You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACH OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE (RESCIND) THE STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement should not have been granted without a hearing. Plaintiff presented evidence defendants breached the stipulation raising a question whether the stipulation should be rescinded:

… [T]he plaintiff argued that the stipulation should be vacated because the defendants had “openly and willfully violated” the terms of the stipulation. In support of his position, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, his own affidavit, in which he stated that the defendants had, among other things, assaulted his wife, refused to provide him with an accounting, and had made it impossible for him to operate his plumbing business as agreed to in the stipulation by, among other things, removing and destroying equipment from his office, disconnecting his phone line, and changing locks on the property.

“As a general rule, rescission of a contract is permitted for such a breach as substantially defeats its purpose. It is not permitted for a slight, casual, or technical breach, but . . . only for such as are material and willful, or, if not willful, so substantial and fundamental as to strongly tend to defeat the object of the parties in making the contract'” … .

Under the circumstances, the factual assertions set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether the stipulation should be rescinded due to the defendants’ alleged breaches … . Young v Young, 2019 NY Slip Op 09321, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A REFERRING PHYSICIAN CAN NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN TO WHOM THE PATIENT WAS REFERRED, THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR HER OWN NEGLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONFERRING WITH THE OTHER PHYSICIAN ABOUT THEIR DIFFERENT FINDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment by one of the two doctors who examined plaintiff (Dr. Andreyko) should not have been granted:

Although a medical provider cannot be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a physician to whom a patient is referred, the referring medical provider may be held liable for his or her own independent negligent conduct that proximately causes the patient injury … …

Here, Andreyko examined the plaintiff on May 30, 2012, and noted the existence of palpable masses, “tender to palpation,” in the plaintiff’s right breast. Later that day, the plaintiff was examined by Wertkin who, though detecting thickening of the right breast, did not detect any palpable masses. Wertkin reported his findings to Andreyko who, upon reviewing them, reviewed her notes from her examination of the plaintiff but did not contact Wertkin to discuss the differences in their respective examinations. We conclude that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Andreyko, upon learning that Wertkin was unable to palpate any masses in the plaintiff’s right breast, departed from the accepted standard of care by failing to advise Wertkin that Andreyko had been able to palpate distinct masses in the plaintiff’s breast, and whether Andreyko’s failure to do so was a substantial factor in contributing to the delay in diagnosis that the plaintiff had breast cancer. Notably, Wertkin testified at his deposition that, given the plaintiff’s medical history, had he been able to locate any distinct palpable masses in the plaintiff’s breast, the standard of care would have called for a biopsy of the breast. Yanchynska v Wertkin, 2019 NY Slip Op 09320, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

JUDGES SHOULD NOT ASK A DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE IS A US CITIZEN IN PLEA PROCEEDINGS; RATHER JUDGES SHOULD INFORM ALL DEFENDANTS THE PLEA TO A FELONY MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION IF HE OR SHE IS NOT A US CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence, rejected defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed he would be deported as a consequence of the plea. There was no indication in the record that plaintiff was not a US citizen. Defendant told the court he was a citizen. And the pre-sentence report indicated defendant was a naturalized US citizen. However, the Second Department took the opportunity to instruct the courts how the citizenship issue should be handled:

… [A] trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea’s deportation consequence based on the defendant’s answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose them to deportation . This recommendation is consistent…  with the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement in Peque: “[T]o protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in New York, trial courts must now make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty pleas may expose them to deportation” … . Additionally, this recommendation is consistent with the legislature’s pronouncement in CPL 220.50(7). Although that statute, deemed to be repealed September 1, 2020, indicates, in part, that “[t]he failure to advise the defendant pursuant to this subdivision shall not be deemed to affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction, nor shall it afford a defendant any rights in a subsequent proceeding relating to such defendant’s deportation, exclusion or denial of naturalization[,]” it specifically provides, in part, that “[p]rior to accepting a defendant’s plea of guilty to a count or counts of an indictment or a superior court information charging a felony offense, the court must advise the defendant on the record, that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, the defendant’s plea of guilty and the court’s acceptance thereof may result in the defendant’s deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States”… . Moreover, giving a “short, straightforward statement” … regarding deportation will neither add significantly to the length of the plea proceeding nor encroach meaningfully on the trial court’s discretion. Whether a defendant receives the Peque warning should not depend on the defendant having to acknowledge, on the record in open court, that he or she is not a United States citizen, particularly since eliciting noncitizen status may raise, in some cases, concerns of compelled self-incrimination … . People v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 09303, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the search warrant for business computers, computer files and documents amounted to a general warrant, and the items seized should have been suppressed. The warrant was procured by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) and targeted two realty companies which were alleged to have involvement in the illegal construction and demolition of a rent-stabilized building:

The search warrant … permitted the OAG to search and seize broad categories of items relating to 1578 Union Street Realty Corporation, Dream Home Realty, and a number of other businesses allegedly controlled by the defendant through which he had conducted real estate transactions. The items permitted to be searched and seized included: corporate documents; employment records, employee lists, and employment contracts; all calendar books, appointment books, and address books; all computers, computer hard drives, and computer files stored on other media; and all bank, tax and financial records. The warrant did not name or specify any particular crime or offense to which the search was related, and did not incorporate the affidavit by reference. * * *

… [O]ther than a date restriction covering a period of approximately five years, the warrant permitted the OAG to search and seize all computers, hard drives, and computer files stored on other devices, without any guidelines, parameters, or constraints on the type of items to be viewed and seized … . As has been observed by federal courts, where the property to be searched is computer files, “the particularity requirement assumes even greater importance” … since “[t]he potential for privacy violations occasioned by an unbridled exploratory search” of such files is “enormous” … .

Additionally, as to paper documents, the warrant merely identified generic classes of items, effectively permitting the OAG to search and seize virtually all conceivable documents that would be created in the course of operating a business … . People v Melamed, 2019 NY Slip Op 09295, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined County Court should not have held defendant violated the probation condition prohibiting him from committing a new  crime because the evidence of the new crime was not presented to the court until after the close of evidence:

… [T]he defendant correctly contends that the County Court erred in finding that he violated the condition of his probation prohibiting him from committing any additional crime, offense, or violation based solely on his arrest and indictment for attempted murder. While the court would have been permitted to take judicial notice of the defendant’s subsequent indictment for attempted murder … , that evidence was presented after the close of evidence at the revocation of probation hearing. The defendant had no opportunity to be heard regarding the indictment and related documents relied upon by the court. Accordingly, the court should not have found that the defendant violated the condition of his probation based upon the commission of a new crime … . People v Herring, 2019 NY Slip Op 09287, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s (PennyMac’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough Somarriba and Carras-Gomez “stated in [their] affidavit[s] that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . Instead, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of bulk mailing, which did not identify any particular mailing, and two internal reports generated by the plaintiff, which appear to demonstrate that some unidentified pieces of mail were sent to the borrower’s address … . Additionally, no foundation was laid for the admission of these business records, as neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez attested that they had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into PennyMac’s own records or routinely relied upon by PennyMac in its business … . Finally, the plaintiff failed, alternatively, to provide proof of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, to provide proof of “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez averred that they had personal knowledge of any such standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff. PennyMac Corp. v Khan, 2019 NY Slip Op 09278, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED PLAINTIFF WIFE $25,000 AS AN INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND’S MBA DEGREE; MARITAL ASSETS WERE USED TO PROCURE THE DEGREE AND THE COST OF THE DEGREE IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR SUCH AN AWARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff wife in this divorce action should not have been awarded $25,000 for her interest in her husband’s MBA degree:

At the time that this action was commenced, an academic degree earned during a marriage constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution ( … cf. Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d][7]). The value of a degree is measured by the present value of the enhanced earning capacity which it affords the holder … . The nontitled spouse is required to establish the value of the enhanced earning capacity and demonstrate that the nontitled spouse made a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the degree … . Here, the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $25,000, not based on the value of the defendant’s enhanced earning capacity, but rather on its determination of the cost of the acquisition of the MBA degree. The utilization of marital funds for the acquisition of the defendant’s MBA degree was a choice made by the parties during the course of the marriage that should not be second-guessed once the marriage has ended … . Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish the actual value of the defendant’s enhanced earning capacity … , and the court declined to award the defendant any distribution of the plaintiff’s master’s degree, which was also earned during the marriage. Accordingly, we modify the judgment by deleting the provision awarding the plaintiff $25,000 as and for her interest in the defendant’s MBA degree. Ospina-Cherner v Cherner, 2019 NY Slip Op 09276, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for sole custody should not have been granted absent a full hearing:

By “Agreed Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship” (hereinafter the Texas custody order) dated October 4, 2016, which was so-ordered by the District Court, Harris County, Texas, the parties agreed to be appointed “Joint Managing Conservators” of their child, and the father was granted the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within Westchester County, New York, or any contiguous county.

Less than two months later, on November 16, 2016, the father filed a petition in the Family Court, Westchester County, to modify the Texas custody order, inter alia, so as to award him sole custody of the child. The mother opposed the petition. Over 21 months, the parties made eight formal appearances in Family Court in connection with the father’s petition. The court never conducted an evidentiary hearing on the father’s petition, with the exception of taking the partial testimony of one nonparty witness. By order dated September 25, 2018, over the mother’s objection and request for an evidentiary hearing, the court, inter alia, granted the father’s petition to the extent of awarding him sole legal custody of the child. The mother appeals. We reverse.

Custody determinations should ” [g]enerally’ be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'”  … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . Here, the record does not demonstrate the absence of unresolved factual issues so as to render a custody hearing unnecessary … . Matter of Salvi v Salvi, 2019 NY Slip Op 09272, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE PLEADINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a declaratory judgment should not have been granted because declaratory relief was not in the pleadings:

… Supreme Court should have denied the … motion for a declaration that the contract and its amendments are null and void, because that declaratory relief was not demanded in the pleadings filed in this proceeding (see CPLR 3017[b] …). Matter of Mount Olive Baptist Church of Manhasset, 2019 NY Slip Op 09270, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child should not have been removed for the mother’s care because there was not showing of an imminent threat to the child’s life or health:

Upon a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, “temporary removal is only authorized where the court finds it necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . “In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'”  … . “Imminent danger, however, must be near or impending, not merely possible” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the child would be subjected to imminent risk if he were not removed from the mother’s custody pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding … . The Family Court’s concerns about, inter alia, whether the mother would keep in contact with the petitioner or return to court for continued proceedings did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. Matter of Cameron L. (Ashley L.), 2019 NY Slip Op 09268, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

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