You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner’s car collided with a car, driven by Cedeno, when Cedeno crossed into on-coming traffic after running over a half-open manhole and losing control. Cedeno had served a timely notice of claim upon the city. The Second Department determined the city had timely notice of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim:

While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative … , whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance … . The public corporation must have “knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim,” and not merely some general knowledge that a wrong has been committed … . A petitioner’s lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors … .

The petitioner … demonstrated that the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim by way of the timely notice of claim served upon it by Cedeno … . Cedeno’s notice of claim specifically described the nature of the accident between Cedeno and the petitioner. Inasmuch as the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner made an initial showing that the City was not prejudiced by her delay in serving a notice of claim … . Matter of Tejada v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03370, Second Dept 5-9-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made the findings necessary to allow petitioner-mother to seek special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for her son:

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record establishes that the child meets the age and marital status requirements for special immigrant status, and the dependency requirement has been satisfied by the granting of the mother’s guardianship petition …  Moreover, the child’s father is deceased and, therefore, reunification is not possible … . We further find that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be returned to Honduras, given the hearing evidence establishing that there is no one there who is able to care for him, and that the child was threatened with violence if he returned. Matter of Denia M. E. C. v Carlos R. M. O., 2018 NY Slip Op 03355, Second Dept 5-9-18

​FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT))

,

NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a psychological exam of mother should not have been ordered prior to a fact-finding hearing in this neglect proceeding. The court had no indication mother suffered from mental illness:

… [T]he Suffolk County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the petitioner) filed a neglect petition against the mother, alleging, among other things, that she failed to “work cooperatively with the appropriate agencies” to ensure that the subject child, whom the mother reported to have been sexually abused, “would receive appropriate counseling and services.” The petitioner also alleged that the mother failed “to take any action to ensure that [the child] was being adequately and appropriately cared for by his father,” who was alleged to be abusive toward the child. The mother consented to the temporary removal of the child. Thereafter, prior to a fact-finding hearing, the petitioner requested that the mother be directed to submit to a psychological examination. …

The determination whether to direct a psychological examination is within the sound discretion of the Family Court … . Under the circumstances of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Family Court to direct the mother to submit to a psychological examination prior to a fact-finding hearing. The record is devoid of any indication that the mother may suffer from a mental illness. Nor did the petition contain any allegations which placed the mother’s mental health at issue … . Matter of Tyriek J. (Tamika J.), 2018 NY Slip Op 03361, Second Dept 5-9-18

​FAMILY LAW (NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly denied father’s petitions for registration and enforcement of a California custody order. Mother, who was living in Israel, had acquired an Israeli court order modifying the California order. The Israeli order was registered in New York and father was notified of the application for registration. Father had 20 days to contest and failed to do so:

Domestic Relations Law § 77-d provides for the registering, and contesting, of an out-of-state custody decree. Upon receipt of the child custody determination to be registered, the New York court is obligated to serve notice upon the affected persons and provide them with an opportunity to contest the registration (see Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[2][b]). The statute provides that “[a] person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within twenty days after service of the notice” (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[4]). At the hearing, the court “shall confirm the registered order” unless the person contesting registration establishes that (a) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction, (b) the custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so, or (c) the person contesting registration was entitled to, but did not receive, notice in the underlying proceedings before the court that issued the order for which registration is sought (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[4]). If no timely contest is made, “the registration is confirmed as a matter of law” (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[5]). “Confirmation of a registered order, whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration” … . Matter of Worsoff v Worsoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 5-9-18

​FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, OUT OF STATE ORDERS, ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, OUT OF STATE ORDERS, REGISTRATION, ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the city’s decision to layoff firefighters was not arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement. The Civil Service Law vests nondelegable discretion to hire and fire in the public corporation:

… [A] dispute is nonarbitrable if a court can conclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis, that a law prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided by arbitration … . Put differently, a court must stay arbitration where it can conclude, upon the examination of the parties’ contract and any implicated statute on their face, “that the granting of any relief would violate public policy” … .

Addressing the union’s claim regarding the layoffs of the firefighters, Civil Service Law § 80(1) provides that a public employer has the nondelegable discretion to determine—for reasons of economy, among others—what its staffing and budgetary needs are in order to effectively deliver uninterrupted services to the public … . In the absence of bad faith, fraud, or collusion, that discretion “is an undisputed management prerogative” for the public’s benefit, and cannot be altered or modified by agreement or otherwise… . Thus, arbitration of the claim regarding the layoffs of the firefighters would violate public policy. Matter of City of Long Beach v Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287, 2018 NY Slip Op 03356, Second Dept 5-9-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/UNIONS (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ARBITRATION, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC POLICY (MUNICIPAL LAW, ARBITRATION, CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that because plaintiff had filed his employment discrimination complaint with the NYC Division of Human Rights (Division), he was precluded under the election of remedies doctrine from bringing a court action pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

“Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with [the Division] precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts”… . The election of remedies doctrine does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, but rather deprives a plaintiff of a cause of action … . Here, the plaintiff’s causes of action are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the proceedings before the Division. Therefore, the plaintiff is barred from asserting those claims under the NYCHRL in this action … . Luckie v Northern Adult Day Health Care Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 03349, Second Dept 5-9-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ELECTION OF REMEDIES, (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ELECTION OF REMEDIES, DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ELECTION OF REMEDIES (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school (District) was properly granted. Petitioner had timely filed a notice of claim against the village, and the school was aware of the essential facts of the claim within the 90-day filing period. Petitioner alleged her son, who had broken his arm, was not supervised or assisted by the school at the time he tripped, fell and further injured his arm:

Here, the District had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the statutory period … . Furthermore, the petitioners made an initial showing that the District would not suffer any substantial prejudice by the delay, and the District failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . Even if the petitioners’ reason for failing to timely serve the District was not reasonable, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice … . Matter of D.D. v Village of Great Neck, 2018 NY Slip Op 03358, Second Dept 5-9-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/STUDENTS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))

INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held that the inmate-petitioner had the right to call a prison officer as a witness to ascertain the basis for the officer’s knowledge that petitioner possessed a weapon. The petitioner alleged the weapon was placed in the petitioner’s cell by someone else:

A prison inmate facing a disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the same level of due process as a criminal defendant  … , but there are minimum standards for disciplinary hearings. The rules of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision expressly provide that inmates have a conditional right to call witnesses: “The inmate may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. If permission to call a witness is denied, the hearing officer shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented” (7 NYCRR 253.5[a]). Here, the petitioner did not dispute that the item in question was found in his cell, but he contended that the item must have been placed by someone else, and he asked that the superior officer who provided the information upon which a sergeant authorized the search be called as a witness. The hearing officer incorrectly ruled that the superior officer’s testimony was not needed simply because, as the sergeant testified, the superior officer had provided reliable information in the past. The hearing officer overlooked the fact that, absent any countervailing consideration, such as a specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals, the petitioner was entitled to have the superior officer asked about the basis of his knowledge that contraband could be found in the petitioner’s cell … .

Since the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision failed to adhere to its own rule in the conduct of the hearing … , the determination must be annulled, all references to the determination must be expunged from the petitioner’s institutional record, and the matter remitted to the respondent for further proceedings, if the respondent be so advised … . Matter of Cumberland v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 03357, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), (INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT))

,

TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined two statements alleged by the plaintiffs to have been defamatory were nonactionable opinion (other defamatory statements alleged in the complaint properly survived the motion to dismiss). The court noted that plaintiffs have no burden to prove the allegations in a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss, and further found that the Communications Decency Act did not shield the defendants from liability:

Here, the allegedly defamatory statements set forth in paragraphs 53 and 55 of the complaint—which asserted, among other things, that [the defendant president of the cooperative] was “attempting insult of American laws & freedom” and was attempting to “destroy Trump Village 4 and sell our buildings to the highest bidder after we are bankrupt”—constituted nonactionable expressions of opinion. The statements … were not easily understandable, were largely incapable of being proven true or false, and, in context, signaled to the average reader that the statements were opinion, not fact. …

We reject the defendants’ contention that the allegations of defamation fail to state a cause of action because their statements were protected by qualified privileges, and insufficient facts were alleged to show that they spoke with malice necessary to defeat those privileges … . Since “the burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on [such] a motion'” … . Here, to the extent that the defendants’ statements may be shielded by any qualified privileges, the allegations of malice that were set forth in the complaint and in an affidavit submitted by [the cooperative president] preclude dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action ,,, ,

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Communications Decency Act (47 USC § 230) did not warrant dismissal of the complaint at this juncture. A defendant is “immune from state law liability if (1) it is a provider or user of an interactive computer service’; (2) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as a publisher or speaker’; and (3) the action is based on information provided by another information content provider'” … . “[I]f a defendant service provider is itself the content provider,’ it is not shielded from liability” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants authored the defamatory statements, which would mean that the defendants were content providers within the meaning of the statute … . Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v Bezvoleva, 2018 NY Slip Op 03389, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DEFAMATION (TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child based upon a theory that was not charged in the indictment. The endangering count of the indictment alleged defendant had subjected the victim to several types of sexual touching, but not kissing. The jury was allowed to consider the evidence of kissing. The defendant was acquitted of all counts except the endangering count:

In summation, the People argued, over objection, that the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child was established by the conduct of kissing the complainant. The Supreme Court then instructed the jury, over objection, that in order to find the defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child under the relevant count, the jurors were required to find that the defendant knowingly acted in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the complainant, a child less than 17 years old, by engaging in sexual contact with her, defined, under the general definition in the Penal Law, as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” … . The jury returned a verdict of guilty on that count, and acquitted the defendant of the other counts submitted to it, which charged the defendant, inter alia, with engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse with the complainant.

Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories … . Here, the defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child under a count of the indictment that limited the People to a particular theory or theories of endangering the welfare of a child. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred when it permitted the jury to consider a theory not charged in the indictment—that kissing endangered the complainant’s welfare … . Since the defendant’s conviction may have been based upon an uncharged theory, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Vasquez, 2018 NY Slip Op 03382, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENTS, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (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