You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the entire first jury panel should not have been dismissed because of an interaction between one of the potential jurors and defendant’s brother. The decision dealt substantively with several other issues: (1) affirming the denial of defendant’s speedy trial motion; (2) finding the prosecution’s failure to produce the Miranda card was not a Rosario violation and an adverse inference jury charge was an appropriate sanction; and (3) finding that the DNA evidence introduced by a witness who did not participate in the testing procedures violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him:

​

The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s application to dismiss the entire jury panel, concluding that the defendant’s brother had potentially tainted the entire panel. Significantly, the court did not first conduct an inquiry of the potential jurors as to what they had seen and as to whether they could remain impartial. Where, as here, a jury panel is “properly drawn and sworn to answer questions truthfully, there must be legal cause or a peremptory challenge to exclude a [prospective] juror” … . By dismissing the entire jury panel without questioning the ability of the individual prospective jurors to be fair and impartial … , the court deprived the defendant of a jury chosen “at random from a fair cross-section of the community” … .

​

… [T]he DNA profiles and reports produced from the testing of evidence recovered from the decedent’s home, including the defendant’s clothing, are testimonial, because such profiles and reports “were generated in aid of a police investigation of a particular defendant charged by an accusatory instrument and created for the purpose of substantively proving the guilt of [that] defendant,” and because all of the documents in the file of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner refer to the defendant by name and label him a “suspect” … . … [T]he admission of such evidence violated the defendant’s confrontation right, because it was admitted upon the testimony of an analyst who did not perform, witness, or supervise the generation of the defendant’s DNA profile, or perform an independent analysis on the raw data … . People v Metellus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00312, Second Dept 1-17-18

 CRIMINAL LAW (ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea on a writ of coram nobis, determined County Court should not have threatened defendant with the maximum sentence should she go to trial and defendant’s former appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to bring that issue up on appeal:

​

During discussions regarding the People’s plea offer, the court initially advised the defendant that she faced a “total maximum [of] 60 years in state prison.” Although the court acknowledged that a “cumulative sentencing statute . . . would reduce that to probably between 30 and 40,” it later advised the defendant that “[i]f you are facing 60 years in state prison with all these counts of assault on a seven month old child then you need to discuss that offer very carefully with [defense counsel] and follow his advice.” After defense counsel advised the court that the defendant did not accept the People’s plea offer, the court told the defendant, “[t]hat’s fine. That’s what we do here. We do trials. A case like this I would almost rather have a trial than have a plea bargaining. If this is all true there is no [sentence] short of the maximum that’s appropriate that’s the problem with the case. If it isn’t true then the jury will so decide. That’s not up to me.” Later that afternoon, the defendant accepted the People’s plea offer … .

​

“In order to be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”… . Although a court may properly comment during plea negotiations regarding a defendant’s sentencing exposure upon conviction after trial, it may not explicitly threaten to sentence a defendant to the maximum term upon conviction after trial … . Under the circumstances of this case, former appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue that the defendant’s plea of guilty was coerced by the County Court’s comments … . Since the court’s remarks were impermissibly coercive, the defendant was entitled to vacatur of her plea of guilty. People v Sanabria, 2018 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-17-18

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (VACATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, APPEALS, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CORAM NOBIS, WRIT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion for leave to discontinue its tax certiorari proceeding (seeking lower property tax assessments) with respect to one of its properties was properly denied because respondent town’s ability to defend would be prejudiced. However, Supreme Court should not have order the merger of two of the tax lots because neither party had requested that relief:

​

A motion for leave to discontinue an action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court … , and generally should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion, since the record supports the conclusion that the requested discontinuance would prejudice the respondents’ ability to defend the assessment on the remaining parcel.

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, sua sponte, directing the parties to merge two of the subject tax lots. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . Here, neither party sought merger of the subject lots or similar relief, and merger of those lots could potentially be prejudicial to the petitioner. Matter of Catherine Commons, LLC v Town of Orangetown, 2018 NY Slip Op 00287, Second Dept 1-17-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCONTINUANCE, SUA SPONTE RULING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE RULING (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX (TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))

PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant parking garage's (New York Parking's) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell on a portion of the sidewalk subject to a special use by the parking garage:

The record presents triable issues of fact as to whether New York Parking's use of the sidewalk was a special use, and whether that special use caused the defect in the sidewalk that caused plaintiff to fall… .  The duty to maintain the area of special use runs with the land and is not dependent upon a finding that New York Parking actually inspected the sidewalk or repaired it … . Boneventura v 60 W. 57 Realty LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00232, First Dept 1-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, SPECIAL USE, PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, SPECIAL USE, PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, SPECIAL USE, PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIAL USE (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, ORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the appellant did not have an intimate relationship with petitioner and therefore Family Court did not have jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding against appellant and could not issue an order of protection. Even though the order of protection had expired, the continuing reputational consequences of the order of protection justified determining the appeal:

The petitioner is the live-in girlfriend of the appellant's brother. The petitioner and the appellant live in the same building, on different floors. The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the appellant, alleging that she had physically attacked and verbally threatened her. * * *

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . “Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed criminal acts that occur between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household'” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … .

Here, the parties have no direct relationship and are only connected through a third party, who is the petitioner's live-in boyfriend and the appellant's brother. Additionally, the parties have never resided together and their contact with one another has been purely by happenstance, as they live in the same building. Accordingly, they do not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Matter of Royster v Murray, 2018 NY Slip Op 00151, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))

PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-wife's motion to set aside the prenuptial agreement should have been granted:

“An agreement between spouses or prospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse” …  “An agreement is unconscionable if it is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense'”… . An agreement that might not have been unconscionable when entered into may become unconscionable at the time a final judgment would be entered … . The burden of proof as to unconscionability is on the party seeking to set aside the agreement … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant sustained her burden of establishing that the prenuptial agreement was, at the time this action was before the court, unconscionable. Enforcement of the agreement would result in the risk of the defendant's becoming a public charge. The defendant, who is unemployed, largely without assets, and the primary caregiver for the parties' young children, would, under the prenuptial agreement, receive only $20,000, in full satisfaction of all claims, even though the plaintiff earns approximately $300,000 annually as a physician … . Taha v Elzemity, 2018 NY Slip Op 00188, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FAMILY LAW, PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/UNCONSCIONABLE (FAMILY LAW, (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))

PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER’S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a prima facie showing of neglect based upon mother's mental condition had been made. Therefore mother's motion to dismiss the neglect petition should not have been granted. The court noted that the fact that mother had not been diagnosed as having a mental illness was not dispositive:

… [T]he petitioner presented a prima facie case of neglect. At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner introduced into evidence a recording of two 911 calls made by the mother's stepdaughter, in which she reported, among other things, that the mother, while holding the child, was hitting and slapping the mother's sister. She further stated that the mother was manic, yelling, throwing things, and getting violent. Additionally, the petitioner presented the testimony of the attending psychiatrist in the emergency room at Queens Hospital Center who, based upon his assessment of the mother's mental condition, found that she was unable to care for the child and ordered her admission into a psychiatric emergency program that requires frequent observation for at least 24 hours. The mother's hospital records, which the petitioner also introduced into evidence, demonstrated that the mother's mental condition, which was described as paranoid, violent, and lacking in insight and impulse control, had not resolved within 24 hours and necessitated her admission into the extended observation unit. Moreover, “[t]he absence of a diagnosed condition does not preclude a finding of neglect” … . Therefore, although the petitioner did not show that the mother had a specific diagnosed mental illness, the petitioner was not required to make such a showing to avoid dismissal…. . Matter of Catalina A. (Evelyn C.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00135, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER'S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER'S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL ILLNESS (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER'S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT))

ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC's) issuance of a permit for the withdrawal of up to 1.5 billion gallons of river water (per day) to cool an electric power plant was not a ministerial, non-discretionary act. Therefore the permitting process was not exempt from the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), including the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS):

Here, while ECL [Environmental Conservation Law] 15-1501(9) states that the DEC “shall issue” an initial permit to an existing operator for its self-reported maximum water withdrawal capacity, the statute provides that such initial permit is “subject to appropriate terms and conditions as required under this article.” Notably, the WRPA [Water Resources Protection Act] specifically provides the DEC with the power “to grant or deny a permit or to grant a permit with conditions” … . The statutory factors that the DEC is required to consider when reviewing an application and imposing conditions on the permittee do not lend themselves to mechanical application. For instance, whether “the proposed water withdrawal will be implemented in a manner that incorporates environmentally sound and economically feasible water conservation measures” … will almost certainly vary from operator to operator, or from water source to water source. The DEC's own regulations state that an “initial permit” must include “environmentally sound and economically feasible water conservation measures to promote the efficient use of supplies” … . Whether a condition is “appropriate” for a given operator is a matter that falls within the DEC's expertise and involves the exercise of judgment, and, therefore, implicates matters of discretion … . Matter of Sierra Club v Martens, 2018 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-10-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (RIVER WATER, ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/RIVERS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT (WRPA)  (RIVER WATER, ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS (RIVER WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school's (Board of Education's) motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action should have been granted. The four-year-old plaintiff tripped and fell as she was carrying a food tray:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the level of supervision afforded to the infant plaintiff was adequate … .. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, at the time of the accident, the infant plaintiff was in the midst of executing an age-appropriate task which she and her classmates had performed every single school day since the start of the 2012/2013 academic year … . Additionally, the mother's affidavit, which contradicted her own 50-h hearing testimony and the infant plaintiff's deposition testimony, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . L.R. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-10-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT))

DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Parole Board's denial of parole was irrational. When petitioner was 17 he murdered a 14-year-old acquaintance. While in prison petitioner earned three college degrees and was deemed a low risk pursuant to the Correctional Offender Management for Profiling for Alternative Sanction (COMPAS) assessment:

Judicial review of a determination of the Parole Board is narrowly circumscribed … . While the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors … , it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight… .

Here, the petitioner demonstrated his entitlement to having the determination of the Parole Board set aside. The Parole Board's findings that there was a reasonable probability that, if released, the petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society and would so deprecate the serious nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law, are without support in the record … . …

​

.. .[T]he record demonstrates that the petitioner took full responsibility for his actions, stating “I don't blame it on the drugs. I blame it on me. I'm responsible. I was responsible for taking drugs and ultimately I'm responsible for what happened while I was under the influence of those drugs.” The petitioner also acknowledged that he had not forgotten the reason he was in prison, he was aware of the damage he had done to the victim, her family, and his own family, and he deeply regretted that his “life took that turn at that time but [he was] not that 17 year old angry kid anymore.” Matter of Coleman v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 00138, Second Dept 1-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT 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