable to avoid the collision … .

In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was traveling at an excessive rate of speed immediately prior to the accident and whether he could have avoided the accident through the exercise of reasonable care … . Shashaty v Gavitt, 2018 NY Slip Op 01347, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Negligence

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her staircase fall. The allegation that the staircase lacked a handrail in violation of the building code did not raise a question of fact:

In support of its motion, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . The plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that the absence of a handrail on the side of the stairs where she fell constituted a building code violation was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion. Morchyk v Acadia 3780-3858 Nostrand Ave., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01302, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STAIRS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( STAIRS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STAIRS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Negligence

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet its prima facie burden to demonstrate the crack in a concrete floor was trivial in this slip and fall case. Therefore the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . However, a property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … .

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Cortes v Taravella Family Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 01301, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Evidence, Foreclosure, Judges

EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s (OneWest’s) motion for summary judgment should have been denied because standing was not demonstrated with evidence meeting the business records hearsay exception requirements. The Second Department criticized Supreme Court for doing its own Internet research and making a sua sponte finding that OneWest had standing:

In support of its motion, OneWest submitted the affidavit of Jillian Thrasher, an employee of its loan servicer, who averred that OneWest was the holder of the note, which is endorsed in blank, and assignee of the mortgage at the time the action was commenced. However, OneWest failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records that Thrasher relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since she did not attest that she was personally familiar with OneWest’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Insofar as the Supreme Court reached its determination that OneWest had standing by, sua sponte, “independently tak[ing] judicial notice of the FDIC website,” this Court has repeatedly cautioned against such independent Internet investigations, especially when conducted without providing notice or an opportunity for the parties to be heard … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Berino, 2018 NY Slip Op 01318, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (INTERNET RESEARCH, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/INTERNET RESEARCH BY COURT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Civil Procedure, Foreclosure

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as time-barred should have been denied. The first foreclosure action was started in 2007. The defendant’s default did not automatically accelerate the debt because the language in the note and mortgage made acceleration optional. Although the 2007 complaint sought to accelerate the debt, the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing and therefore could not be relied upon as evidence the debt was accelerated. The Second Department also considered, and found valid, an argument raised below but not considered by Supreme Court, i.e., the current action was started within six months of the dismissal of the 2007 action and was therefore timely pursuant to CPLR 205 [a]. This rationale was deemed applicable even though the parties which commenced to two actions were not technically the same:

… [I]nasmuch as the acceleration provisions in the note and mortgage were made optional at the discretion of the holder and were not automatically triggered upon Rose Gordon’s default (see generally 1-4 Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 4.03[2017]), the allegation in the 2007 complaint that Rose Gordon defaulted on March 1, 2007, did not constitute evidence that the mortgage was accelerated on that date … . * * *

… [T]he prior plaintiff in the 2007 action did not have standing to commence that action because it was not the holder of the note and mortgage at the time that the 2007 action was commenced. Accordingly, service of the 2007 complaint was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt, since the prior plaintiff did not have the authority to accelerate the debt or to sue to foreclose at that time … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action”… . More specifically to the facts here, this Court has recently held that “a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action which meets all of the other requirements of the statute is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) where . . . it is the successor in interest as the current holder of the note”… .

Here, even assuming that there were no questions of fact as to whether the plaintiffs in the 2007 and 2013 actions were legally distinct entities, the plaintiff in this action is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a). As the assignee and subsequent holder of the note and mortgage, the plaintiff in the 2013 action had a statutory right, pursuant to CPLR 1018, to continue the 2007 action in the place of the prior plaintiff once the assignment occurred in 2009, even in the absence of a formal substitution … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Gordon, 2018 NY Slip Op 01349, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 205[a] (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Attorneys, Family Law

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s desire to represent himself in this custody proceeding should have been honored by the court. Family Court had ordered that father be allowed only supervised visitation until he retained counsel:

The father had a statutory right to counsel in these Family Court proceedings… . However, he also had the right to waive counsel and proceed pro se, provided he waived his right to counsel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily… . “Where a respondent has made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary choice to represent himself or herself, forcing a lawyer upon [him or her] is contrary to his [or her] basic right to defend himself [or herself]'” … .

Where a party unequivocally and timely asserts the right to self-representation, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . “While there is no rigid formula to the court’s inquiry, there must be a showing that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . The Court of Appeals has stated that the better practice is to ask the party about his or her age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures, and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, and voluntary waiver … .

Here, the father unequivocally and timely asserted his right to represent himself in the Family Court proceedings. The Family Court engaged in a searching inquiry of the father, which revealed that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and that it was his desire and personal choice to proceed pro se. The court properly warned him of the perils of self-representation, which he acknowledged. The father is a tax attorney, and his relative ignorance of family law did not justify the court’s denial of his request, as mere ignorance of the law is insufficient to deprive one of the right to self-representation … . Matter of Aleman v Lansch, 2018 NY Slip Op 01303, Second Dept, 2-28-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/PRO SE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

/ Contempt, Family Law

THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined the automatic orders which preclude the transfer of marital property (“the Property”) when a divorce proceeding is pending cannot be the basis of a contempt order after the judgment of divorce. Here the wife learned the husband had sold a marital asset while the divorce was pending and the court, based upon the automatic orders, after judgment, found the husband in contempt and ordered payment of a purge amount to the wife under threat of incarceration:

At the time the defendant sold the Property, both Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(2)(b) and 22 NYCRR 202.16-a were in full force and effect. As is relevant to this appeal, each provision, with language that virtually mirrors the other, precludes either of the parties in a matrimonial action from transferring or in any way disposing of marital assets such as the Property without the written consent of the other party or order of the court, except under certain circumstances not applicable to this case … . The automatic orders are binding upon a plaintiff upon commencement of the matrimonial action and upon a defendant upon service of the summons or summons and complaint … . * * *

Upon entry of a judgment of divorce, the purpose of the automatic orders ends, and, when the life of the automatic orders thus expires, the statutory remedies for their enforcement fall at the same time … . Here, after the judgment of divorce was entered, the automatic orders ceased to exist for the purposes of enforcement … given that the judgment of divorce was the final determination of the action and, along with legally ending the marriage of the parties, disposed of all outstanding issues relating to the division of the parties’ property, the award of maintenance, child custody, and other marital issues … . * * *

… [T]he unavailability of civil contempt as a remedy to enforce the terms of the automatic orders after the entry of the judgment of divorce does not render this plaintiff without available remedies. For example, vacatur of the judgment of divorce based on newly discovered evidence, a civil contempt motion for a violation of the judgment of divorce, a proceeding to enforce the terms of the judgment of divorce or to obtain an order directing the payment of 50% of the value of the Property which was awarded to the plaintiff in the judgment of divorce, or amendment of the judgment of divorce are all remedies that the plaintiff could have sought … . Spencer v Spencer, 2018 NY Slip Op 01348, Second Dept 2-28-18

FAMILY LAW (THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW (THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))/MARITAL PROPERTY THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))/DIVORCE (THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))/AUTOMATIC ORDERS (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, MARITAL PROPERTY, THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT))

February 28, 2018

Search Results

PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT).

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.