You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINES PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THAT FATHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE CUSTODY MATTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrines of judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel precluded Family Court from finding father did not have standing to seek custody of a child. Father had previously been deemed a “parent” in the context of parental access. The definition of “parent” is the same in the context of custody:

In the prior appeal, this Court expressly stated that the father had standing to proceed as Isabella’s parent under Domestic Relations Law § 70 based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . As the term “parent” has the same definition under Domestic Relations Law § 70 whether the party is seeking custody or parental access … , it is immaterial that our prior determination did not specifically mention custody when it concluded that the father had standing to seek parental access with Isabella. Since the mother is judicially estopped from arguing that the father is not Isabella’s parent under Domestic Relations Law § 70, the father was free to seek custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70 as Isabella’s “parent with coequal rights” to the mother … . Matter of Paese v Paese, 2019 NY Slip Op 06090, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, TO DETERMINE NEW YORK HAD BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MOTHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judges should not have dismissed mother’s petition to modify custody solely on the basis of statements made by a caseworker and the attorney for the child indicating the child lived in New Jersey. The Second Department further found that Family Court did not adequately inform mother of the rights she was giving up by representing herself:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, a court of this state which has made an initial custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that determination until it finds that it should relinquish that jurisdiction because “neither the child” nor “the child and one parent” have a “significant connection” with New York, and “substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a] …).

Here, it is undisputed that the initial custody determination was rendered in New York. Nothing on the record before the Family Court established that it had been divested of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1). * * *

Moreover, the parent of any child seeking custody in any proceeding before the Family Court has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]). A party may waive that right and proceed without counsel provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel … . In order to determine whether a party has validly waived the right to counsel, a court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . A waiver is valid where the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel … . Here, the Family Court did not conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry to ensure that the mother’s waiver of her right to counsel was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made … . Matter of Means v Miller, 2019 NY Slip Op 06088, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE/MAILING REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS, THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the Referee’s report. The plaintiff failed to submit any evidence at the hearing of compliance with the mailing requirement of CPLR 308(2) and, thus, failed to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction had been obtained over the defendants … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Puretz, 2019 NY Slip Op 05958, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s unexcused failure to appear at a scheduled conference required denial of the bank’s motion to vacate a default judgment:

Although CPLR 3215(c) was not an appropriate ground upon which to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment by moving for an order of reference within one year of the defendant’s default …, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) since the plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled October 2012 conference.

A plaintiff seeking to vacate a default in appearing at a conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] … ). Although “[t]he determination of whether an excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court” … , the defaulting party must submit evidence in admissible form establishing both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged only that the failure of its two prior attorneys to timely file the attorney affirmation in accordance with the January 2011 order caused the delay in prosecuting this action, and failed to proffer any evidentiary support therefor or any excuse for its failure to appear at the October 2012 conference. Moreover, the record reflects that the plaintiff did not take any action for almost four years to cure its default after the action was marked off the calendar. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default … , we need not reach the issue of whether it had asserted a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McClintock, 2019 NY Slip Op 06015, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF CHURCH’S OBJECTION TO THE SYNOD’S TAKING CONTROL OF A SCHOOL OPERATED BY PLAINTIFF CHURCH IS A RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY WHICH IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN STATE COURTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined three causes of action in a lawsuit brought by a church (Eltingville) against the Synod and its Bishop (stemming from the Synod’s decision to place a school owned and operated by Eltingville under its control) were not justiciable in state courts because of the constitutional separation of church and state:

… [T]he complaint challenged the Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration upon Eltingville. Such a determination could only be made upon finding that “the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such a congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration” (Synod’s Constitution § 13.24; see Religious Corporations Law § 17-c[2][a][iii]). A Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration on a local church is a nonjusticiable religious determination … . Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo, 2019 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

ALTHOUGH THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED, THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WHICH MAY HAVE GIVEN THE JURY THE IMPRESSION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the failure to include the justification defense on the verdict sheet may have led the jurors to believe they had to reconsider the justification defense for each count. The judge had correctly instructed the jurors to acquit on all counts if the justification defense applied, but the omission from the verdict sheet was enough to call the verdict into question:

Supreme Court properly instructed the jurors to consider justification as an element of each count submitted for their consideration. The court also properly instructed the jurors that they must find the defendant not guilty of all counts if they found that the People failed to disprove the defendant’s justification defense.

However, the verdict sheet did not mention justification, and instructed the jurors to “continue to” the following count if they found the defendant not guilty of count one, two, three, or four. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s instructions, taken together as a whole, may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each crime required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of the previous count based on justification … . There is now no way of knowing whether the jurors acquitted the defendant of the greater counts on the ground of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the lesser counts … . People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 06004, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been dismissed. There was conflicting evidence whether the plywood which flexed causing plaintiff to fall was over a three-foot deep hole or trench:

… [T]here was conflicting deposition testimony regarding whether the plywood was, under the circumstances, the functional equivalent of a scaffold meant to prevent the plaintiff from falling into a three-foot-deep hole or trench … . …

… [T]he regulation which plaintiff alleges was violated concerns structural runways, ramps, and platforms (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.22[b]), which is a regulation that sets forth specific standards of conduct sufficient to support a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Similar to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, the conflicting deposition testimony … raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was insufficient bracing under the plywood … . Davies v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05955, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED IN TAPE WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove that defendant possessed a razor blade partially wrapped in tape with the intent to use it unlawfully against another:

Penal Law § 265.15(4) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he possession by any person of any . . . weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.”

“The presumption of unlawful intent under Penal Law § 265.15(4), like all statutory presumptions in New York, is a permissive presumption, meaning that [it] allows, but does not require, the trier of fact to accept the presumed fact, and does not shift to the defendant the burden of proof'” … . “Before the presumption may apply, the People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the predicate fact or facts the statute requires be proved'” … . “If the People succeed in this endeavor, they are entitled to rely on the presumption, which form[s] part of the support for [their] prima facie case’ against the defendant” … . “The presumption may be rebutted by any evidence in the case; that is, evidence presented by the defendant or the People” … “Evidence rebutting the presumption will not negate the existence of a prima facie case; rather it presents an alternate set of facts, or inferences from facts, to the jury. The jury then has the right to choose between the two versions'” … . …

… [T]he People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the razor blade recovered from the defendant was “designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon” … . There was no testimony by the detectives indicating that they knew based on their experience that the primary use of this type of instrument, by virtue of being wrapped in black tape, was as a weapon, or that they attempted to ascertain from the defendant the manner in which he utilized the blade … . Furthermore, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant considered the instrument to be a weapon … . People v Rodgers, 2019 NY Slip Op 06002, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY BASED UPON DEBRIEFING GANG MEMBERS WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WERE QUALIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS, ACTED AS IMPERMISSIBLE SUMMATION WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the testimony of two police officers (qualified by the court as gang experts( about information gleaned from interviewing gang members was testimonial hearsay, in violation of Crawford, and the police experts acted as summation witnesses, in violation of Iona:

During the trial, the Supreme Court declared Detective Adam Georg an expert “in the hierarchy, practices, [and] languages of the S.N.O.W. Gang and other gangs.” Similarly, the court declared Lieutenant Robert Bracero an expert “in the history, hierarchy, practices and language of the S.N.O.W. Gang and rival gangs.” Georg testified that his knowledge of the S.N.O.W. Gang was derived from, among other things, approximately 70 to 80 debriefings of S.N.O.W. Gang members, many of whom had been arrested and were in custody at the police station or in jail. Similarly, Bracero testified that he debriefed approximately 50 S.N.O.W. Gang members after their arrests. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that Georg’s and Bracero’s testimony violated Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) by permitting the introduction into evidence of out-of-court testimonial statements made by absent witnesses who were never subjected to cross examination … , and that Georg’s testimony also ran afoul of the proscription against police experts acting as summation witnesses, in violation of People v Inoa (25 NY3d 466, 474-475). …

… .[F]or the reasons set forth in our decision and order on appeal by one of the codefendants (People v Jones, 166 AD3d 803), the testimony of Georg and Bracero violated Crawford and Inoa. Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the errors, was far from overwhelming, these errors were not harmless … . People v Campbell, 2019 NY Slip Op 05992, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING BECAUSE ESSENTIAL FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an appeal by the People, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment in the furtherance of justice should not have been granted without a hearing because the facts were in dispute. The Second Department also noted that the defendant had demonstrated good cause for bringing the motion after the 45-day deadline:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have decided the motion without conducting a hearing. CPL 210.40 authorizes the court to dismiss an indictment or any count thereof in furtherance of justice, as a matter of judicial discretion, when, after considering certain enumerated factors, the court finds “the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in injustice”… . In deciding such a motion, “a court must strike a sensitive balance between the individual and the State’ interests to determine whether the ends of justice are served by dismissal of the indictment” … . “Such a value judgment hinge[s] on the production of facts in the possession of the prosecution and the defendant'”… . CPL 210.45 requires a hearing when the facts essential to the determination of a motion made pursuant to CPL 210.40 are in dispute … . Here, since the essential facts were in dispute, the court should have conducted a hearing before making its findings of fact … . People v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 05991, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

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