You are here: / Judges
, ,

IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STATED THE WIFE’S INCOME WAS WELL BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL YET SHE WAIVED SPOUSAL SUPPORT; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 5-311 MAY, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN VIOLATED; ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT AS A WHOLE WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE WAIVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined a portion of the settlement agreement may violate the General Municipal Law and sent the matter back for further inquiry by the judge. The wife’s income is well below the federal poverty guidelines yet she waived spousal support:

General Obligations Law § 5-311 prohibits spouses from contracting to dissolve a marriage and “relieve either of his or her liability to support the other in such a manner that he or she will become incapable of self-support and therefore is likely to become a public charge …”. * * *

… [A]rticle four of the settlement agreement, concerning spousal support, sets forth the wife’s income as $11,446, which is well below the applicable federal 2020 poverty guidelines … . As such, there is a question as to whether this provision is in violation of General Obligations Law § 5-311 in that the wife “is likely to become a public charge.” Because of this, we find that Supreme Court erred when it failed to make an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the wife’s waiver of spousal support … .Majid v Hasson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01035, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: The settlement agreement in this divorce action was not unconscionable, but a provision may violate the General Municipal Law which prohibits agreeing to a level of support which will result in the wife becoming a public charge. The wife’s income is well below the federal poverty level, yet she waived spousal support. The matter was sent back for judicial inquiry into the waiver.

, ,

COVID STIMULUS PAYMENTS WERE ADVANCE TAX REFUNDS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, NOT PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO MOTHER AS CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds constituting marital property subject to equitable distribution in this divorce/family offense proceeding. Family Court had ordered father to turn over the stimulus payments to mother as temporary child support:

… [F]ather argues that the federal stimulus payments are subject to equitable distribution and, therefore, Family Court did not have jurisdiction to direct him to remit them to the mother. We agree. “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … . In response to the global pandemic, Congress enacted several economic stimulus payments which created advance refunds of tax credits. As relevant here, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) … provided eligible individuals an “advance refund amount” of the applicable tax credit of $500 for each qualifying child … . Thereafter, eligible individuals were entitled to an additional “advance refund” of the applicable tax credit of $600 for each qualifying child under the Tax Relief Act of 2020 … .

… [T]hese federal stimulus payments were not paid “for the benefit of the minor children,” but they were the parties’ advance refund for a tax credit earned pursuant to their last tax return, which was jointly filed, and which was partially measured by the number of children the tax filers had listed as dependents … . Generally, a tax refund is marital property and subject to equitable distribution by Supreme Court … . Although, within the context of a family offense petition, Family Court may issue an order for temporary child support (see Family Ct Act § 828 [4]), and there could be appropriate circumstances where a party’s tax refund may be seized to satisfy child support obligations … , those circumstances are not present here. Matter of Josefina O. v Francisco P., 2023 NY Slip Op 01031, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: COVID stimulus payments were advance tax refunds subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding which should not have been awarded to mother as child support.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD BEFORE DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION FOR IN-PERSON PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the denial of mother’s petition for in-person parental access was not supported by the record, in part because the judge did not conduct an in camera interview with the child:

The Family Court’s determination, in effect, denying that branch of the mother’s petition which was for in-person parental access lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. “The decision to conduct an in camera interview to determine the best interests of the child is within the discretion of the hearing court” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to conduct an in camera interview of the child, particularly given the mother’s testimony that the child’s fear of visiting her in person was due to outside influence … . The child is of such an age and maturity that his preferences are necessary to create a sufficient record to determine his best interests … . Matter of Badal v Wilkinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 00997, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court should have conducted an in-person interview with the child before denying mother’s petition for in-person parental access. The failure to conduct the interview was deemed an abuse of discretion.

, ,

WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined that where one action is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss as time-barred, it is an abuse of discretion for a judge to grant a motion to consolidate that action with another which is timely:

… [B]oth actions are to foreclose on the same mortgage securing the same debt owed by the same defendant. However, in our view, a precondition for merging two or more actions is that each action should itself be viable, meaning that neither is confronted with a pending—and apparently meritorious—motion to dismiss. Once the defendant here met her burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the 2017 action had expired, it became the plaintiff’s burden to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period. The plaintiff could not meet that shifted burden by merely asserting that the 2017 action will become timely once it is merged with the timely 2008 action. The purpose of consolidation under CPLR 602(a) is not to provide a party with a procedural end run around a legal defense applicable to one of the actions. In our opinion, in such instances, judicial discretion should not be used to cure the untimeliness of one action by tethering it to a related timely action. We hold, as an issue of apparent first impression that, in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting consolidation and that, in general, consolidation should be denied where one of the cases to be consolidated is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss…. . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Francis, 2023 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here there were two related foreclosure actions. One was subject to dismissal as time-barred and the other was timely. The two should not be consolidated as an end-run around the statute of limitations.

 

, , , , ,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the defendant estate in this traffic accident case. Defense counsel represented the insurance company, not the estate:

… [C]ounsel’s affirmation stated that he “was retained by Truck Insurance Exchange to represent the interests of their insured Arthur Ketterer herein.” Under these circumstances, moving counsel lacked authority to represent the defendant estate … . …

In appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint a temporary administrator, in order to “avoid delay and prejudice in a pending action” … . Such a determination is addressed to the broad discretion of the court … . Here, a Surrogate’s Court decree appointed the Public Administrator to represent the estate of Arthur C. Ketterer in a related prior action. That decree did not expressly grant to the Public Administrator the authority to represent the defendant estate in this action. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s cross-motion should have been granted, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a temporary administrator to represent the defendant in the instant action … . Franco v Estate of Arthur C. Ketterer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00988, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, defense counsel represented the insurer, not the defendant estate. Therefore Supreme Court had the authority, upon plaintiff’s motion, to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the estate.

 

, , ,

A JUDGE HAS DISCRETION TO DENY A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE VIABLE; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, STATED A VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in a case related to Aleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc.,2023 NY Slip Op 00975, Second Dept 2-22-23 (also summarized in the Digest), determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment in this action to set aside a deed as forged should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff correctly contends that the motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Rutland was timely filed. The plaintiff served Rutland with the summons and complaint on March 25, 2019, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 via service on the Secretary of State. Rutland defaulted by failing to appear or answer the complaint within 30 days (see CPLR 320[a]; 3012[c]). The plaintiff would have been required to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against Rutland within one year of the default, by April 24, 2020 (see id. § 3215[c]). However, time limitations in civil actions were tolled by executive order from March 20, 2020, until November 3, 2020 … . Since the plaintiff filed the motion on October 6, 2020, it was timely.

… “A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215 must file proof of: (1) service of a copy or copies of the summons and the complaint, (2) the facts constituting the claim, and (3) the defendant’s default” (…See CPLR 3215[f]). “[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . However, “‘a court does not have a mandatory, ministerial duty to grant a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, and retains the discretionary obligation to determine whether the movant has met the burden of stating a viable cause of action'” … .

… [Plaintiff’s] submissions, including her affidavit in which she denied signing the deed and other documents related to the transfer of the property, were sufficient to demonstrate that her causes of action, insofar as asserted against Rutland, were viable … . Alleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00976,Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: A judge has the discretion to deny a motion for a default judgment if the plaintiff has not demonstrated the action was viable. Here the allegations in the complaint, which are deemed admitted by the failure to answer, stated a viable cause of action and the default judgment should have been awarded.

 

, ,

AN “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT HAS DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAN A “GOOD CAUSE” EXTENSION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for more time to serve the defendant in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The different criteria for an “interest of justice” versus a “good cause” request for an extension is explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service” … . “[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . Under the interest of justice standard, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant” … .

… The plaintiff demonstrated that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was believed by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action but was subsequently found to be defective, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the extension of time would not prejudice the defendant as the defendant had actual notice of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boakye-Yiadom, 2023 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: An “interest of justice” extension of time to serve a defendant has different criteria than a “good cause” extension. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action should have been allowed to amend the answer:

… Supreme Court … should not have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert an affirmative defense alleging lack of compliance with the condition precedent in the mortgage agreement requiring a notice of default. In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …). Lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment … . “‘It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . Moreover, although a defense is generally waived under CPLR 3211(e) where not raised in an answer or made the subject of a motion to dismiss, it can be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd. v Berquin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01025, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The court can grant a defendant leave to amend an answer where the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the ground which is the subject of the amendment. In other words, if the defendant fails to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss and the initial answer does not include the affirmative defense which could have been the basis of a motion to dismiss, the defendant gets another chance in an amendment of the answer by leave of court.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting summary judgment to defendant in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that the return date had been mistakenly calendared as the date for the submission of opposition papers:

In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion … . Here, the plaintiff’s excuse of law office failure was reasonable … , and she also demonstrated that she had a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including that the scheduling error by counsel for the plaintiff was brief, isolated, and unintentional, with no evidence of wilful neglect … , and considering the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits … , the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the … order … . Valesquez v Landino, 2023 NY Slip Op 01023, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s counsel offered a reasonable excuse for missing the date for submission of opposition papers. Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order.

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined the judge should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when father commenced custody proceedings in Texas:

Family Court improperly relinquished emergency jurisdiction for three reasons. First, there is no evidence in this record, and Family Court’s order fails to state any basis for finding, that the Texas court had “home state” jurisdiction, since the child had not resided there for six months immediately preceding commencement of the father’s Texas custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-a[7]; 76[1][a]). Second, the record and Family Court’s order are also devoid of any factual basis for finding that any of the alternative jurisdictional bases applied to Texas. There is no evidence that the child at that time had a “significant connection” with Texas or that “substantial evidence . . . concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships” was available in Texas (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][b]). Finally, given the allegations in the neglect petition and the fact that Family Court had been informed … that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services would not investigate whether the father was a danger to the child because the mother and child resided in New York, Family Court should not have relinquished emergency jurisdiction “in the absence of any orders from the Texas court safeguarding the child[]” … .

Moreover, it is not clear whether New York might have had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(b), given that the child had not lived in Texas for the preceding six months, had lived in New York with his mother when the father filed his Texas custody petition, and was receiving medical care, attending daycare, and receiving services through ACS here. Accordingly, Family Court should not have denied the mother’s motion without first holding a hearing. Matter of Nathaniel H. (Nathaniel H.–Dayalyn G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00927, First Dept 2-16-23

Practice Point: The judge in this neglect proceeding should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction upon learning of father’s custody proceeding in Texas. Findings of fact required by the Domestic Relations Law were not made and there was no assurance the Texas court would safeguard the child.

 

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