You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE.

The Second Department, in an extensive decision covering several marital/separate property and equitable distribution issues not summarized here, determined the maintenance portion of a 1988 postnuptial agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable:

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the maintenance provision of the 1988 postnuptial agreement, which provided the plaintiff with only $50,000 in full satisfaction of all claims, would be unconscionable by the time a final judgment would be entered in this action. At the time that the parties executed the 1988 postnuptial agreement, the defendant owned, among other things, a jewelry business worth at least $3 million, and he was in contract to buy a shopping center. Thereafter, during more than 25 years of marriage, the defendant’s jewelry business underwent tremendous growth while the plaintiff worked there, and the parties lived what can easily be described as a lavish lifestyle. Among other things, they owned numerous high-end automobiles and took numerous international vacations. For a time, they traveled regularly to the Bahamas on the defendant’s yacht. Under all the circumstances, the court properly determined that the maintenance provision in the 1988 agreement was unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable … . Maddaloni v Maddaloni, 2016 NY Slip Op 05851, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE)/CONTRACT LAW (MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSIONABLE)/UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT (MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE)

,

COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BEFORE DISTRIBUTING IT.

The Second Department determined the trial judge should have determined the value of the marital residence before awarding sole title to plaintiff:

We remit the matter for a new trial on the issue of equitable distribution of marital property. Although the parties came forward with a paucity of evidence regarding the value of the marital residence, the Supreme Court was nevertheless required to determine the value of the property before awarding sole title to the plaintiff. “A determination must be made as to the net value of each asset before determining the distribution thereof” … . In circumstances where proof of value is insufficient to make a determination, the court has discretion to, among other things, appoint a neutral appraiser and to direct that such appraiser be paid by one or both parties … . Further, the court erred in failing to value and equitably distribute the defendant’s investment in a rental property located in North Carolina and the parties’ remaining interest in property located in Costa Rica. Van Dood v Van Dood, 2016 NY Slip Op 05858, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

FAMILY LAW (COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BEFORE DISTRIBUTING IT)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BEFORE DISTRIBUTING IT)/MARITAL PROPERTY (COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BEFORE DISTRIBUTING IT)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION (COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BEFORE DISTRIBUTING IT)

,

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.

The Second Department determined Criminal Procedure Law 440.30 (1-a) did not authorize defendant to challenge, in a post-trial motion, DNA evidence which was introduced at trial. The statute deals only with post-trial DNA testing:

CPL 440.30 (1-a) (a) (1) provides that a defendant may bring a postconviction motion requesting forensic DNA testing of “specified evidence.” The statute further provides that “the court shall grant the application for forensic DNA testing of such evidence upon its determination that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence, and if the results had been admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.30 [1-a] [a] [1]). As the Court of Appeals has recognized, CPL 440.30 (1-a) was enacted to establish a new procedure for defendants to secure DNA testing of specified evidence … ..

Defendant here has not requested DNA testing of any evidence, and instead seeks to have expert testimony adduced for the purpose of challenging the accuracy of scientific evidence that was actually presented at trial. Inasmuch as CPL 440.30 (1-a) does not address requests for expert testimony, the provision is inapplicable to defendant’s request. People v Ramos, 2016 NY Slip Op 05885, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)/DNA (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)

,

JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge’s response to a jury note did not comply with Criminal Procedure Law 310.30. The note requested that the court “define clearly acting in concert:”

Here, the jury note requested, among other things, that the Supreme Court “define clearly acting in concert.'” The court did not show the note to the attorneys or read it into the record before formulating a response. In apprising counsel of the contents of that note, the court omitted the words “define clearly” and stated only, “They want acting in concert. I will read that back.” After the jury returned to the courtroom, the court again mischaracterized the note, stating: “[I]t says define acting in concert. Okay, I am going to read my acting in concert and I will read it slow for you.” The court then reread its instructions on acting in concert.

The jury’s request to “define clearly” was not a request for a “mere ministerial readback” of the Supreme Court’s charge … . Meaningful notice of a jury’s note “means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request. Manifestly, counsel cannot participate effectively or adequately protect the defendant’s rights if this specific information is not given” … . The court’s failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note was a mode of proceedings error … , which requires reversal of the judgment and a new trial … . People v Gough, 2016 NY Slip Op 05873, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, CONVICTION REVERSED)

DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE APPLIED TO REFORM NOTE AND MORTGAGE.

The Second Department determined the doctrine of mutual mistake applied and Supreme Court properly reformed the note and mortgage to correct the mistake:

“A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” … . “In a case of mutual mistake, the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . “Reformation is not granted for the purpose of alleviating a hard or oppressive bargain, but rather to restate the intended terms of an agreement when the writing that memorializes that agreement is at variance with the intent of both parties” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff established the existence of a mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence … . The parties’ contract of sale clearly and unambiguously provided that the purchase price for the subject property was $550,000, which was to be paid, in part, by a $350,000 purchase money mortgage. Based upon the proof at trial, it was clear that the $206,065.79 balloon payment calculated by the plaintiff’s attorney and mutually agreed upon by the parties was the product of an inadvertent error, as it was inconsistent with the parties’ agreement that the mortgage was to be in the amount of $350,000. “[I]f, by the mistake of the scrivener or by any other inadvertence, [a] writing does not express the agreement actually made, it may be reformed by the court” … . Gunther v Vilceus, 2016 NY Slip Op 05847, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

CONTRACT LAW (DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE APPLIED TO REFORM NOTE AND MORTGAGE)/MUTUAL MISTAKE (DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE APPLIED TO REFORM NOTE AND MORTGAGE)

RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED.

The Second Department determined re-service of the summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had passed was properly allowed:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiffs cross-moved for relief, the plaintiffs re-served the defendant within a reasonable time after learning that the timely service of process was being challenged by the defendant as defective, and the defendant had actual notice of the action within 120 days of its commencement … . Furthermore, after re-serving the defendant, the plaintiffs cross-moved within a reasonable time for an extension of time to serve the defendant, and there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Rivera v Rodriguez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05855, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED)

, ,

LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.

The Second Department determined the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk and the city (NYC) were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The city argued it did not have prior written notice of the hole in the sidewalk. The lessee, El Fuerte, argued it did not create the dangerous condition, did not violate any statute or ordinance, and the lease imposed no duty to repair the sidewalk. With regard to the liability of the abutting property owner, the court noted that, although a curb cut and pedestrian ramp leading from a sidewalk to the street are not the responsibility of the abutting property owner, the defect here was not in the curb cut or ramp:

… [A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty … . * * * … [A] provision of a lease which obligates a tenant to repair a sidewalk does not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party, such as the plaintiff. Martin v Rizzatti, 2016 NY Slip Op 05797, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL, LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/SIDEWALKS (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/SLIP AND FALL (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)

, ,

INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONARY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION.

The Second Department determined the City of New York was immune from a suit alleging the negligent investigation of child abuse, leading to the child’s death two years later. The court also noted that New York does not recognize a cause of action for negligent investigation or prosecution:

… [T]he defendants contended and established that they engaged in discretionary conduct in investigating the report of abuse in 2003, and thus cannot be held liable for the manner in which the investigation was performed under the doctrine of governmental immunity … . A government’s performance of a governmental function, when discretionary in nature, cannot result in liability .. . Discretionary acts “involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . The defendants demonstrated that the subject investigation consisted of a series of discretionary acts … , and that this was not a situation in which no discretion or judgment was exercised. In any event, the defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that New York does not recognize a cause of action sounding in negligent investigation or negligent prosecution … . Hines v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05794, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONAY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION)/MUNICIPAL LAW (INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONAY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONAY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION)/CHILD ABUSE (INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONAY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION)/NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE (INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONAY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION)

CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT, PROVISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement (divorce) should have been vacated because the provisions did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(h) requires a stipulation of settlement providing for a parent’s obligation to pay basic child support to contain recitals that the parties were advised of the CSSA and “that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” In the event that the stipulation of settlement deviates from the basic child support obligation provided for in the CSSA, the stipulation must also “specify the amount that such basic child support obligation would have been and the reason or reasons that such agreement or stipulation does not provide for payment of that amount” (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][h]). Child support provisions in stipulations or agreements that do not contain these recitals are invalid and unenforceable … .

Here, the child support provision in the parties’ stipulation of settlement did not include a calculation of basic child support pursuant to the CSSA or a recital that such calculation would result in the presumptively correct amount of child support … . In addition, that provision makes no distinction between the defendant’s obligation to pay basic child support and his obligation to pay other support for the child not required by statute, such as the child’s college tuition and other expenses incurred by the child after his 21st birthday. Young v Young, 2016 NY Slip Op 05809, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT, PROVISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED)/CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT, PROVISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED)

PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been granted. Plaintiff employee’s argued they were entitled to severance pay in accordance a policy manual. Policy manuals which can be amended or withdrawn unilaterally do not obligate the employer unless there is a regular practice and reliance:

Provisions contained in company policy manuals which, like the one in this case, can be amended or withdrawn unilaterally, do not constitute enforceable obligations owing from an employer to its employees absent a showing of a regular practice by the employer to provide the benefits now claimed, the employee’s knowledge of the practice, and his or her reliance upon such practice as evidenced by accepting or continuing employment as a result thereof … . Cohen v National Grid USA, 2016 NY Slip Op 05786, 1st Dept 8-17-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS)/POLICY MANUAL (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS)

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