You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a sex offender can petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification, notwithstanding prior petitions within a year seeking other relief:

… [T]he petition … sought a downward modification of the defendant’s risk level classification. Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2), any sex offender required to register or verify under SORA may petition annually for modification of his or her risk level classification … . As the defendant had not petitioned for a modification of his risk level classification within the prior year, he was not procedurally barred from seeking such relief in the instant petition. Therefore, upon receipt of the petition, the court should have followed the procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4) and conducted a hearing on the petition. People v Ghose, 2023 NY Slip Op 02021, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A sex offender may petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification. Such a petition is not precluded by prior petitions within a year seeking other relief under the Correction Law.

 

, , , ,

THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10 THAT ALLOWS A COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE PETITIONER, WHO HAD BEEN RELEASED TO A STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATEMENT (SIST) REGIMEN, IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this habeas corpus proceeding, determined the “provision of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11(d)(4) that directs the court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement based upon a review of the allegations in a petition for confinement and any accompanying papers does not violate that respondent’s federal or state rights to due process.” The court further determined the issue raised here might recur so the appeal was not rendered moot by the petitioner’s release “to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (… SIST):

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 permits the court to revoke a regimen of SIST upon a violation of SIST conditions and sets forth the required procedures for such a revocation … . The statute provides, as relevant here, that if a parole officer has “reasonable cause to believe” that a sex offender requiring SIST has violated a condition thereof, the offender can be taken into custody for five days for an evaluation by a psychiatric examiner, and the attorney general and the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (hereinafter MHLS) are to be promptly notified … . The attorney general may then file a petition for confinement within five days after the offender is taken into custody, which petition must be served promptly on MHLS, and counsel must be appointed for the offender … . If a petition for confinement is filed, “the court shall promptly review the petition and, based on the allegations in the petition and any accompanying papers, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the [offender] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” … . There is no provision permitting the offender an opportunity to be heard prior to the probable cause determination. Once the probable cause determination is made, the offender may be retained pending the conclusion of the proceeding … . “Within thirty days after a petition for confinement is filed . . . , the court shall conduct a hearing” to make a final determination, but the failure to commence the hearing within that time period does not result in dismissal of the petition or “affect the validity of the hearing or the determination” … . People ex rel. Neville v Toulon, 2023 NY Slip Op 02015, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point; The provision of Mental Hygiene Law section 10 that allows a court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe petitioner, who had been released to a SIST regimen, is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is not unconstitutional.

Practice Point: Although at the time of this appeal in this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner had been released to a SIST regimen, the issue is likely to recur so the “exception to the mootness doctrine” doctrine was invoked.

 

,

THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD COMPLIED WITH THE “HARD LOOK” REQUIREMENTS OF SEQRA AND PROPERLY GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town planning board complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and properly considered the criteria for a special use permit when it approved a project:

… [T]he Planning Board identified groundwater resources, noise, and scenic resources as relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its negative determination of significance. * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that the Planning Board complied with Zoning Code § 143-117(A)(6) and (9), which required it to assess the “[a]dequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities,” and to provide the protection of “neighboring properties against noise, glare, unsightliness or other objectionable features.”

Lastly, “[a] use permitted by a special use permit is a use that has been found by the local legislative body to be appropriate for the zoning district and ‘in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . Although the Planning Board “‘does not have the authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'” … , “[t]he permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law” … . Matter of Tampone v Town of Red Hook Planning Bd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02011, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: The Second Department explained the judicial-review criteria for a town planning board’s negative declaration under SEQRA and a town planning board’s compliance with the zoning code and special-use-permit requirements.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION; THEREFORE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner should not have been granted leave to serve a late notice of claim in this false imprisonment/malicious prosecution action because petitioner did not demonstrate the municipality had timely notice of the potential lawsuit:

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claims within 90 day after the claims arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . Moreover, the petitioner’s ignorance of the law was not a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Finally, the petitioner failed to come forward with “some evidence or plausible argument” that the respondents will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense … . The conclusory assertion of the petitioner’s counsel in an affirmation in support of the petition that the respondents were “not prejudiced in any manner by this delay” was inadequate to satisfy the petitioner’s minimal initial burden with respect to this factor … . Matter of Pil-Yong Yoo v County of Suffolk, 2023 NY Slip Op 02008, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the petitioner did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution causes of action. Therefore petitioner should not have been granted leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

, ,

THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer, GEICO, should not have been granted a stay of arbitration in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute with its insured, Eser. GEICO did not explain its failure to timely request a physical exam and an examination under oath (EUO):

GEICO had ample time after being notified of Eser’s claim to seek a medical examination and an examination under oath, but failed to do so. Moreover, it denied the claim, apparently concluding that the medical records were sufficient to determine that Eser did not sustain a serious injury. GEICO offered no excuse for its failure to request a physical examination and an examination under oath. Instead, GEICO represented to the Supreme Court that it had requested the examinations, pointing to [three letters]. Contrary to GEICO’s assertion, however, it did not request examinations in those letters, but, rather, merely advised Eser that if it ultimately determined that the other vehicle was uninsured, it “may require [her] to submit to physical examinations and/or Examination(s) Under Oath” … . Since GEICO had ample time to seek this discovery of Eser, but unjustifiably failed to do so, it was not entitled to a stay of arbitration in order to conduct the examinations … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Eser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01999, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the insurer in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute had ample time to request that the insured undergo a physical exam and an examination under oath and did not explain its failure to do so. The stay of arbitration should not have been granted.

 

,

FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s access to the child should not have been conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment:

“A court deciding a custody proceeding may direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] or custody order” … . However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights … . Here, the Family Court erred in conditioning the filing of any future parental access petitions by the father upon his completion of a parenting class, and we modify the order … , so as to eliminate that condition … . Matter of Coley v Steiz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01995, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: In a custody proceeding, father’s parental access should not be conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment.

 

,

​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this dispute among brothers about the father’s estate did not have the authority to act on behalf of the estate or to sue as beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore the action should have been dismissed:

“It is elementary that the executors or administrators represent the legatees, creditors and distributees in the administration of the estate; that their duty is to recover the property of the estate; and that the legatees and next of kin are concluded by their determination in respect to actions therefor and have no independent cause of action, either in their own right or the right of the estate” … . Here, the plaintiffs did not purport to commence this action as personal representatives of the decedent’s estate. The plaintiffs lacked “letters of administration authorizing [them] to act at the key points when this action was commenced and an amended complaint . . . was served” … . Absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here, a beneficiary has no authority to act on behalf of an estate or to exercise a fiduciary’s rights with respect to estate property … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action in the amended complaint asserted by the plaintiffs in their derivative capacity on behalf of the decedent’s estate, as well as the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity as beneficiaries of the estate to recover assets of the estate … . Levy v Levy, 2023 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Absent the authority to act on behalf of an estate, the beneficiaries cannot sue each other claiming rights to estate assets.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel failed to provide “meaningful representation” … , as he “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , essentially declining to take any position on the matter. People v Motta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01908, Second Dept, 4-12-23

Practice Point: A defense attorney who fails to take a position in the SORA risk-assessment proceedings does not provide effective assistance of counsel.

 

,

IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the declaratory judgment causes action should not have been dismissed because the motion for summary judgment did not seek that relief. Summary judgment on the CPLR Article 78 causes of action was properly granted, however:

“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 which seek to recover damages and 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” … .

Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court erred in summarily disposing of the petitioner/plaintiff’s third through eighth causes of action. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for further proceedings on those causes of action … . Matter of Kelly v Farmingdale State Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 01895, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: In a hybrid Article 78 and declaratory judgment/damages action, a motion for summary judgment must be made for both. Here the motion only concerned the Article 78 causes of action so the court should not have summarily disposed of the declaratory judgment/damages causes of action.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene by Poloncarz was properly denied because the proposed answer was not included with the motion papers. but because Poloncarz made a showing warranting intervention, the motion should have been denied with leave to renew:

“A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made under CPLR 1012 or 1013, must include the proposed intervenor’s . . . complaint or answer (CPLR 1014)” … . “The court has no power to grant leave to intervene where, as here, the prospective intervenor[ ] did not include in [his] motion papers ‘a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought'” … . Here, Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive, failed to include his proposed answer in his motion papers. Nevertheless, he made a threshold showing that his defense and the Nassau action have a common question of law and fact, that he has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and that intervention will not unduly delay the determination of the Nassau action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party … . Accordingly, although the Supreme Court was “without the power to grant such relief inasmuch as [Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive,] has failed to comply with CPLR 1014,” the court should have denied the motion with leave to renew that branch of the motion which was for leave to intervene in the Nassau action on proper papers … . Landa v Poloncarz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01891, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: A court cannot grant a motion to intervene if the proposed complaint or answer is not submitted with the motion papers. Here, because a threshold showing intervention was appropriate was made, the denial should have been “with leave to renew.”

 

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