You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, ,

UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender discrimination action under the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL) should not have been dismissed: Since “[t]he City HRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination, but requires that sexual harassment be viewed as one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination” […]

,

​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this dispute among brothers about the father’s estate did not have the authority to act on behalf of the estate or to sue as beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore the action should have been dismissed: “It is elementary that the executors or administrators represent the […]

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel: “A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel failed to provide “meaningful representation” … , as he “failed […]

,

IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the declaratory judgment causes action should not have been dismissed because the motion for summary judgment did not seek that relief. Summary judgment on the CPLR Article 78 causes of action was properly granted, however: “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those […]

,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene by Poloncarz was properly denied because the proposed answer was not included with the motion papers. but because Poloncarz made a showing warranting intervention, the motion should have been denied with leave to renew: “A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made under […]

,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure proceeding did not demonstrate defendant’s default because the relevant business documents were not submitted: … [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer who averred … that based upon his review of certain business records maintained by the loan servicer […]

, , ,

THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Chase, the defendant – lessor of the car involved in a traffic accident, did not present sufficient evidence of its status as the lessor for purposes of asserting the Graves-Amendment defense. The business records which would have established the lessor-lessee relationship were either illegible or were not submitted: […]

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO PURPORTED TO WAIVE SERVICE OF PROCEES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that one foreign defendant (Koukis) demonstrated he was not represented by an attorney (Santamarina) who purported to waive all defenses based on service of process or lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of all defendants. Supreme Court agreed Koukis demonstrated Santamarina did not represent […]

, ,

DEFENDANT’S BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A SODA CAN WITH HIS DNA ON IT; THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the burglary conviction was against the weight of the evidence: The verdict convicting defendant of a burglary of a doctor’s office that occurred in July 2015 was against the weight of the evidence … . Defendant was connected to this burglary solely through the presence of his DNA on an opened […]

,

WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to contest the constitutionality of his 2002 conviction because he was not informed of the period of post release supervision (PRS) before he pled guilty. Defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the 2002 plea when he was resentenced in 2010 to add PRS […]

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