You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, , ,

MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was required after mother alleged in her petition to modify custody she did not consent to the stipulation underlying the custody order. The stipulation was not part of the record and the custody order did not recount the terms of the agreement: Pursuant to CPLR 2104, […]

,

EVIDENCE THE CHILD HAD RECANTED THE CHILD’S TESTIMONY THAT FATHER SEXUALLY ABUSED THE CHILD WAS VAGUE AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE ABUSE FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the recantation evidence did rebut the prima facie evidence that father had sexually abused the child: … [P]etitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father sexually abused the child. The child’s testimony during the fact-finding hearing was consistent and detailed, and any minor inconsistencies “did […]

,

FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR DID NOT JUSTIFY FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO MOTHER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s default did not justify failing to hold a hearing before rendering a custody determination: “[C]ustody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . While “the ‘general’ right to a hearing in custody cases is not an absolute one[,] […]

, , , ,

“UNITED METHODIST CHURCH” IS NOT A JURAL ENTITY WHICH CAN BE SUED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “United Methodist Church” is not a jural entity which can be sued. In this Child Victims Act proceeding, the complaint alleged plaintiff was abused by an employee of the defendants United Methodist Church General Conference … , United Methodist […]

,

HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant should have been sentenced as a youthful offender for his role in a robbery:: … [T]he factors weighing against affording defendant youthful offender treatment are the seriousness of the offense, defendant’s alleged gang affiliation, and defendant’s failure to complete interim probation … . […]

, ,

A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that a municipality cannot be sued for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision based upon actions taken by employees within the scope of their employment. In that case, the municipality can only be sued under a respondeat superior theory. Here plaintiff sued the City of Buffalo and […]

, ,

THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX MONTHS WOULD CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FATHER DEMONSTRATED SUCH COMPLIANCE; IN ADDITION MOTHER’S RELOCATION TO ARIZONA WITHOUT PERMISSION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES; IN-PERSON VISITATION ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father demonstrated a change in circumstances warranting in-person visitation with the children. The prior order of the court stated that father’s compliance for six months would constitute a change in circumstances and father demonstrated such compliance. In addition, mother’s relocation to Arizona without permission also constituted an actionable […]

,

THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s cell phone should have been granted because the search warrant lacked particularity: A search warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . To meet the particularity requirement, a search warrant […]

, ,

HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS WERE ENCOMPASSED BY COUNTS 2 AND 3; THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THOSE COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s consecutive sentences, determined there was no evidence the counts to which defendant pled guilty involved two separate and distinct acts: Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, inter alia, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Thus, in order for a consecutive sentence to […]

, , , ,

A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ANOTHER TEACHER OCCURRING REPEATEDLY AT SCHOOL WAS DEEMED AN ADMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS FORESEEABLE BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence disagreeing with the majority ruling that a teacher’s alleged statement was admissible against the school district as an admission, affirmed the denial of the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act negligent supervision case. Plaintiff, who was a student in the late 60’s, alleged repeated […]

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