You are here: / Judges
, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHEN PLAINTIFF BANK ATTEMPT TO TO BRING PREVIOUSLY FILED PAPERS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure action when plaintiff bank attempted to bring previously filed documents into compliance with subsequent administrative orders:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal”… . Here, the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to comply, in good faith, with Administrative Orders 548/10 and 431/11 of the Chief Administrative Judge, which did not exist at the time of the commencement of the action, or at the time of the plaintiff’s prior motion for an order of reference. Under such circumstances, dismissal was not warranted. Nothing in the Administrative Orders requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s counsel discovers that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission, nor is the plaintiff effectively required to commence an entirely new action … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Laszlo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01205, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

,

TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE WRONG JURY INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR DAMAGE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE COULD EITHER BE A CAUSE COVERED BY THE POLICY OR A CAUSE NOT COVERED BY THE POLICY, THE OVER $1.8 MILLION VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the over $1.8 million verdict in this property damage case, determined that the trial judge did not give the proper jury instruction. There was evidence that the water damage during Hurricane Sandy could have been caused by  water which backed up in the sewers, which was covered by the police, or surface water, which was not covered by the policy:

“A trial court is required to state the law relevant to the particular facts in issue, and a set of instructions that confuses or incompletely conveys the germane legal principles to be applied in a case requires a new trial” … . Under an all-risk property damage policy, where multiple perils work together to cause the same loss, and one or more of those perils is covered under the policy, New York follows the majority rule such that the loss will be covered if the “proximate, efficient and dominant cause” of the loss is covered by the policy … . By contrast, a minority of jurisdictions adhere to the broader “concurrent cause” rule, under which a loss will be covered “if any one of multiple non-remote causes of the same loss is a non-excluded peril” … .

Here, the Supreme Court’s instruction to the jury misstated the law in that it permitted the jury to find coverage for the plaintiffs’ loss if one or more covered perils acted together with a noncovered peril to cause the same loss, without regard to whether the efficient or dominant cause of the loss was a covered peril under the policy. Since the error may have prejudiced the defendant, a new trial is warranted … . Greenberg v Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 2019 NY Slip Op 01202, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SOME ISSUES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on some issues in this slip and fall case. The decision addresses too many issues to fairly summarize here. The court noted that Supreme Court should not have granted relief (dismissal of cross-claims) not requested in the motion papers. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a delivery area behind defendant Cafe in a plaza owned by defendant Pixley. There was some evidence the Cafe exercised control over at least part of the delivery area (snow removal):

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of the Café’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that the Café had constructive notice of the icy condition; the court also erred in denying that part of Pixley’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it insofar as the complaint alleges that Pixley had actual notice of the icy condition. Johnson v Pixley Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01040, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

, ,

A NEGATIVE INFERENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BASED UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY, SHE HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION, FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE MODIFICATION WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN, JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FACTUAL FINDINGS, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not demonstrate a change in circumstances that warranted visitation in his home, supervised by his new wife. The modified visitation was not demonstrated to be in the best interests of the children. The existing visitation arrangement, supervised by grandmother, was long-standing and was working well. In addition, the Fourth Department held that the fact that mother did not testify should not have been the basis of a negative inference. Mother had no knowledge of the circumstances underlying father’s petition:

Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference against [mother] based on her failure to testify at the hearing. The mother had no relevant testimony to offer inasmuch as she had no personal knowledge of the allegations in the modification petition … . Thus, we conclude that a negative inference against the mother was unwarranted because she did not “withhold[] evidence in [her] possession or control that would be likely to support [her] version of the case” … . …

Although the court correctly identified in its decision the applicable standard for modification of an existing custody and visitation order and referenced several circumstances that generally may support a court’s finding of a sufficient change in circumstances, the court failed to make express findings relative to the change in circumstances alleged by the father in his petition. Notwithstanding that failure, “we have the authority to review the record to ascertain whether the requisite change in circumstances existed’ ” … . …

Although the father’s marriage, new home, and diagnosis with sleep apnea are changes that have occurred since the time of the stipulation, those changes to the father’s personal circumstances do not ” reflect[] a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]’ ” … . …

… [T]there is no sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court’s determination that the children’s best interests warranted replacing the visitation supervisor, their grandmother, with the father’s new wife and permitting the father to select any location for his visits with the children … . Matter of William F.G. v Lisa M.B., 2019 NY Slip Op 00774, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET A PARTY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISED CONTACT MOTHER IS TO BE ALLOWED, AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED FURTHER PETITIONS BY MOTHER ON PERMISSION FROM THE COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have delegated its authority to order the amount of supervised contact with the children mother is to be allowed and should not have conditioned further petitions by mother on permission from the court:

… [T]he court erred in granting her only so much supervised contact as was “deemed appropriate” by petitioners. The court is “required to determine the issue of visitation in accord with the best interests of the children and fashion a schedule that permits a noncustodial parent to have frequent and regular access” … . “In so doing, the court may not delegate its authority to make such decisions to a party” … , which the court did here by delegating to petitioners its authority to set a supervised visitation schedule. We therefore … remit the matter to Family Court to determine the supervised visitation schedule.

… [T]he court erred in ordering that any petition filed by the mother to modify or enforce the custody orders must have a judge’s permission to be scheduled. “Public policy mandates free access to the courts” … , and it is error to restrict such access without a finding that the restricted party “engaged in meritless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, or . . . otherwise abused the judicial process” … . Here, it is undisputed that the mother had not commenced any frivolous proceedings. In the absence of such a finding, it was error for the court to restrict the mother’s access to the court … . Matter of Lakeya P. v Ajja M., 2019 NY Slip Op 00761, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

 

, ,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AFTER HE LEARNED THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WAS SMOKING A CIGAR, NOT MARIJUANA, SUPREME COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH WAS ERROR, THERE WAS UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THE VAN WAS DEFENDANT’S WORK VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined that the police officer did not have probable cause to search the van where the weapon was found. The defendant was sitting in the passenger seat smoking a cigar when the officer approached and removed him from the van, apparently because the officer thought defendant was smoking marijuana. At the time the officer searched the van, he know defendant was smoking a cigar. Although defendant was sitting in the passenger seat, there was no evidence to contradict his claim that the van was his work vehicle. Contrary to Supreme Court’s contrary finding (made sua sponte), the defendant had standing to contest the search:

The officer testified that he removed the defendant from the minivan and frisked him out of a fear for the officer’s own safety; no weapon was recovered. The officer further testified that, at that time, he realized that the two men were smoking cigars, not marijuana. Nevertheless, the officer went around the minivan to the driver’s side and opened the sliding door on that side, whereupon he observed a firearm sticking out of a bag behind the driver’s seat.

We disagree with the hearing court’s determination, sua sponte, that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the minivan. The defendant, who had told the police at the police station that the minivan was his work van, had standing to challenge the search. Although the defendant had been sitting in the front passenger seat of the minivan, no evidence was presented to contradict his statements that it was his work van. The defendant’s statements were sufficient to establish that he exercised sufficient dominion and control over the minivan to demonstrate his own legitimate expectation of privacy therein… .

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances here, where the defendant already had been removed from the minivan and no one else was in the minivan, the police lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search by opening the sliding door of the minivan, and the weapon found as a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed … . People v Dessasau, 2019 NY Slip Op 00456, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this divorce action, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion … . “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court”… . The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion and cross motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a determination of the motion and cross motion on the merits … . Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the zoning code provisions enacted by the village board of trustees, which concerned the maximum floor space and coverage on residential lots, were consistent with the village’s comprehensive plan and properly enacted. The Second Department further found that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) were met. However, the portions of the petition which sought declaratory relief and related damages should not have been summarily dismissed along with the portions which sought Article 78 relief because no demand for dismissal of the declaratory relief portions had been made:

… [I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, which sought declaratory relief and damages not in the nature of CPLR article 78 relief, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, dismissed those causes of action. “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. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Bonacker Prop., LLC v Village of E. Hampton Bd. of Trustees, 2019 NY Slip Op 00432, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK AND EXAGGERATION PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the contractor’s notice of lien was valid on its face and should not have been summarily discharged because unresolved questions of fact required trial:

“A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19 (6)” … . Pursuant to that provision, a court may summarily discharge a notice of lien where, among other things, “it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished” or the notice was not timely filed … . …

“Because the lien was timely on its face, the court was not permitted to summarily discharge it on the basis of untimeliness” … . …

Petitioners attack the character of the labor furnished, asserting that respondent’s work in July 2016 was for a water line that was not part of any contract between the parties. This assertion merely “raises a factual issue as to the relationship of the last item of work to the parties’ contract … . …

“[A]lthough Lien Law § 39 provides that a willfully exaggerated lien is void, the issue of willful or fraudulent exaggeration is one that also ordinarily must be determined at the trial of [a lien] foreclosure action”  … . Matter of Beebe v Liebel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00337, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ON ITS FACE, BUT BECAUSE THE MERITS WERE NOT ADDRESSED THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Family Court properly dismissed a petition because there was no indication that New York had jurisdiction, the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because the merits were not reached:

Upon review of the petition, Family Court, sua sponte, found that the children resided in Georgia and dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals.

In his petition, petitioner alleged that respondent is an aunt of the children who obtained temporary guardianship of them following the mother’s death and, further, that the children reside with respondent in Georgia; notably, however, he did not allege that a New York court had made a prior custody determination involving the children, nor did he allege any circumstances involving the children that would support a specific basis for jurisdiction. Thus, the petition fails to allege any facts that would provide New York with jurisdiction to make the determination in this case … and, therefore, Family Court did not err by dismissing this proceeding without a hearing … . However, inasmuch as Family Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based solely upon a review of petitioner’s sparse pro se petition and without reaching the merits, it erred in dismissing the proceeding with prejudice … . Matter of David EE. v Laquanna FF., 2019 NY Slip Op 00336, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

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