You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he is eligible for judicial diversion, i.e., alcohol or substance abuse treatment as an element of sentencing:

… “[A]ppellate review of the defendant’s claim that his application for judicial diversion was improperly denied is not foreclosed by his plea of guilty” … .

Pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a), upon receipt of a completed alcohol and substance abuse evaluation report … either the People or an “eligible defendant” … , may request a hearing on the issue of whether the eligible defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … .

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion without first conducting a hearing pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(a) on the issue of whether the defendant should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment. It is undisputed that the defendant is an “eligible defendant” as defined in CPL 216.00(1), and that an “alcohol and substance abuse evaluation” as defined in CPL 216.00(2) was completed. Based upon the conclusions contained in that evaluation, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a hearing on the issue of whether he should be offered alcohol or substance abuse treatment … . People v Commissiong, 2021 NY Slip Op 03193, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, ,

MANDAMUS PETITION TO COMPEL JUDGES TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER DECIDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REARGUE HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted the petition to compel judges to issue a written order denying petitioner’s motion to reargue a motion to vacate his conviction:

Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to a written order determining his motion for leave to reargue his prior motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, in the action entitled People v Cruz … and mandamus properly lies to compel the respondents to issue that written order, as well as an order determining the petitioner’s motion to reargue the “bench decision” … . Matter of Cruz v D’Emic, 2021 NY Slip Op 03175, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on an affidavit of James Green, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo, who averred that, based on his review of Wells Fargo’s business records, the required notice was sent by both certified mail and first-class mail. Green attached evidence of a certified article number, but did not attach any evidence of a first-class mailing. He did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the mailing, did not describe any standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices are mailed, and did not attach domestic return receipts for the mailing … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ezeji, 2021 NY Slip Op 03164, Second Dept 5-19-2021

 

, ,

APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant’s motion to intervene in this foreclosure action should have been granted:

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant Kathleen O. Nocella. Nocella defaulted in appearing in the action. During the pendency of the action, nonparty Henry Irving, LLC (hereinafter the appellant), acquired title to the subject property. In September 2017, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference. The appellant cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the action. …

The appellant was entitled to intervene as of right pursuant to CPLR 1012(a) since it established that the representation of its interest by the parties would be inadequate, that the action involved the disposition of title to real property, and that it would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 1012[a][2], [3]; 6501 …). Contrary to the court’s determination, neither the fact that the appellant obtained its interest in the subject property after this action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed, nor the fact that the defendants defaulted in answering or appearing, definitively bars intervention … . Moreover, since the appellant’s cross motion, inter alia, for leave to intervene was made before an order of reference or judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the timing of the cross motion … . Bank of Am., NA v Nocella, 2021 NY Slip Op 03159, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

IN A COMPLEX MARITAL-PROPERTY, MAINTENANCE AND CHILD-SUPPORT ANALYSIS TOO DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE TO SUMMARIZE HERE, THE COURT NOTED THAT, ABSENT A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, A PARENT MAY NOT BE DIRECTED TO SUPPORT A CHILD AFTER THE AGE OF 21 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive marital-property, maintenance and child-support decision too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here, noted that a parent is not obligated to support a child over the age of 21:

The defendant … contends that the Supreme Court improperly directed him to pay basic child-support and add-on expenses for the child after she reaches the age of 21. A parent has no legal obligation to provide for or contribute to the support of a child over the age of 21 … . “In the absence of a voluntary agreement, a parent may not be directed to pay support or to contribute to the college education of a child who has attained the age of 21 years, and has no obligation to continue the support of a child after the child reaches the age of 21 years” … . Here, there was no voluntary agreement, and accordingly, the court should not have directed the defendant to pay basic child support and add-on expenses for the child after she reaches the age of 21. Sinnott v Sinnott, 2021 NY Slip Op 03073, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

,

THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress testimony about an encounter with police was properly denied. Although the police acted illegally in directing defendant to get out of his car and in trying to physically remove defendant from his car, the subsequent criminal act by the defendant, running over the police officer, dissipated the taint of the illegal police conduct:

“Where, like here, a vehicle is lawfully parked on the street and neither it nor its occupant is under any restraint, and the police have no grounds to suspect the occupant of criminality at that point, requesting the occupant to step out of the vehicle creates a new, unauthorized restraint” … . …

“Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, ‘[t]he question to be resolved when it is claimed that evidence subsequently obtained is ‘tainted’ or is ‘fruit’ of a prior illegality is whether the challenged evidence was [obtained] ‘by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint'” … . When determining whether an action taken by a defendant following an impermissible seizure dissipated the taint of the illegality, “[t]he test to be applied is whether defendant’s action . . . was spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality or whether it was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … .

Here, the defendant’s action in running over Officer Manzella’s legs and ankles with the vehicle constituted a calculated, independent criminal act, which broke the chain of events and dissipated the taint of the initial unlawful police conduct … . People v Contreras, 2021 NY Slip Op 03048, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

,

THE USUAL STRICT CRITERIA FOR VACATING A DEFAULT ORDER ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER AWARDING CUSTODY TO FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to vacate the default order granting custody to father should have been granted. The usual strict criteria for a default order are relaxed in child custody matters:

The determination of whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court … . “A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense” … . However, “the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings,” and thus the “general rule with respect to opening defaults in civil actions is not to be rigorously applied to cases involving child custody” … . Matter of Williams v Worthington, 2021 NY Slip Op 03040, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

,

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION HAD TERMINATED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Florida, which issued the child support order and where father resides, continued to have jurisdiction over the child support order, even though the child support obligation had terminated. Therefore the New York child support order was not a “de novo” order. Rather, it was a modification of the Florida order over which New York did not have jurisdiction:

After relocating to New York, the daughter applied for and began receiving public assistance in Nassau County. In July 2019, the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) filed the instant petition for support on behalf of the daughter. At a hearing on the petition before a support magistrate, the father moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter UIFSA), arguing that Florida retained exclusive jurisdiction over his child support obligation to the daughter, and that under Florida law, his obligation to support the daughter ceased when she turned 18. The Support Magistrate denied the motion, finding that the subject application was not seeking to modify the father’s existing child support obligation in Florida, but, instead, was a de novo application for support. …

“Under the [Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act] and UIFSA, the state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its child support orders so long as an individual contestant continues to reside in the issuing state” ( … cf. Family Ct Act § 580-205). “Accordingly, a state may modify the issuing state’s order of child support only when the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” … . …

Since the father still resides in Florida, that state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support order, despite the termination of his obligations under that order, and New York does not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify that order … . Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Ablog, 2021 NY Slip Op 03035, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

,

FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FATHER ATTEMPTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT WAS LATE; FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT NONE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED; AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT ABANDON THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s motion to vacate the default order terminating his parental rights should have been granted. Father had appeared on the day of the hearing but it had concluded. In addition father was entitled to counsel and there was evidence father had not abandoned the child:

A parent seeking to vacate an order entered upon their default in a termination of parental rights proceeding must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the relief sought in the petition (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …).

Here, the father presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely appear at the May 28, 2019 fact-finding hearing. The father did in fact appear in court on the hearing date, but the proceedings had already concluded. This was the father’s first appearance in the proceeding, and there is no indication that the father was notified by the Family Court or counsel of the hearing … . Indeed, the father was unrepresented by counsel at that time, and claims that he was not offered assigned counsel on May 28, 2019. The father had a right to the assistance of counsel in this proceeding, in which he faced a potential termination of his parental rights … . Parental rights may not be curtailed without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which includes the assistance of counsel … .

… Social Services Law § 384-b(5)(a) provides that “a child is ‘abandoned’ by his parent if such parent evinces an intent to forego his or her parental rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure to visit the child and communicate with the child or agency, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency.” Abandonment must be proven by clear and convincing evidence … . Termination of parental rights is authorized by Social Services Law § 384-b(4)(b) when the parent abandoned the child for a period of six months immediately prior to the date of the filing of the petition. Here, the father’s allegations regarding his attempts to contact the agency and visit with the child potentially extend into the relevant six-month period prior to the October 2018 petition. Matter of Jonathan N., Jr. (Jonathan N., Sr.), 2021 NY Slip Op 03034, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have made findings which would allow the subject child to apply for special immigrant juvenile states (SIJS);

The Family Court erred in failing to make the specific finding that reunification with the father is not viable due to abandonment. Based upon our independent factual review, the record supports the requisite finding that reunification with the child’s father is not viable due to parental abandonment … . The record demonstrates that even though the child’s father knew where he lived, the father never visited him. The child has never met his father, his father has never supported him and has never sent gifts or cards, and his father’s whereabouts are unknown.

Moreover, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned to Nicaragua, his previous country of nationality and last habitual residence, as there is no one to care for him or protect him in that country … . The record reflects that it would not be in the child’s best interests to return to Nicaragua as he would be separated from his mother who has consistently cared for and supported him. In Nicaragua, there is no one who can care for him or support him; as previously set forth, his father has abandoned him. The child’s maternal grandparents, with whom he lived after his mother left Nicaragua, are elderly and began to struggle to care for him and protect him. Moreover, the child faces harm from gang violence in Nicaragua, having been threatened by gang members and been kidnapped by them once for approximately eight days. Matter of Rosa M. M.-G. v Dimas A., 2021 NY Slip Op 03033, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

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