You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Best Interest of the Incapacitated Person Justified Removal of Guardian of Person and Property

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its broad discretion in granting the cross-motion to remove the guardian of Helen S.’ person and property (pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 81.35). Helen S. testified that the guardian yelled and screamed at her, made her very nervous and upset causing her body to shake, and causing her to throw up. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when ” the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just'” … . “The trial court is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether a guardian should be replaced,” and the “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … .  Matter of Helen S. (Falero), 2015 NY Slip Op 06153, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)

In finding the constructive trust cause of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred, the Second Department explained that a cause of action for a constructive trust accrues (1) when the constructive trustee acquires the property wrongfully, or (2) when the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property which was lawfully acquired but was to be transferred:

A cause of action “for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(1), which starts to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution” … . “A determination of when the wrongful act triggering the running of the Statute of Limitations occurs depends upon whether the constructive trustee acquired the property wrongfully, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date of acquisition, or whether the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust is not … that the defendants wrongfully acquired the subject properties in or around 1995, or 1996, but rather that subsequent thereto, sometime in 2012, the defendant… breached her promise to the plaintiff that they would be equal partners with respect to those properties … . Barone v Barone, 2015 NY Slip Op 06102, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Arbitrator’s Award Should Not Have Been Vacated—No Clear and Convincing Evidence of Arbitrator’s Bias or Misconduct or that the Arbitrator Exceeded His Power

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s vacation of an arbitration award. The vacation was based in part on a finding of an appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator. The motion to vacate the award alleged the fact that both the mediator and arbitrator were past Supreme Court justices with overlapping terms demonstrated the arbitrator’s bias or the appearance of bias.  The Second Department explained the limited role of a court in reviewing an arbitrator’s award and noted that any ground for vacation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence:

“It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . “A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award on one or more grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)(1) bears a heavy burden, and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence” … .

An arbitrator’s partiality may be established by an actual bias or the appearance of bias from which a conflict of interest may be inferred … . * * * [T]he fact that both the mediator and arbitrator were former Supreme Court Justices who served overlapping terms …, standing alone, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator … . Moreover … [the movant] failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator exceeded his power in issuing the award (see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]), or that he engaged in misconduct … . David v Byron, 2015 NY Slip Op 06107, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained

The Second Department affirmed Family Court’s award of custody to non-parents, explaining the relevant criteria:

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances … . The burden is on the nonparent to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances … . Where extraordinary circumstances are found to exist, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody … .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the nonparent petitioners, Yasmin Culberson and Walter Culberson, sustained their burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances based upon, inter alia, the mother’s prolonged separation from the subject child and lack of significant involvement in the child’s life for a period of time, the mother’s failure to contribute to the child’s financial support, and the strong emotional bond between the child and the nonparent petitioners … . Moreover, the Family Court’s determination that an award of custody to the nonparent petitioners would be in the best interests of the child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . Matter of Culberson v Fisher, 2015 NY Slip Op 06144, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

The Third Department determined grandmother demonstrated extraordinary circumstance justifying the award of custody to her with visiting rights for the parents. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“It is well settled that a parent has a claim of custody of his or her child, superior to that of all others, in the absence of surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, disruption of custody over an extended period of time or other extraordinary circumstances” … . “The burden of proving such extraordinary circumstances rests with the nonparent seeking custody and, if established, the controlling consideration in determining custody is the best interests of the child” … . Proof regarding extraordinary circumstances may include, among other things, that “the parent has neglected ‘to maintain substantial, repeated and continuous contact with’ the child[] or make plans for [her] future” …. . Matter of Yandon v Boisvert, 2015 NY Slip Op 06177, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

Court Has No Inherent Power to Vacate a Notice of Lien Which Is Valid on Its Face—Validity of Lien Must Be Determined in Foreclosure Proceeding

The Second Department noted that a court has no inherent power to vacate a notice of lien which is valid on its face. Determination of the validity of the lien must await trial by foreclosure:

A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6) … . Lien Law § 19 enumerates the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement … . Where, as here, the notice of lien was not invalid on its face, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure … . Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06126, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written Contract Was Relied Upon Precluded Fraud in the Inducement Cause of Action/Summary Judgment on Promissory Note Precluded—Breach of Contract Cause of Action Was Intertwined with Promissory Note

In a decision addressing many other issues, the Second Department determined specific disclaimers in the contract indicating nothing extrinsic to the contract was relied upon by the parties precluded any claim alleging fraudulent inducement.  The court also noted that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on a promissory note because the note was intertwined with the breach of contract cause of action:

“While a general merger clause is ineffective to exclude parol evidence of fraud in the inducement, a specific disclaimer destroys the allegations in [a] plaintiff’s complaint that the agreement was executed in reliance upon . . . contrary oral [mis]representations'” … . In support of this branch of their motion, [defendant] relied upon the contract, which provides that [defendant] made no representation or warranty, either express or implied, as to the assets sold, [defendant’s] business, or “any matter or thing affecting or relating to this agreement, except as specifically set forth in this agreement.” The contract also indicates that it contains all of the terms agreed upon between the parties and that it was entered into after full investigation. Such clauses are sufficiently specific to bar the [plaintiffs] from claiming that they were fraudulently induced into entering the contract because of certain oral misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the breach of a related contract generally cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only, that rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined … . Here, the action to recover damages for breach of contract is sufficiently intertwined with the action to recover on the promissory note, such that denial of summary judgment to enforce the promissory note and personal guaranty was proper … . Oseff v Scotti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06123, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

,

Criteria for Valuation of a Partial Taking of Vacant Land Explained

The Second Department determined the valuation of a partial taking of vacant land (the value before minus the value after the taking based on the highest and best use of the land)  was flawed and remitted the matter for a new valuation.  The decision is detailed and fact-specific and therefore is not fully summarized here.  The court explained some of the most significant valuation criteria, noting that any comparable sales considered in the valuation must be similar in character to the subject land (not so here):

When private property is taken for public use, the condemning authority must “compensate the owner so that he may be put in the same relative position, insofar as this is possible, as if the taking had not occurred'” … . Where, as here, there is a partial taking of real property, “the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the whole before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking” … . “The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time”… . The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future … . Matter of County of Orange v Monroe Bakertown Rd. Realty, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06143, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His Shares in the Cooperative Was Not Tainted by Discriminatory Considerations—Denial Protected by the Business Judgment Rule

The Second Department determined the board of a cooperative dwelling acted within the scope of its authority (pursuant to the business judgment rule) when it denied plaintiff’s application to sell his shares in the cooperative to a specific buyer.  Although the board’s action would not be protected by the business judgment rule if it were tainted by discriminatory considerations, the court concluded there was no evidence discriminatory considerations played a role in the denial:

“In the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination [s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . ” [D]ecision making tainted by discriminatory considerations is not protected by the business judgment rule'” … .

Here, the cooperative demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that its denial of the resale application was protected by the business judgment rule … . In particular, the cooperative demonstrated that its denial of the resale application was authorized, and done in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the cooperative, in light of significant debt the prospective buyer held relating to a separate property. The evidence the plaintiff submitted in opposition to this showing was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the resale application was actually denied for a discriminatory reason, or any other reason not protected by the business judgment rule. Griffin v Sherwood Vil., Co-op “C”, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06112, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Whether Infant-Plaintiff’s Injury at the Hands of Other Students Was Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision and/or Negligent Hiring and/or Retention

The Second Department determined the defendant-school’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.  There were questions of fact concerning whether the school had notice of a student’s prior altercations with infant plaintiff and whether a teacher took appropriate steps to intervene to prevent injury to infant plaintiff. Infant plaintiff alleged he was injured when assaulted other students:

“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” … . Here, in support of their motion, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct that allegedly caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . The appellants’ moving papers failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they had knowledge of a particular student’s dangerous propensities arising from his involvement in other altercations with the infant plaintiff … . The appellants’ moving papers also failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether a teacher failed to take “energetic steps to intervene” to prevent the infant plaintiff’s injuries at the hands of a group of his classmates … . Amandola v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 06099, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

The Second Department explained there is no requirement that a statute of limitations defense be raised solely in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.  The defense may be asserted in the answer, and subsequently raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial. Although defendant’s post-answer motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 instead of 3212, the procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001:

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant who wishes to raise a defense based on the statute of limitations to do so by way of a motion to dismiss. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of [the] statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). CPLR 3211(e) provides that the defendant may make the motion to dismiss before its answer is required to be served, or may include the defense in its answer and seek relief later. When the defendant does neither, the defense is waived.

“At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) . . . . Any objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraph[ ] five . . . of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading” (CPLR 3211[e]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, a defendant who wishes to assert the statute of limitations as a defense is not limited to asserting it by way of a pre-answer motion. The defendant may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined … .

Here, the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, but raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer. Then, after the note of issue was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Although the defendant denominated its motion as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, rather than as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001, upon proper notice to the parties … . Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06130, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

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