You are here: / Evidence
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED THE CHILD TO THE PARENTS’ CUSTODY AFTER THE CHILD HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY REMOVED BECAUSE OF APPARENT ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ application for the return of their child after a temporary removal pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 should not have been granted:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that ‘the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . * * *

The petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse against the parents by presenting evidence that injuries Ezara sustained would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the caregiver, and that the parents were the caregivers of Ezara during the relevant time period … . Specifically, the petitioner’s expert in child abuse pediatrics testified that the then two-month-old Ezara had multiple rib fractures, which appeared to have been sustained at different times, as well as fractures in his legs and a laceration of his spleen, and further testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma. The parents failed to rebut the presumption of culpability with a reasonable and adequate explanation for Ezara’s injuries … . Further, the petitioner established that the parents demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment with respect to Ezara so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in their care … . Matter of Chase P. (Maureen Q.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06173, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the bank in this foreclosure action, noted that the failure to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 can be raised at any time. Here it was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavits of Armenia L. Harrell and La’Shana Farrow, both of whom are officers of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicing agent of the plaintiff, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Both Harrell and Farrow attested that they were familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices. Farrow averred, inter alia, that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices. The record indicates that the 90-day notices appear to have been mailed by ASC (America’s Servicing Company). However, neither Harrell or Farrow attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of ASC. Therefore, they failed establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to send individually addressed notices to each borrower; rather, the 90-day notices were jointly addressed to the [defendants]. U.S. Bank N.A. v Krakoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the custody arrangement should not have been modified in the absence of a hearing. The court noted that the award of decision-making authority for any major child-related issue on which the parties cannot agree is tantamount to the award of sole custody:

The Supreme Court erred by, in effect, granting, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award her sole legal custody of the child to the extent of awarding her final decision-making authority as to any major child-related issue about which the parties could not agree, and denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award him sole legal custody. “‘[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . … There can be no question that the award of final decision-making authority is not “dramatically unlike” the relief requested, as decision making is part and parcel to legal custody. … [T]he court erred in granting this award without a hearing. The court’s determination that “neither party has established change in circumstances warranting an award of sole custody to either parent” is incongruous with the court’s determination to award the defendant final decision-making authority. Since it appears that the court believed that the parties made an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need for a change of decision-making authority to ensure the child’s best interests, a hearing on that issue was required … .  Trazzera v Trazzera, 2021 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION ESTABLISHED HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD, HE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FALL WAS DUE TO INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 2411 (6) scaffold-fall case was properly denied on evidentiary grounds, but it was not properly denied because the notice of claim was not included with the motion papers. Although the pleadings must be annexed to a summary judgment motion, a notice of claim is not a pleading. The motion was properly denied on evidentiary grounds because it was not demonstrated the fall was the result of a failure to provide adequate safety equipment:

While the defendant correctly contends that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, a notice of claim is not a pleading … . …

… [T]he plaintiff relies solely on his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony and his deposition testimony, which merely established that he fell from a scaffold. The plaintiff failed to address whether there were scaffold rails, possible tie off points for a harness, or some alternative fall protection. Without more, the plaintiff’s testimony that he “moved [his] foot” to the left, causing him to step off of the scaffold and into an “empty space,” and that “there was nothing there because [he] stepped on it and . . . thought it was something solid” are insufficient … . Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO AN ARMED FELONY, HE WAS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH” ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED AFFORDING HIM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined Supreme Court should have found defendant to be an “eligible youth” and then considered whether mitigating circumstances warranted youthful offender status:

While the ultimate determination as to whether an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.20[1]) should be afforded youthful offender status must be made “[a]fter receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence” … , there is no such requirement with respect to the initial determination as to whether the defendant is an “eligible youth” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding that the defendant was ineligible for youthful offender status. Pursuant to CPL 720.10(3), although the defendant entered a plea of guilty to an armed felony offense in which he was the sole participant, he could be eligible for youthful offender status if there were “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” … . Such mitigating circumstances include “‘a lack of injury to others or evidence that the defendant did not display a weapon during the crime'” … . Here, there is no indication in the record that the defendant displayed the firearm which was recovered from his backpack, that the defendant caused or threatened any injury to another individual, or that the defendant intended to use the firearm against another individual. Consequently, the court should have determined that the defendant is an “eligible youth,” and thus, proceeded to determine whether the defendant is entitled to youthful offender status pursuant to CPL 720.20(1) … . People v Morris, 2021 NY Slip Op 06195, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined a detective’s testimony about what a nontestifying accomplice (Andy Dabydeen) said violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. Although defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony, the defendant himself objected after the fact, citing Crawford v Washington, 541 US 51, which preserved the issue for appeal:

After the defendant continued to deny any involvement in the murder, the detective confronted him by saying that “Andy had told us what had happened.” The detective further testified that, shortly thereafter, upon returning from the bathroom, the defendant reacted to that information by stating that he could not believe that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. …

… [W]e find that the defendant’s objection—albeit made after the detective had finished testifying and the People had rested—was sufficiently specific to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause problems attendant to the People’s use, as part of their case-in-chief, of Dabydeen’s out-of-court testimonial statement directly implicating the defendant in the murder. …

This is not to suggest that the People are precluded from giving some context to the defendant’s statement that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. We merely emphasize that the People could have done so without disclosing the substance of Dabydeen’s incriminating statement … . People v Lockley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the email exchange between attorneys constituted an enforceable settlement of the personal injury action which was unaffected by the subsequent granting of summary judgment to the defendants:

The settlement agreement was stated in an email communication in which plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “This is to confirm settlement in the sum of $275,000. Please send release language and parties to be released.” Later that day, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a follow-up email, stating, “Please confirm we are settled.” Sea Crest’s counsel responded, “Confirmed. I’ll have release information to you ASAP.” …

The emails, which reduced the settlement to a writing in accordance with CPLR 2104, were “subscribed” within the meaning of the statute, as the sender was identifiable and there was no contention that Sea Crest’s counsel did not send any of the emails intentionally … . Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06109, First Dept 11-9-21

 

,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT OF CLAIMANT’S IMPAIRMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the uncontested evidence demonstrated claimant’s shoulder was 35% impaired, not 15% impaired as found by the Board:

Whether to grant an application for reopening or rehearing in the interest of justice is a matter left to the Board’s discretion and our review of that decision is limited to whether there was an abuse of that discretion … . Upon our review of the Board’s decision, we find that such discretion was abused here. Although the C-4.3 form notes that claimant’s left shoulder is 15% impaired, it directs that the orthopedic surgeon’s findings are set forth in the attached medical narrative. The substance of the attached medical narrative clearly sets forth in detail that claimant sustained a 35% SLU of the left shoulder — attributing 15% to full thickness rotator cuff tear, 10% distal clavicle excision and 10% mild loss of internal and external rotation. The carrier, who received the medical narrative along with the C-4.3 form, specifically accepted the medical opinion without objection. “Notably, while the Board is free to reject the opinion of an expert where it finds such to be unconvincing or incredible, it may not reject an uncontradicted opinion that is properly rendered” … . Matter of Taylor v Buffalo Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 06021, Third Dept 11-4-21

 

, ,

ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY; SEVERAL CONVICTIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on several counts, determined the evidence the robbery complainants suffered physical injury was legally insufficient, and the weakness of the identification evidence rendered several convictions against the weight of the evidence:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Here, both complainants testified at trial that they were hit from behind on the head. Neither of the complainants sought medical attention. One complainant testified that he had pain that lasted two days, and did not testify that he took any medication to treat his pain. The other complainant testified that his pain lasted for about one week and that he treated it with ice and Advil. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence that either of the complainants suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) … . Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree … .  * * *

Neither of the complainants who were robbed on February 28, 2016, was able to identify the defendant as one of their assailants, and their descriptions of their assailants as young Hispanic/Latino men about five foot six inches tall wearing dark clothing was not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that the defendant committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. The modus operandi of the crimes committed on February 28, 2016, and February 29, 2016, was likewise not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that, because the evidence supported an inference that the defendant committed the February 29, 2016 crimes, he also committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 05990, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action at issue sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore, to avoid summary judgment, plaintiff was required to submit expert opinion evidence in opposition. Plaintiff’s decedent, a patient in a rehabilitation facility (defendant St. James), fell when walking unattended after going to the bathroom. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s failure to provide decedent with a bed alarm was a proximate cause of the fall. The motion court held that cause of action sounded in negligence and raised a jury question:

The essence of the allegation that St. James improperly failed to provide the decedent with a bed alarm which would have prevented his fall is that it improperly assessed his condition and the degree of supervision necessary to prevent him from falling, which sounds in medical malpractice … . Thus, with respect to this allegation, St. James bore the initial burden of establishing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … .

In response to St. James’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by submitting an expert opinion that specifically addressed the defense expert’s assertions … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of St. James’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged a failure to provide the decedent with a bed alarm. Losak v St. James Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

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