You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not submit admissible proof that defendant was in default. The evidence did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that a nonparty’s motion to intervene was properly denied as untimely and the Judiciary Law 489 affirmative defense was properly struck. Judiciary Law 489 prohibits buying another’s debt for the purpose of bringing a court action, but debts exceeding $500,000 are exempt. The debts purchased here exceeded $500,000:

The determination to deny Fulton Holdings’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was a provident exercise of discretion. “Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion” … . Here, Fulton Holdings’ motion was not timely, as it was not made until approximately 14 months after Fulton Holdings had notice that the foreclosure action was pending … . …

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence of default in admissible form. To evince the mortgagor’s default, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Igor Fleyshmakher, the plaintiff’s managing member, and Frank Quintana, the president of 179 Court Street Holding Corp. (hereinafter 179 Court), a prior holder of the mortgage. Fleyshmakher and Quintana both attested to the date of the last payment allegedly received on the mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, of any records relied upon by Fleyshmakher and Quintana (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana laid a foundation for, or even identified, the records upon which they relied. Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor 179 Court acquired its interest in the mortgage until after the alleged default date. Thus, neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana could have established the loan’s payment history up to and including the date of default by relying on their respective employers’ records. Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana asserted that they consulted or relied on the records of 179 Court’s predecessor-in-interest. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the mortgagor’s default … . Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 07096, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (JUDICIARY LAW 489, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY 489 FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department held that a hearing was necessary to determine whether the maternal grandparents had standing to seek visitation and whether such visitation would be in the child’s best interests. Family Court, based on prior proceedings that were not part of the record, had found that the maternal grandparents had standing but visitation would not be in the best interests of the child:

A grandparent may establish a statutory right to visitation where “circumstances show that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene” … . To determine whether visitation is appropriate, a court must first decide whether the grandparent has standing to seek visitation before deciding whether visitation is in the child’s best interests … . Standing is established where the grandparent demonstrates that there is “a sufficient existing relationship with the[] grandchild . . . [or] a sufficient effort to establish one, so that the court perceives it as one deserving the court’s intervention”… . The sufficiency of the grandparent’s efforts in this regard “must always be measured against what [he or she] could reasonably have done under the circumstances” … . If standing is established, the court’s best interests determination “requires evaluation of a variety of factors, including the nature and extent of the existing relationship between the grandparent and child, the basis and reasonableness of the parent’s objections, the grandparent’s nurturing skills and attitude toward the parent[], the attorney for the child’s assessment and the child’s wishes” … . Matter of Ferguson v Weaver, 2018 NY Slip Op 07005, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION,  FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Where, as here, the note has been endorsed in blank, the purported holder of the note must establish its standing by demonstrating that the original note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2]…). The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing through the affidavit of Jonathan Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., the purported servicing agent for the plaintiff. Manko averred that he reviewed all of the documents attached to his affidavit and “authenticate[d] them as coming directly from the loan file at issue herein and kept in the ordinary course of business.” Manko averred that this action was commenced on December 30, 2010, and at that time, the plaintiff was in possession of the original note and mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Manko relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., did not attest that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Selig, 2018 NY Slip Op 06874, Second Dept 10-17-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s application to impose sanctions against defendant’s attorney for frivolous conduct should have have been granted:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application to impose sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and expenses against the defendant’s attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Although “[a]n agreement between spouses or prospective spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability” … , the defendant, through her attorney, moved to set aside the prenuptial agreement contending, in effect, that there had been a novation such that the prenuptial agreement had been replaced by the affidavit of support. The defendant’s attorney provided no legal authority supporting this contention. Even though the court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, to preclude the defendant from seeking to set aside the parties’ prenuptial agreement, the defendant’s attorney later attempted, at the nonjury trial, to question the plaintiff about the affidavit of support, arguing, in effect, that the affidavit of support replaced the prenuptial agreement. The defense then rested without presenting evidence.

The conduct of the defendant’s attorney was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). The defendant’s attorney continued to advance his contention relating to the affidavit of support, which was completely without merit in law, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s prior ruling. Moreover, that contention could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and the conduct of the defendant’s attorney appears to have been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation … . Tamburello v Tamburello, 2018 NY Slip Op 06961, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, SANCTIONS, PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the voluntary support and legal-obligations payments made by husband to wife should have been credited against the arrears owed by him:

Voluntary payments made for the support and legal obligations of a spouse should be applied as a credit to the calculation of arrears owed by the payor spouse… . When the payor spouse relieves the other spouse from paying obligations for which the other spouse would be responsible, such payments must be considered as satisfying, in whole or part, maintenance and/or child support … . Here, the defendant is entitled to credits against his maintenance obligation as established in the judgment of divorce with regard to the plaintiff’s share of such expenses such as mortgage, real estate taxes, and automobile insurance payments … .

We disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s voluntary payments made pursuant to the preliminary conference order, which does not specifically enumerate the payments to be made, cannot qualify as “payments of pendente lite spousal maintenance actually made pursuant to Court Order.” The preliminary conference order, as so-ordered by the Supreme Court, plainly contemplated that the defendant would continue to make voluntary payments for the benefit of the plaintiff and the parties’ children. To deny the payor spouse a credit for payments made on account of the other spouse’s expenses would not only be inequitable by providing a windfall for the benefitted spouse, but it would also discourage voluntary support payments during the pendency of matrimonial actions and likely cause a precipitous rise of pendente lite motion practice by nonmonied spouses. Just as a party who unnecessarily prolongs a matrimonial action should not be rewarded, common sense dictates that a party who avoids unnecessary motion practice and preserves assets and time by agreeing to voluntarily pay the expenses of the other party should not be punished by being denied appropriate credits therefor. Stern v Stern, 2018 NY Slip Op 06959, Second Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPORT (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTARY SUPPORT PAYMENTS (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPOUSAL SUPPORT (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the People’s request for an upward departure in this SORA risk assessment proceeding should not have been granted:

An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, a SORA court must engage in a three-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the presence of that factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart … . If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level… .

In this case, the People failed at the hearing to identify “an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . Specifically, the defendant’s abuse of trust within a family relationship is already adequately accounted for by the Guidelines … . People v Mota, 2018 NY Slip Op 06950, Second Dept 10-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed. Plaintiff had offered several different allegations about the cause of his fall. The court held plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall:

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the submission, inter alia, of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and amended bill of particulars, that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s sworn statement, submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion, that he expected the floor of the diner to be “level with the landing,” presented what appears to be a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his prior deposition testimony … . Pasqualoni v Jacklou Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06928, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT)

FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION REQUIRED REMOVAL OF TWO CANDIDATES FOR SUPREME COURT FROM THE BALLOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to timely file the certified minutes of the convention of the Democratic Committee for the Thirteenth Judicial District required removal of the names of two Supreme Court Justice candidates from the ballot:

Under the statutory scheme, as to nominations flowing from a judicial nominating convention, certificates of party nomination must be filed not later than the day after the last day to hold such convention, and the minutes of such convention, duly certified by the Chair and Secretary, must be filed within 72 hours after the adjournment of the convention (see Election Law § 6-158[6]). The statute requires that both documents be filed; the certificate of party nomination may not stand alone, as the certified minutes provide the necessary authentication that the convention made the nominations set forth in the certificate … .

Since no certified convention minutes have been filed, and no reason has been offered as a basis upon which such failure could be excused, we are left with no alternative but to hold that the failure to file certified convention minutes renders the attempt to nominate these candidates ineffectual, and their names must be removed from the ballot. Matter of Fuentes v Catalano, 2018 NY Slip Op 07034, Second Dept 10-18-18

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION REQUIRED REMOVAL OF TWO CANDIDATES FOR SUPREME COURT FROM THE BALLOT (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (ELECTION LAW, FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION REQUIRED REMOVAL OF TWO CANDIDATES FOR SUPREME COURT FROM THE BALLOT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) action against his employer (a demolition company) was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff fell when the roof of the building collapsed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the owner of the building was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the collapse of the roof was foreseeable:

In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be “a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . , as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the partial collapse of the roof and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the plaintiff from that hazard, were foreseeable … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was told that the roof collapsed because the beams from the third-floor ceiling had been cut constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 10-17-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, over an extensive dissent, determined that an adjudicated juvenile delinquent was not eligible for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS):

On the instant appeal, this Court is presented with the issue of whether the Family Court properly denied the renewed motion of Keanu S. (hereinafter the child) for the issuance of an order declaring that he is dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings so as to enable him to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J). Specifically, the Family Court rejected the child’s contention that he was dependent upon a juvenile court, within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i), by virtue of his placement in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York following his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent. … [W]e agree with the Family Court’s determination and conclude that such a placement does not satisfy the requirement of dependency under the statute. * * *

We hold that the child herein is not an intended beneficiary of the SIJS provisions. He was not placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services due to his status as an abused, neglected, or abandoned child. Instead, he was placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services after committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted serious crimes. His violent acts and misconduct have resulted in painful and terrible consequences to his victims. In fact, even while under probation, his encounters with the law persisted. In effect, the child attempts to utilize his wrongdoings and the resultant juvenile delinquency adjudication as a conduit or a vehicle to meet the dependency requirement for SIJS. Such a determination is in conflict with the primary intent of Congress in enacting the SIJS scheme, namely, to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned immigrant children. We cannot fathom that Congress envisioned, intended, or proposed that a child could satisfy this requirement by committing acts which, if committed by adults, would constitute crimes, so as to warrant a court’s involvement or the legal commitment to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Matter of Keanu S., 2018 NY Slip Op 06918, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS)  ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/JUVENILE DELINQUENT (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))

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