You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school bus company and board of education did not have notice that two children who allegedly injured infant plaintiff on the bus were capable of dangerous conduct:

Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise children in their charge, and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . Schools are not, however, “insurers of [the] safety [of students] . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students”… . A school bus operator owes the “very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody”… . In cases involving injury caused by the acts of fellow students, to establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision, plaintiffs must show that school authorities had “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the [alleged] dangerous conduct” … .

\Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing evidence that they had no knowledge or notice of the infant perpetrators’ dangerous conduct, as there was no record of any inappropriate conduct by them, sexual or otherwise, prior to the incident … . Champagne v Lonero Tr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03959, Second Dept 6-6-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHOOL BUSES  (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder and assault. During a high speed chase defendant fired a bullet into the car he was following. The driver, Singh, lost control and struck a trestle. One person, Arena, was killed, and Singh and another person, Weiner, were seriously injured. Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had been convicted of these crimes in 2003 and they were affirmed on appeal. But he obtained federal habeas corpus relief in 2013 and was retried in 2015.The sentencing court properly imposed a consecutive sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, which was not an inclusory concurrent count. One of the witnesses in the first trial had been deported and the court properly admitted his testimony at the second trial:

[T]he evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person. The defendant engaged in a high-speed chase, in the course of which he fired a gun at the fleeing car, causing Singh, the driver, to lose control of that car. Following the crash, the defendant exhibited no signs of remorse for the results of his recklessness, and even went so far as to express his disappointment that Weiner had survived the crash. The direct and circumstantial evidence proved that the defendant deliberately engaged in a high-speed chase and shot at Singh’s car with an utter disregard for the value of human life, and thus, was legally sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the defendant acted with depraved indifference with respect to the death of Arena and the serious injuries sustained by Singh and Weiner … . …

The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in admitting the testimony of Jose Vanderlinde from the first trial is without merit. Vanderlinde had testified at the defendant’s first trial but was deported before the second trial commenced, and was barred from re-entering the United States. Under these circumstances, the court properly admitted Vanderlinde’s testimony from the defendant’s first trial, as the prosecutor’s failure to produce the witness “was not due to indifference or a strategic preference for presenting [the witness’s] testimony in the more sheltered form of [trial] minutes rather than in the confrontational setting of a personal appearance on the stand … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/PRIOR TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a lawsuit brought by plaintiff village alleging the county did not have the power to issue parking tickets in the village, explained how to determine the appropriate statute of limitations in actions seeking a declaratory judgment:

While no period of limitation is specifically prescribed for a declaratory judgment action, the six-year catch-all limitation period of CPLR 213(1) does not necessarily apply to all such actions. Rather, in order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that the parties’ dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs … .

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is unavailable to challenge the validity of a legislative act … . However, when a challenge is directed to the procedure followed in enacting, rather than the substance of, legislation, a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 may be maintained … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s third cause of action alleged that the actions taken by the defendants in the formation of the agency were void, invalid, and illegal due to the failure of the defendants to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act … . “SEQRA challenges must be commenced within four months after the determination becomes final and binding upon the petitioner … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s … causes of action … for declaratory relief … challenging the substantive validity of the defendants’ formation of the [county parking ticket] agency and the defendants’ continuing actions with respect to the adjudication of tickets issued for violations occurring in the Village, either could not have been maintained in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … , or related to ongoing actions of the defendants, and, thus, were not barred by the four-month limitation period under CPLR 217(1). Accordingly, since the six-year statute of limitations of CPLR 213(1) applies … .  Village of Islandia v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 04025, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was judicially estopped from imposing a constructive trust on real property because he stated he had no interest in the property in prior bankruptcy proceedings:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed … . The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding … . This doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'” … . “The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts”… .

Here, the plaintiff’s contention that he had an interest in the … property based on promises that [defendant]  made to the plaintiff … is contrary to his representation to the United States Bankruptcy Court … that he had no interest in real property. Based upon the plaintiff’s representations to the Bankruptcy Court, his debts were discharged. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court that this action is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Bihn v Connelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff soccer player had assumed the risk of injury resulting from a cleat on his shoe getting stuck in a drainage grate near the soccer field. The drainage grate was deemed open and obvious:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . “This principle extends to those risks associated with the construction of the playing field and any open and obvious condition thereon”… .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred the injured plaintiff’s recovery. The evidence submitted by the defendants included, inter alia, the pretrial testimony of the infant plaintiff that his accident occurred when he ran onto the drainage grate only a few feet from the edge of the field while he was retrieving a ball that had traveled out of bounds during the game. He further conceded that in order to gain access to the field, he had to walk over the silver-colored drainage grate that surrounded the perimeter of the field. Moreover, the photographs submitted in support of the motion confirmed the open and obvious nature of the grate, and there was no evidence that the grate was concealed or defective in any manner. O’Toole v Long Is. Jr. Soccer League, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03853, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK , DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (SOCCER, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/SOCCER (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/SPORTS (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the restaurant/bar’s (Hacienda’s) motion for summary judgment in this Dram Shop Act action was properly granted. Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by Behler, was injured when the driver struck a guardrail. The driver, who was under 21, had been served alcohol at Hacienda. General Obligations Law (GOL) 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act) prohibits serving alcohol to persons under 21. The Second Department held there is a knowledge element of GOL 11-101 and Hacienda demonstrated it’s employee did not know the driver was under 21:

In 1983, the Legislature supplemented the Dram Shop Act by adding General Obligation Law § 11-100, which applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for minors. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any “person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years” … . “[L]iability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 may be imposed only on a person who knowingly causes intoxication by furnishing alcohol to (or assisting in the procurement of alcohol for) persons known or reasonably believed to be underage. While [General Obligations Law § ] 11-101 does not explicitly refer to knowledge, that same requirement must be inferred because the legislative history makes plain that section 11-100 was intended to parallel the Dram Shop Act” … . …

Hacienda established through the submission of the deposition testimony of its bartender that it did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the driver was under 21 years of age when it served alcoholic beverages to him. Ferber v Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03827, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the arbitrator’s award was irrational and violated CPLR 1209 in this no-fault insurance action. The injured child and his mother had assigned their rights to payment for health care services to the petitioner, Fast Care. Contrary to the arbitrator’s finding, arbitration was not sought by the injured child, which would have required a court order under CPLR 1209, but rather was sought by the assignee, Fast Care:

An arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding his or her power; or (4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR article 75 … . In addition, an arbitration award may be vacated “if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power”… . An arbitration award may also be vacated where it is in ” explicit conflict'” with established laws and “the strong and well-defined policy considerations’ embodied therein”… .

We agree with the Supreme Court that the arbitrator’s award was irrational and in conflict with CPLR 1209, which applies “only where an infant is a party” to an arbitration proceeding … . The infant patient was not a party to the arbitration; rather, Fast Care, as the infant’s assignee, was the party that brought the arbitration … . Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03831, Second Dept 5-30-18

​INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATION, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1209 (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATION, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the appeal as academic, determined Family Court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction in this guardianship proceeding because the child had turned 21. Mother had sought appointment as guardian in an effort to procure special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for the child:

“Generally, courts are precluded from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances'” … . Where, as here, a child who consented to the appointment of a guardian after his or her 18th birthday turns 21, the term of appointment of the guardian “expires on [the child’s] twenty-first birthday” (SCPA 1707[2]). Consequently, once the child turns 21, the court “is divested of subject matter jurisdiction, [and] cannot exercise such jurisdiction by virtue of an order nunc pro tunc” … . Thus, the guardianship petition cannot be granted at this juncture.

Furthermore, since guardianship status, which the Family Court can only grant to individuals under 21, is a condition precedent to a declaration allowing a child to seek SIJS, the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order declaring that the child is dependent on the court and making the requisite specific findings so as to enable him to petition for SIJS has also been rendered academic … . Matter of Vincenta E. V. v Alexander R. G., 2018 NY Slip Op 03849, Second Dept 5-30-18

​FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION  (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department determined plaintiff was required, pursuant to the Education Law, to file a notice of claim in an action alleging a violation of the NYS Human Rights Law:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since her complaint seeks both equitable relief and the recovery of damages, the filing of a notice of claim within three months after her claim arose was a condition precedent to the maintenance of this action against the defendants Department of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter Department of Education) and Chancellor Carmen Fariña (see Education Law 3813[1]… ). In contrast to General Municipal Law §§ 50-e(1) and 50-i(1), Education Law § 3813(1) broadly requires the filing of a notice of claim as a condition precedent to an “action . . . for any cause whatever,” which includes the plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 296). … Further, the plaintiff was not excused from the notice of claim requirement since her action does not seek to vindicate a public interest … , and does not seek judicial enforcement of a legal right derived through enactment of positive law … .

The Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiff was required to serve a notice of claim upon the defendant City of New York … . Nonetheless, since this action relates to the plaintiff’s employment with the Department of Education, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the City, which is a legal entity distinct from the Department of Education … . Seifullah v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03867, Second Dept 5-30-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant’s Facebook posts were non-actionable opinion in this defamation action. Defendant, without obtaining the required certificate, had begun to demolish a building which had been designated a landmark. Defendant posted pictures of the building with comments that the demolition was a crime, that the plaintiff was a vampire, and that plaintiff, rather than gutting the building and maintaining the facade, intended to demolish the building and put up condominiums:

The defendant established that [the] statements, which referred to the plaintiff’s actions in causing the demolition of the building as a “crime” and referred to the plaintiff as a “vampire,” constituted nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole … . …

… [T]he defendant asserted that the plaintiff had originally said that he would keep the building’s historic facade and gut the interior to convert the building into apartments. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff’s statement was “a lie” and that “[a]ll along he planned a big condo and he removed part of the metal roof and punched holes in it and failed to repair it so the elements would get in and slowly but surely destroy the building. This is known as demolition by intentional neglect.'” …

In distinguishing between statements of opinion and fact, the factors to be considered are: (1) whether the specific language at issue has a precise, readily understood meaning, (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false, and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal readers that what is stated is likely to be opinion, not fact…  Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of opinion when made in public debate where the audience may anticipate the use of rhetoric or hyperbole … . The question is not whether there is an isolated assertion of fact; rather, it is necessary to consider the writing as a whole, including its tone and apparent purpose, as well as the overall context of the publication, to determine whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff … . Stolatis v Hernandez, 2018 NY Slip Op 03868, Second Dept 5-30-18

​DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, (STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT))/HYPERBOLE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (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