You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, ,

THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED PEOPLE V PAYNE, BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HEARD DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND SHOULD HAVE REVERSED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AND DISMISSED THE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the law on the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder changed when People v Payne (3 NY2d 266) was decided, not later when People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288) was decided; (2) defendant’s judgment of conviction did not become final until after People v Payne was decided; […]

,

FATHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, REMITTED FOR A CONTINUED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition to modify the custody arrangement should not have been dismissed and the matter was remitted for a continued hearing. Father’s proof had made out a prima facie case based upon the loss of employment: … [F]ather petitioned to modify the order of custody and parental access […]

,

FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined father was not adequately informed of his right to an attorney: … [A]lthough the Family Court repeatedly asked the father whether he wanted to represent himself, told him that he would have to follow the same legal rules as the other parties, and cautioned […]

,

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION, NO ALLEGATION THE THREE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS WERE SEPARATE ACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined consecutive sentences should not have been imposed for the three counts of criminal possession of a weapon to which defendant pled guilty. There were no allegations of three separate acts of possession: Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, inter alia, “a single act constitutes two offenses” […]

, , ,

INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (GEICO) had waived the contractual issue whether petitioner was a “qualified person” entitled to uninsured motorist benefits in this hit and run accident by not moving to stay arbitration. Therefore the arbitrator exceeded his powers in finding petitioner was not a “qualified person” because he was […]

,

FAMILY COURT’S TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MOTHER WAS DEALING WITH HER MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG PROBLEMS AND THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN WERE BEING ADDRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the proof requirements for the termination of parental rights were not met: To establish that a parent has permanently neglected a child, an agency must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent “failed for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out […]

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER REQUESTED INVOICES IN DISCOVERY WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, BUT PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE INVOICES AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that requested invoices which were alleged not to exist could not be the subject of evidence at trial: Durante’s affidavit demonstrated that the requested invoices of Croton could not be located and that the invoices of Iron Age were not in the respondents’ possession or control … . Under the circumstances […]

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEBRIS IN A WALKWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYCRR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE FALL OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE ENTRANCE TO A SHANTY, THE NYCRR PROVISION WHICH PERTAINS TO PASSAGEWAYS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, modifying Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the applicability of certain provisions of the New York Code Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) to plaintiff’s accident in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action. Plaintiff slipped and fell on snow covered […]

, ,

CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have transferred custody to father and suspended all contact between the child and mother for a year without conducting a hearing. The First Department further held that the judge should not have, sua sponte, prohibited mother from filing future petitions for custody or visitation […]

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There exist questions of fact on whether plaintiff has standing and whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was served: The borrower raised a meritorious standing defense based on questions as to the sufficiency of the […]

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