You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined extraordinary circumstances warranted the award of custody to a grandparent and the sharing of custody with the parents:

… [T]he Family Court properly found that the paternal grandmother demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances. The children’s parents were either unable or unwilling to provide the children with basic personal hygiene, clean clothes, adequate medical or dental care, or an appropriate place to sleep, and they also lacked insight into the children’s particular needs, which included multiple special needs with respect to one of the children… . In particular, the mother forgot to feed the children on several occasions, and the children often came to school hungry and dressed in dirty clothing that smelled of cat urine and feces. Moreover, the parents did not remedy the situation, despite multiple efforts by school personnel.

After finding the existence of extraordinary circumstances, the Family Court next inquired into what custodial arrangement would serve the children’s best interests. The court properly determined that the children’s best interests would be served by shared legal custody among the paternal grandmother and parents, with primary residential custody to the paternal grandmother and frequent contact and visitation between the parents and the children. Matter of Conroy v Conroy, 2018 NY Slip Op 02462, Second Dept 4-11-18

​FAMILY LAW (EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY  (EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT))/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT))

THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the failure to resentence defendant in accordance with the plea agreement required that the defendant be given the opportunity to withdraw his pleas, not only to the charges in indictment on which he was resentenced, but also the charges in prior indictment from which the defendant had not appealed:

Here, the defendant contends that both of the underlying judgments should be reversed and the underlying guilty pleas vacated on the ground that the County Court deviated from the terms of the plea agreement by imposing an aggregate term of seven years’ imprisonment instead of the aggregate term of five years’ imprisonment that it had promised the defendant when he agreed to plead guilty. To the extent that the defendant seeks vacatur of the underlying pleas and reversal of the underlying judgments due to an alleged violation of the plea agreement, such a contention is not reviewable on this appeal since the defendant has only appealed from the resentence … . …

… [T]he County Court erred in resentencing the defendant to a period of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree that exceeded the period of postrelease supervision that had been promised to the defendant in connection with the plea agreement, without first affording the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty to that count … . Furthermore, inasmuch as the defendant’s plea of guilty on [the prior indictment], and his plea of guilty to the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under [the second indictment] were induced by the promise that the sentences on the two indictments would all run concurrently, the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his pleas of guilty under both of the indictments, for all three convictions … . People v Robinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-11-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENTS  (SENTENCING, THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (PLEA AGREEMENTS,  (SENTENCING, THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEAS, WITHDRAWAL OF  (THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant was eligible for conditional sealing of the record of his drug-related convictions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.58. The fact that defendant was also convicted of Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI), which is not an offense covered by CPL 160.58, did not preclude the sealing (as County Court had held). The Second Department rejected the argument that the shock incarceration program defendant completed was not the type of judicial diversion program contemplated by CPL 160.58:

We conclude, first, that the County Court erroneously interpreted CPL 160.58 as prohibiting sealing in light of the DWAI conviction. CPL 160.58 does not contain a “clearly expressed” limitation on a court’s authority to order sealing in cases in which a defendant pleads guilty to an accusatory instrument that contains an offense that does not qualify for sealing. Indeed, the fact that the statute refers to the sealing of an “offense” suggests that discrete offenses may be sealed even if an accusatory instrument to which a defendant pleaded guilty contained other offenses. Had the Legislature intended to limit the court’s authority as the County Court found, it could easily have specified that sealing was confined to cases in which a defendant was charged only with offenses defined in articles 220 and 221 of the Penal Law or a specified offense defined in CPL 410.91. Particularly in light of the expansive approach taken by the Court of Appeals in interpreting the DLRA [Drug Law Reform Act], the omission of a limitation on a court’s authority to seal qualifying drug offenses when coupled in an accusatory instrument with nonqualifying offenses should be interpreted as intentional … .

We further conclude that, contrary to the People’s contention, by successfully completing court-ordered Shock incarceration and further treatment during his period of PRS, the defendant successfully completed a “judicially sanctioned drug treatment program of similar duration, requirements and level of supervision” as judicial diversion and drug treatment alternative to prison. People v Parker, 2018 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 4-11-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEALING OF RECORDS, DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 160.58 (SEALING OF RECORDS, DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT))/SEALING (CRIMINAL RECORDS, DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT))/SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM (SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM (SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT))

THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have instructed the jury on cross-racial identification, but further determined the error was harmless:

In People v Boone (30 NY3d 521, 535), the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, “a witness’s identification of the defendant is at issue, and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, a trial court is required to give, upon request, during final instructions, a jury charge on the cross-race effect, instructing (1) that the jury should consider whether there is a difference in race between the defendant and the witness who identified the defendant, and (2) that, if so, the jury should consider (a) that some people have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race than in accurately identifying members of their own race and (b) whether the difference in race affected the accuracy of the witness’s identification.”

… [U]nder the circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court’s failure to give a cross-racial identification charge constituted harmless error. The defendant identified himself as the individual shown in a surveillance video taken inside a deli adjacent to the smoke shop approximately 40 minutes before the robbery. A surveillance video taken outside the deli at that time showed the individual on the sidewalk walking past the smoke shop and entering the deli. Additionally, the surveillance video taken outside the deli showed the same individual entering and exiting the smoke shop at the exact time of the robbery. Immediately after the crime, the complainant gave a very precise and detailed description of the defendant to a detective, which included a unique identifying characteristic, namely, a brown birthmark on the white of the defendant’s eye. During the arrest process of the defendant, the arresting detective immediately observed the distinctive marking on the defendant’s eye. Under the circumstances, the error in failing to administer the charge on cross-racial identification was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if not for the error … . People v Bradley, 2018 NY Slip Op 02481, Second Dept 4-11-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))/CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT))

A PLAINTIFF FACED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR AFFIDAVITS IN OPPOSITION BUT RATHER CAN STAND ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a plaintiff, when faced with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, need not submit any evidence or affidavits in opposition, but may simply stand on the pleadings:

While a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)… , “affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” … . The plaintiff “may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . Indeed, if a plaintiff chooses to stand on his or her pleading alone, “confident that its allegations are sufficient to state all the necessary elements of a cognizable cause of action, he [or she] is at liberty to do so and, unless the motion to dismiss is converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment, he [or she] will not be penalized because he [or she] has not made an evidentiary showing in support of his [or her] complaint” … .

Here, the Supreme Court did not convert motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The amended complaint states a cause of action as against [defendant] and [defendant’s] submissions, including an affidavit of its president, did not conclusively establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action against it … . Yu Chen v Kupoint (USA) Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02498, Second Dept 4-11-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, A PLAINTIFF FACED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR AFFIDAVITS IN OPPOSITION BUT RATHER CAN STAND ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS, A PLAINTIFF FACED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR AFFIDAVITS IN OPPOSITION BUT RATHER CAN STAND ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, A PLAINTIFF FACED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR AFFIDAVITS IN OPPOSITION BUT RATHER CAN STAND ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a declaratory judgment decided on default does not support the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issues were not litigated:

“The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel has the burden to show the identity of the issues, while the party trying to avoid application of the doctrine must establish the lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate” … . “If the issue has not been litigated, there is no identity of issues between the present action and the prior determination” … . In this case, since the determination in the declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage for the subject van was decided on default and, thus, was not actually litigated … , [the nominal defendants] failed to demonstrate that there was an identity of issues between the present proceeding and the determination in the declaratory judgment action. Matter of Hereford Ins. Co. v McKoy, 2018 NY Slip Op 02466, Second Dept 4-11-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT))

,

THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined the expense required to defend an action that resulted from an attorney’s misrepresentation can meet the injury requirement of a Judiciary Law 487 cause of action:

Judiciary Law § 487 imposes civil and criminal liability on any attorney who “(1) [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party; or, (2) [w]ilfully delays his client’s suit with a view to his own gain”… . A plaintiff may state a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action by relying upon a defendant’s intentional deceit during the course of an underlying action … . A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 must be pleaded with specificity … and is “focuse[d] on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … . Accordingly, although injury to the plaintiff is an essential element of a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action … , “recovery of treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487 does not depend upon the court’s belief in a material misrepresentation of fact in a complaint”… . Rather, because defending the action is a result of the misrepresentation, a party’s legal expenses in defending the lawsuit may be treated as the proximate result of the misrepresentation … . Betz v Blatt, 2018 NY Slip Op 02444, Second Dept 4-11-18

​ATTORNEYS (JUDICIARY LAW 487, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ATTORNEYS, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (ATTORNEYS, JUDICIARY LAW 487, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have vacated a stipulated entered into in open court and signed by an attorney who had represented the plaintiff and had the apparent authority to enter the stipulation. The motion to vacate was made by new counsel hired by plaintiff:

The stipulation, signed by counsel for each party in this action during a court appearance, is a binding contract (see CPLR 2104 … ). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her counsel at the time of the stipulation had the apparent authority to enter into the stipulation. This prior counsel signed and verified the summons and complaint, appeared for the plaintiff at the preliminary conference and the compliance conference, and filed a note of issue, all before entering into the stipulation on the plaintiff’s behalf. The presence of an attorney at pretrial conferences constitutes “an implied representation by [the client] to defendants that [the attorney] had authority” to bind the client to a stipulation … . Indeed, only attorneys who are authorized to enter into binding stipulations may appear at pretrial conferences … . Here, the plaintiff’s engagement of her prior counsel to represent her throughout the litigation and to appear on her behalf at pretrial and compliance conferences precludes her from arguing that prior counsel lacked the authority to bind her to the stipulation. “A stipulation made by the attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney’s actual authority if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the stipulation … . Chae Shin Oh v Jeannot, 2018 NY Slip Op 02446, Second Dept 4-11-18

​ATTORNEYS (STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (ATTORNEYS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (ATTORNEYS, STIPULATIONS, MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined several distinct issues (not all summarized here) that arose from a lawsuit alleging the defendant doctors and hospital performed a c-section birth against plaintiff’s wishes. The cause of action based upon defendants’ performing an unwanted procedure alleged an intentional tort and, based upon the one-year statute of limitations, was untimely. The Public Health Law cause of action was not appropriate because those statutes and regulations do not apply to hospitals (as opposed to residential health care facilities):

… [I]t is clear from the statutory scheme that Public Health Law § 2803-c was not intended to apply to hospitals.

Public Health Law § 2801-d authorizes a private right of action by patients of “residential health care facilities” for the violation of rights enumerated in Public Health Law § 2803-c. “Residential health care facility” is defined by the statute as “a nursing home or facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801[3]). Since the hospital is not a “residential health care facility,” this provision is not applicable to the hospital … . The fact that the legislature did not specify that a private right of action was available against hospitals indicates that providing a private right of action to hospital patients was contrary to the legislative scheme. Therefore, no private right of action under the Public Health Law should be inferred … . Dray v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02314, Second Dept 4-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))

,

DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled the misbehavior (smuggling) determination. Petitioner was accused of smuggling a letter. But part of petitioner’s duties was sending out religious information (Nation of Islam). The letter was religious in nature. The charges did not allege the violation of any particular guideline or policy which was violated:

The charges against the petitioner here were not supported by substantial evidence. Although the inmate misbehavior report charged failure to comply with and follow guidelines and instructions given by staff regarding facility correspondence procedures… , it did not specify any particular guideline or instruction with which the petitioner had failed to comply. Further, the correction officer who authored the report could not identify the particular correspondence policy he believed the petitioner had violated. Accordingly, the finding that the petitioner violated rule 180.11 must be annulled … .

In addition, the hearing evidence established that the petitioner, in his capacity as inmate facilitator for the prison’s Nation of Islam office, had duties including sending religious materials to other inmates from the Nation of Islam office, and neither the misbehavior report nor the testifying correction officer identified any regulation prohibiting the petitioner, in that capacity, from including the subject letter with the other materials. Accordingly, the finding that the petitioner violated rule 114.10 must also be annulled … . Matter of Smith v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-4-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELIGION (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ISLAM  (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (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