,

FATHER, WHO LIVES IN CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER; MOTHER, WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IN NEW YORK; FAMILY COURT CORRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COURT BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE PARTIES TO PRESENT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE NEW YORK PETITION; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did everything right in dealing with the modification of a California custody order, including communication with the California court, but did not allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments before ruling New York did not have jurisdiction. Father was in California and mother was in New York. Father sought modification of the custody order in California and mother sought modification of the custody order in New York:

“If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]; see id. § 77-f …). “If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A] does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding” … .

When a court, acting pursuant to these provisions, communicates with a court of another state on substantive matters, it must make a record of the communication, promptly inform the parties of the communication, and grant the parties access to the record … . The court may, in its discretion, allow the parties to participate in the communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made” … .

… [A]fter providing that information to the parties, who had not participated in the communication, the court immediately announced its decision on the issue of jurisdiction, without affording the parties an opportunity to present facts and legal arguments. This did not comport with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 75-i(2), and, under the circumstances of this case, requires reversal  … . Matter of Touchet v Horstman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04633, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: When a New York resident seeks modification of an out-of-state custody order, Family Court must communicate with the out-of-state court about whether the New York petition should be dismissed. Where the parties did not participate in the communication, before ruling, Family Court must allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments. Here the court’s failure to allow the parties to present facts and legal arguments required reversal.

 

,

IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained the different burdens of proof in an Article 78 proceeding and an action seeking declaratory relief and damages. In an Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner has to show standing as part of its prima facie case. In a declaratory judgment/damages action, the respondent (defendant) has to demonstrate the petitioner does not have standing as a matter of law to warrant summary judgment:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding/action based on lack of standing. “‘In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand'” … . Generally, in an action to recover damages, “[o]n a defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing. To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” … . Within the context of a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, “[t]he petitioner ‘has the burden of establishing both an injury-in-fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated'” … . Matter of Crown Castle NG E., LLC v City of Rye, 2022 NY Slip Op 04626, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The burdens on the issue of standing are different in an Article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment/damages action. Here both were brought in a hybrid proceeding. The petitioner must demonstrate standing in the Article 78 proceeding. The respondent (defendant) must demonstrate petitioner does not have standing as a matter of law to warrant summary judgment in the declaratory judgment/damages action.

 

, ,

A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY MEMBER RESIDES, AS WELL AS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family offense proceeding should not have been dismissed based on the allegation venue was improper. A family offense proceeding may be brought based upon the residence of the family member, as well as were the offense took place:

A family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 “may be originated in the county in which the act or acts referred to in the petition allegedly occurred or in which the family or household resides or in which any party resides” … . Here, since the mother resides in Rockland County, the mother commenced this proceeding in a proper venue. Matter of VanDunk v Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 04554, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: A family offense proceeding may be brought in the county where the family member resides, as well as the county where the offense occurred.

 

, ,

THE THREE-DAY FACT-FINDING HEARING RELATED TO THE NEGLECT PETITION RE: SERENA, NOT THE NEWLY-FILED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PETITION RE: VINCENT; FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY CONSOLIDATED THE TWO PETITIONS FOR THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING DEPRIVING MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court never held a hearing on the newly filed derivative neglect petition (re: Vincent). The three-day fact-finding hearing related only to the neglect petition (re: Serena). At the subsequent dispositional hearing, the court improperly consolidated the two petitions:

The right to due process encompasses a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” at a fact-finding hearing on a neglect petition … , and to “present evidence relevant to the proceedings” … . Accordingly, the proceeding with respect to Vincent must be remitted to the Family Court … for a fact-finding hearing, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to introduce evidence relevant to the petition to adjudicate Vincent a derivatively neglected child, including, among other things, whether at the time the neglect petition was filed with respect to Vincent the mother had resolved the issues that were the basis of the finding of neglect as to Serena … . Matter of Serena G. (Monica M.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04547, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here the court held a hearing which was confined to the neglect petition re: Serena and did not address the newly-filed derivative neglect petition re: Vincent. By combining the two petitions for the dispositional hearing mother was deprived of an opportunity to be heard (due process) on the derivative neglect petition.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against plaintiff’s employer for negligence alleging an assault by a coworker should not have been dismissed. Defendants’ alleged that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Because there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment, Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

… Supreme Court improperly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the negligence causes of action … . Since “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,” it is “inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” … . Here, questions of fact were raised as to whether the plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment, and thus, the court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board … . Chin v Doherty Enters., 2022 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by a coworker and sued her employer in negligence. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was injured during the course her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.. Therefore the negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed and the matter should have been referred to the Board.

, , ,

PETITIONERS SOUGHT FUNDS THE DECEDENT HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE CORPORATION AS CLAIMS ON DECEDENT’S ESTATE, ALLEGING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED ANEW WHEN THE DECEDENT ACKNOWELDGED THE DEBT IN A DEPOSITION; THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS TOLL IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED, NOT TO THE QUASI-CONTRACT ALLEGED BY PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined decedent’s acknowledgement of a debt in a deposition did not start the statute of limitations anew because there was no written contract to which General Obligations Law 17-101 could apply:

In 2011, decedent removed funds from the corporate entity, and he later acknowledged that some of those funds belonged to petitioners. Decedent died in 2018 without returning the funds owed to petitioners. * * *

The tolling provision that the Surrogate relied on is General Obligations Law § 17—101. That provision states, in pertinent part, that “[a]n acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil practice law and rules.” Here, petitioners did not allege that they had a contract with decedent; rather, they alleged claims sounding in quasi-contract, which is “not [a] contract[] at all” … . Thus, General Obligations Law § 17—101, which applies only where there is “competent evidence of a new or existing contract,” does not apply here … . Matter of Reich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04446, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: In order to start the statute of limitations anew on a debt pursuant to General Obligations Law 17-101, the debt must be acknowledged in a writing signed by the party to be charged.

 

, ,

MOTHER WAS EXPERIENCING COVID-LIKE SYMPTOMS AND THE COURT RULES PROHIBITED HER ENTRY; HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion in denying mother’s request for an adjournment:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment. The mother had not previously requested an adjournment, and there was no indication in the record that an adjournment would have adversely affected the child … . Further, the mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and, under the court’s own rules, she was prohibited from entering the courthouse … . We therefore vacate those parts of the order determining that the mother permanently neglected the subject child and terminating her parental rights … . Matter of Jiryan S., 2022 NY Slip Op 04514. Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and requested an adjournment. Court rules prohibited her entry into the building. Her request for an adjournment should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE HAD BEEN MADE AWARE A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING THAT MOTHER’S ATTORNEY WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING HER; AT THE HEARING MOTHER EXPLAINED SHE HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ANOTHER LAWYER WHO COULD NOT ATTEND THAT DAY; MOTHER ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT; THE JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING THE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this custody proceeding, determined mother’s request for an adjournment should have been granted. Mother’s relationship with her attorney had broken down. The attorney had notified the judge a week before and the attorney did not appear for the hearing. At the hearing, mother told the judge she had communicated with another lawyer (who had other obligations) and asked for an adjournment. The request denied and mother represented herself:

Approximately one week prior to the hearing on the father’s petition, the mother’s attorney informed Family Court that there had been a breakdown in her attorney-client relationship with the mother, as a result of which she was no longer representing the mother, and she requested an adjournment of the hearing. On the morning of the hearing, the court failed to make any inquiry of the mother concerning the fact that her attorney was not present at the hearing, nor did the court make any mention of the attorney’s adjournment request. The mother herself then sought an adjournment and confirmed to the court that there had been a fundamental breakdown in the relationship with her attorney. The mother explained that she had spoken to, and scheduled a meeting with, a new attorney and that the new attorney could not be present due to a preexisting obligation. …

… [T]he court abused its discretion in denying her request to adjourn the hearing … . The record establishes that the mother’s request was not a delay tactic and did not result from her lack of diligence in retaining new counsel … . We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing on the petition. Matter of Dupont v Armstrong, 2022 NY Slip Op 04509, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here mother had never requested an adjournment before and the judge was aware mother’s relationship with her attorney had broken down. At the time of the hearing mother told the judge she had communicated with another lawyer who could not attend that day and asked for an adjournment. The judge’s denial of the request was an abuse of discretion.

 

, , , , ,

PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS DECEASED MOTHER DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO EXECUTE A DOCUMENT DESIGNATING RESPONDENT AS HER AGENT TO CONTROL THE DISPOSITION OF HER REMAINS; PETITIONER SUBMITTED PROOF HIS MOTHER HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH DEMENTIA, BUT DEMENTIA IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF INCOMPETENCE OR INCAPACITY; THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that the petition pursuant to Public Health Law 4201 for a determination concerning the disposition of petitioner’s deceased mother’s remains should have been dismissed. The deceased was also the mother of the respondent in this action. The issue was whether the deceased had the capacity to execute a document designating the respondent as her agent to control the disposition of her remains. The proceeding under the Public Health Law is handled like a motion for summary judgment. Although petitioner demonstrated his mother was diagnosed with dementia in 2014, dementia is not the equivalent of incompetence:

Every dispute relating to the disposition of the remains of a decedent shall be resolved . . . pursuant to a special proceeding” (Public Health Law § 4201 [8]). Upon the return date of the petition in a special proceeding, “[t]he court shall make a summary determination upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised,” and “may make any orders permitted on a motion for summary judgment” (CPLR 409 [b] …). “[E]very hearing of a special proceeding is equivalent to the hearing of a motion for summary judgment” … . …

Even assuming, arguendo, that the heightened contractual capacity standard is applicable in this case … , we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the decedent was incapable “of comprehending and understanding the nature of the transaction at issue” … .  Although petitioner submitted evidence establishing that the decedent had been diagnosed with dementia in 2014, “there is no presumption that a person suffering from dementia is wholly incompetent” … . “Rather, it must be demonstrated that, because of the affliction, the individual was incompetent at the time of the challenged transaction” … . Here, petitioner failed to set forth any evidence that the decedent was without capacity to execute the designating document in September 2017 … . Matter of Hurlbut v Leo M. Bean Funeral Home, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04439, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: A proceeding pursuant to the Public Health Law to determine the disposition of the remains of a decedent is in the nature of a special proceeding and is handled like a summary judgment motion. Here the petitioner did not raise a question of fact about whether the decedent had the capacity to designate the respondent as her agent to control the disposition of her remains. Proof decedent had been diagnosed with dementia did not raise a question of fact about decedent’s competence or capacity.

 

, , ,

IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, VETERINARY RECORDS ARE DISCOVERABLE BY SUBPOENA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in this dog bite case, determined veterinary records are not protected by Education Law 6714 and are discoverable:

Education Law § 6714 (1) provides that, “[u]pon written request from the owner of an animal which has received treatment from or under the supervision of a veterinarian, such veterinarian shall provide to such owner within a reasonable time period a copy of all records relating to the treatment of such animal. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘records’ shall mean all information concerning or related to the examination or treatment of the animal kept by the veterinarian in the course of his or her practice. A veterinarian may impose a reasonable charge for providing copies of such records. A veterinarian may make available to the owner either the original or a copy of such record or document including x-rays, electrocardiograms and other diagnostic tests and may impose a reasonable fee for the reproduction of such copies.”

Nothing in the plain language of that statute prohibits a veterinarian from providing a copy of treatment records pursuant to a subpoena. Had the legislature intended to create such an exemption, it could have done so using language similar to that found in Education Law § 6527 (3), which provides that “records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function . . . shall [not] be subject to disclosure under article thirty-one of the [CPLR] except as hereinafter provided or as provided by any other provision of law” … . Ashley M. v Marcinkowski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04437, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to Education Law 6714, veterinary records in this dog-bite case are discoverable by subpoena.