You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

HERE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A LOOSE FLOOR TILE IN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this premises liability slip and fall case, determined (1) the motion court should not have considered an argument first raised in opposition to the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant out-of-possession landlord could not be held liable for a loose floor tile in plaintiff’s apartment. The lease between defendant and plaintiff’s landlord made defendant responsible for maintenance of the public areas of the building and plaintiff’s landlord responsible for maintenance of all other areas:

The plaintiff’s allegation that the loose floor tile was caused by a leaky roof was not pleaded, “and a plaintiff cannot raise a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for summary judgment” … .

… [An] “… out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, since the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege a violation of a statute, the defendant cannot be held liable unless he retained control over the premises and owed a duty assumed by contract or a course of conduct … .

“[C]ontrol refers to the ability of an out-of-possession landlord to remedy dangerous conditions” … . “Reservation of a right of re-entry for inspection and repair in a lease may, under certain circumstances, constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability for injuries caused by an alleged hazard” … . In the absence of a statutory violation, there must be a significant structural or design defect present in order for a right of re-entry to constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability … .

Here, the defendant, who had no key to access the building, never visited the second floor, and did not know there were tenants living on the second floor, established, prima facie, that he did not have an ability to remedy the loose floor tile, which was not a significant structural defect … .  Alexandre v Shih T. Wang, 2025 NY Slip Op 04855, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the liability of an out-of-possession landlord for a non-structural defect inside a tenant’s apartment.

 

,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) REPRESENTS A CHANGE IN THE LAW WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO RENEW; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (G&Q Estates Corp.’s) motion to renew based upon new law, the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), should have been granted and the foreclosure action should have been dismissed as time-barred:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]). “Therefore, a motion for leave to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from a prior order based on a change in the law” … . * * *

… G & Q Estates correctly contends that FAPA constituted a change in the law that would alter the Supreme Court’s prior determination of those branches of its prior cross-motion which were to vacate its default in appearing or answering the amended complaint and to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred … . The commencement of the 2007 action accelerated the mortgage debt and caused the six-year statute of limitations period to accrue, the voluntary discontinuance of that action did not de-accelerate the debt in light of the statutory amendments enacted by FAPA, and the limitations period thus expired in September 2013 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Mongru, 2025 NY Slip Op 04807, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) represents and change in the law which supports a motion to renew.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE POST ON LINKEDIN MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE “STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION” (SLAPP) DEFENSE TO THE DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW;” THEREFORE THE ACTION SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 76-A (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined plaintiffs had stated causes of action for defamation requiring the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP, Civil Rights Law section 76-a). Plaintiffs alleged defendant put up a post on Linkedin in which defendant held himself out as a “Nonprofit Leader and Consultant” and referred to a person readily identified as plaintiff Stiloski. The post stated that “[a] Tarrytown extremist who supports neo-Nazi causes and does a ton of business with the Village placed a massive sign on his place showing a graphic middle finger aimed at our Black community:”

… [T]he plaintiffs established that the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se had substantial bases in the law. The defendant’s statements in the LinkedIn post, under the circumstances and in the context made, did not constitute nonactionable pure opinion … . The defendant did not call Stiloski a “neo-Nazi,” which arguably can be pure opinion. Rather, the nuanced statements at issue in the LinkedIn post, namely that Stiloski was a “Tarrytown extremist who supports neo-Nazi causes”… , can “readily be proven true or false” and, under these circumstances, in which the defendant held himself out to be a “Nonprofit Leader and Consultant” and the amended complaint alleged that the defendant is a well-known community activist, “signaled to the average reader or listener that the defendant was conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Alternatively, the statements in the LinkedIn post are those of mixed opinion and, therefore, actionable, as “a reasonable reader would have inferred that the poster had knowledge of facts, unknown to the audience, supporting the assertions made” … . The plaintiffs further sufficiently alleged in the amended complaint that the statements made in the LinkedIn post were detrimental to them. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that in July 2022, a potential customer refused the plaintiffs’ services and called Stiloski a “racist” and a “white supremacist.” Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the automotive business suffered as a result of the defendant’s actions, notably that a local church ceased doing business with the plaintiffs, among [*4]other things … . The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant’s “actions were taken with malice based on extreme animus and hatred,” and that his conduct was “knowingly malicious, willful and wanton and/or showed reckless disregard” for the plaintiffs’ rights … . Thus, the plaintiffs demonstrated that the causes of action alleging defamation and defamation per se, as well as the other causes of action that were predicated upon the alleged defamatory communication at issue, under these circumstances, had a substantial basis in law … . Stiloski v Wingate, 2025 NY Slip Op 04803, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: A post on Linkedin meets the criteria for a SLAPP defense to a defamation action. Here however plaintiff demonstrated the defamation action had a “substantial basis in law.” The action therefore survived the motion to dismiss under the SLAPP statute (Civil Rights Law 76-a).

 

, ,

HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUMMON THE NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the proper remedy for the failure to include a necessary party is to summon the missing party, not dismiss the action:​

The nonjoinder of necessary parties may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion, including for the first time on appeal” … . “Necessary parties are defined as ‘[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action'” … . “The rule serves judicial economy by preventing a multiplicity of suits. It also insures fairness to third parties who ought not to be prejudiced or embarrassed by judgments purporting to bind their rights or interest where they have had no opportunity to be heard” …. “Dismissal of an action or proceeding for nonjoinder of a necessary party is only a last resort” …. Therefore, “[w]hen a necessary party has not been made a party and is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned” … .

Supreme Court improperly rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners failed to join necessary parties. The petitioners sought to annul so much of the Village Board’s resolution …  as appointed Tucci to his position [with the Village Fire Department], and the court granted that request. Since Tucci was a person “who might be”—and in fact was—”inequitably affected by a judgment” in this proceeding (CPLR 1001[a]), he was a necessary party … . Similarly, as the petitioners sought relief that could result in a change to the leadership of the Fire Department, the Board of Fire Wardens was also a necessary party … .

… [D]ismissal of this proceeding is not the appropriate remedy for nonjoinder of Tucci and the Board of Fire Wardens … . Instead, “[u]nder these circumstances, the appropriate procedure is for the Supreme Court to determine whether [those parties] can be summoned and, if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine whether the proceeding[ ] may nevertheless proceed in [their] absence, upon consideration of the factors set forth in CPLR 1001(b)” … . Matter of Riverside Hose Co., Inc. v Village of Tarrytown Vil. Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 04793, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a definition of “necessary parties” within the meaning of CPLR 1001(b) and an explanation of the proper procedure for dealing with the failure to join a necessary party.

 

A NINETY-DAY NOTICE WHICH DOES NOT STATE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IS DEFECTIVE AND HAS NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 90-day notice was defective because it did not state that failure to comply with the demand will result in dismissal of the action:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written notice demanding that the plaintiff resume prosecution of the action and serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action” … . “Since CPLR 3216 is a legislative creation and not part of a court’s inherent power, the failure to serve a written notice that conforms to the provisions of CPLR 3216 is the failure of a condition precedent to dismissal of the complaint” … .

Here, the two 90-day notices served by the defendant and an order issued by the court were all defective in that they did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demands contained therein would serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint. Terryn v Rubin, 2025 NY Slip Op 04741, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: A ninety-day demand which fails to state dismissal of the action will result from a failure to comply is defective and has no effect.

 

, , ,

THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petitioner, Common Cause New York, had standing to contest the State Board of Elections’ (the Board’s) approval of the use of a new voting machine on the ground the machine’s mechanism for counting votes (using a bar code) impeded the right to independently verify the voting ballots. The majority held the petitioner met the “injury-in-fact” requirement. The dissenters disagreed. Although the writ of mandamus to compel was not the proper mechanism because a discretionary, as opposed to a ministerial, act was at issue, the petition was converted to a writ of mandamus to review:

The Board … posits that petitioners cannot establish the existence of an injury that differs from the public at large. We do not believe that the facts of this case warrant “an overly restrictive analysis of [that] requirement” … . Indeed, that requirement is tempered by the principle “that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury,” as doing so would insulate the “most injurious and widespread Government actions” from scrutiny … . Within that context, petitioners have alleged a particularized harm flowing from the approval of the ExpressVote XL [voting machine] and, although it likely affects numerous high-propensity voters … , it is sufficiently “different in kind or degree from that of the public at large” to permit standing … . * * *

We may consider the modern view of a petitioner’s pleading requirements in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which merely require that the petitioner ” ‘set forth his [or her] facts and his [or her] prayer for relief and such relief as is proper may be given to him [or her]’ ” … . Accordingly, “notwithstanding the nomenclature of [petitioners’] application,” … we find that their request can be readily construed as one for mandamus to review, which asks “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . Matter of Common Cause N.Y. v Kosinski, 2025 NY Slip Op 04690, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: Here the petition brought in the form of a writ of mandamus to compel was deemed improper because the underlying act, the purchase of voting machines, is discretionary, not ministerial. But the court had the authority to consider the petition as a writ of mandamus to review, which was the appropriate mechanism.

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOW ACCEPTS THE “CATALYST THEORY” WHICH, UNDER THE NYS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA), ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BY A PARTY WHO INSTIGATES LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE AND THE STATE VOLUNTARILY GRANTS THE SOUGHT RELIEF WITHOUT FUTHER LITIGATION; THE “CATALYST THEORY” APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PARTY “PREVAILS IN WHOLE,” NOT WHERE THE PARTY HAS ONLY “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and overruling precedent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined petitioner was not precluded from an award of counsel fees because the agency petitioner sued, the Office of Temporary and Disability Housing (OTDA), voluntarily granted the relief petitioner sought without the need for further litigation. In so doing, the Third Department overruled Matter of Clarke v Annucci, 190 AD3d 1245, Third Dept 2021, which rejected the so-called catalyst theory and precluded recovery under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) when the sued agency voluntarily grants the sought relief after litigation has been started: The “catalyst theory” is now accepted as valid in the Third Department where, as in this case, the party “prevails in whole,” but not where a party has only “substantially prevailed:”

The text of the state EAJA, the legislative record, our collective judicial experience and common sense all lead us to conclude that the Legislature could have rationally determined that parties who receive complete relief from the State after the commencement of litigation have prevailed “in whole” even if the State folds and gives it to them. * * *

… [W]e hold that a party prevails in whole when the party obtains all of the relief sought in a lawsuit against the State — including when that relief is granted voluntarily by the State after the action is commenced — and is thus a prevailing party under the state EAJA as a matter of law (see CPLR 8602 [f]). To the extent Clarke is to the contrary, it should no longer be followed. * * *

… [A]lthough we no longer read the state EAJA to require every prevailing party to obtain judicially sanctioned relief, we do not otherwise address a party “who prevails . . . in substantial part” (CPLR 8602 [f]). Petitioner’s case does not require us to resolve whether the catalyst theory applies where a party has substantially, but not wholly, prevailed. We continue to impose an additional requirement on a substantially prevailing party to show a win against the State on the merits of one or more “issues” in litigation, and a corresponding win by the State on the merits of one or more “separate issues” (CPLR 8602 [f] …). Therefore, a party claiming to have prevailed in substantial part must still demonstrate that relief was obtained on the merits in an outcome that changes the legal relationship between the party and the State — for example, a judgment on the merits or a settlement agreement. Matter of Markey v Tietz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If a party starts litigation against the state and the state voluntarily grants the sought relief, the party is entitled to attorney’s fees under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the neglect finding against mother, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosada, determined there was insufficient support in the record for the judge’s resolution of conflicting evidence, which amounted to an amendment of the petition to conform to the proof. Mother was never given the opportunity to address the judge’s sua sponte amendment of the petition, a violation of due process. In addition, there was no proof mother was served with an order of protection prohibiting father’s contact with the children (it was alleged mother left the children in father’s care when she was hospitalized). The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to adduce any proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the children in remaining in a home with the father and M.H. [paternal grandmother] during the mother’s brief hospitalization … . * * *

… Family Court unduly relied upon the contradictory testimony of Trazile [CPS worker] and M.H. in rendering its determination that respondent neglected the children. While credibility determinations of Family Court are normally accorded due deference … , the determination here “lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis,” and the court should have dismissed the petition (… see also Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). The court credited the testimonies of both Trazile and M.H., which together presented three markedly different and contradictory accounts of how the children came to be in M.H.’s care. Significantly, all three accounts are departures from the allegations set forth in the amended petition.

While the court is empowered sua sponte to conform the pleadings to the proof, as it arguably did here via its restatement of the allegations in its written decision, Family Ct Act § 1051(b) requires that in such cases, the respondent be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations, which was not done here … . “Absent additional allegations set forth in an amended petition that conforms to the proof with notice to the respondent, the court must not base a finding of neglect on allegations not set forth in the petition” … . Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If Family Court is confronted with internally inconsistent and contradictory proof which does not match the allegations in the neglect petition, the petition should be dismissed.

Practice Point: If mother is accused of violating an order of protection, there must be proof she was served with the order.

Practice Point: Although Family Court has the power to sua sponte conform a neglect petition to the proof by issuing findings of fact, due process requites that mother be given the opportunity to address the “new” allegations in the “amended” petition.

 

, , , ,

HERE IN THIS MED MAL ACTION, THE COVID-RELATED IMMUNITY CODIFIED IN THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN APRIL 2020, BUT NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN MARCH 2020, BEFORE HIS OFFICE WAS CLOSED PURSUANT TO THE COVID EMERGENCY DECLARATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) does not apply retroactively, and (2), the EDTPA did not provide COVID-related immunity for defendants’ treatment of plaintiff in March, 2020, but did provide immunity for defendants’ treatment of plaintiff in April, 2020:

On March 16, 2020, the plaintiff sought treatment for nausea, constipation, and vomiting from the defendant Joseph Tromba and was examined at Tromba’s medical office at the defendant Long Island Gastroenterology, P.C. On March 23, 2020, the medical office was closed pursuant to the emergency declaration in New York State during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Tromba spoke to the plaintiff on the telephone on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020. On April 6, 2020, the plaintiff presented to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction. * * *

“[T]he EDTPA  … provided … that a health care facility ‘shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services’ [if] the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law, the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives, and the services were arranged or provided in good faith” … .

… [T]he defendants’ submissions in support of their motion for summary judgment failed to establish … that the treatment of the plaintiff on March 16, 2020, was impacted by the defendants’ decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives.  * * *

[Defendants established] the three requirements for immunity were satisfied with respect to their treatment of the plaintiff on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020 … . Tromba testified at his deposition that from March 23, 2020, through May 2020, his office was closed pursuant to the emergency declaration and he was “dealing with” his patients “as well as [he could] without seeing them physically.” Regarding the plaintiff specifically, Tromba testified that he could not see her in his office due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her reticence to leave the house. He also testified that he wanted the plaintiff to go for an X-ray in order to see the quantity of stool in her bowel. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the only place that the plaintiff could obtain an X-ray was an emergency room. The plaintiff testified at her deposition, among other things, that she did not want to go for an X-ray because she had COPD, her husband had emphysema, and it “was in the middle of COVID.” Although she also testified that she would have gone for an X-ray if she thought it would have helped her, she nevertheless testified that this “was when COVID was going on” and she “didn’t even know where [she] could get an X-ray at that point.” This testimony was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s treatment on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020, was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives … . Sapienza v Tromba, 2025 NY Slip Op 04672, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of how the COVID-related immunity codified in the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) can be applied in a medical malpractice action.

 

, ,

FATHER, WHO LIVED IN FLORIDA, BROUGHT THIS PARENTAL ACCESS PETITION; FATHER INDICATED HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL TO NEW YORK; HE APPEARED SEVERAL TIMES VIRTUALLY; HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE LAST COURT DATE, BUT HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the dismissal of father’s parental access petition for failure to prosecute was not warranted. Father lived in Florida, had made appearances virtually, and, although he did not appear at the last court date, his attorney was present:

… [F]ather commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for parental access with the child. The Family Court directed the parties to cooperate with a clinical assessment program in New York so as to aid the court in making a parental access determination. However, the father, who lived in Florida, alleged that he was financially unable to participate in the program and to travel to New York. He also informed the court that he was initially seeking to have only telephone contact with the child. Following several virtual appearances by the father, the court advised the father that he would no longer be permitted to appear virtually, citing the father’s disruptions during his prior virtual appearances. Thereafter, prior to the next scheduled court appearance, the father made “multiple” requests to be able to appear virtually but the court denied his requests. While the father was not present at the next scheduled court appearance, his attorney was present. … [T]he court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute. …

“[D]ismissal is a harsh remedy which ought not to be imposed without the utmost caution” … . A petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute where there is no indication of intentional default or willful abandonment … . Here, inasmuch as the father made several appearances in the proceeding virtually and appeared through counsel during the latest scheduled court appearance, the record does not reflect that the father willfully abandoned his parental access petition … . Matter of Lopez v Estrella, 2025 NY Slip Op 04649, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Dismissal of a parental access petition for failure to prosecute is a harsh remedy which was not justified in this case. Father lived in Florida and appeared virtually. His requests to continue to appear virtually were denied. He was seeking only telephonic contact with the child. There was no indication of intentional default or willful abandonment of the petition.

 

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