You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment should have been vacated in the interest of justice and the complaint dismissed based on documentary evidence. The loan which was the basis of the action was criminally usurious: “CPLR 5015(a) ‘does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be […]

,

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner in this slip and fall case was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff, the administrator of plaintiff’s decedent’s estate, could not identify the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s fall. Plaintiff’s decedent died from a brain injury incurred by the fall in a bathroom. Although the complaint […]

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to reopen the inquest on damages. Although the motion was untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendants: … [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, […]

, , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk assessment, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant had waived his due process right to be present at the hearing. Although the error was not preserved, the Second Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice: A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a […]

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; HER SENTENCE WAS FURTHER REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s appeal-waiver was invalid and further reduced her sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act: The County Court did not discuss the appeal waiver with the defendant until after the defendant had already admitted her guilt as part of the plea agreement … . Further, when the court raised the issue […]

,

THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “nail and mail” service of process was invalid because the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting other methods of personal service: “Service of process must be made in strict compliance with [the] statutory ‘methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person’ pursuant […]

, ,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE ALLEGED THE OTHER VEHICLE CHANGED LANES ABRUPTLY AND CAME TO A STOP IN FRONT OF HIM; THAT CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic accident case, determined defendant raised a question of fact about a non-negligent explanation for his striking the car in front: At his deposition, Guo Lin Wu [the driver of the United vehicle] testified that the Castillo/Lopez vehicle changed lanes abruptly in front of the United […]

, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE PROPERLY TERMINATED; MOTHER AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DISCOURAGED HER FROM COMMUNICATING WITH IT WELL BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE TERMINATION PETITION) AND THE JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY PROHIBITED HER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive and comprehensive dissent, determined Family Court properly terminated mother’s parental rights. The question whether a parent has abandoned a child focuses on the six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. Mother argued that the Department of Social Services had discouraged her from […]

,

PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER TOOK ACTION IN AN EMERGENCY; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bus-passenger’s injuries resulted from the bus driver’s reaction to an emergency: In this action for personal injuries arising from a fall on a public bus, defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that their bus driver was presented with an emergency […]

,

THE SCAFFOLD COLLAPSED ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE HEARSAY SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION DID NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this scaffold-collapse case. Plaintiff alleged he was told to assemble use the scaffold despite mismatched parts. The defendants relied on hearsay statements attributed to Sabato, plaintiff’s supervisor, to the effect that Sabato told […]

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