You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied mother’s petition to relocate. The analytical criteria were described as: “When reviewing a custodial parent’s request for permission to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child … . Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements … . In relocation proceedings, this [the appellate court’s] authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …”. [quotations omitted] Matter of DeCillis v DeCillis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04126, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Court Could Not Promise a “Violent Felony Override” Allowing Defendant to Participate in Programs While Incarcerated—Only the DOCCS Can Determine Defendant’s Eligibility—Conviction by Guilty Plea Reversed

The Second Department determined the sentencing court had no authority to promise the defendant, as part of the plea bargain, a “violent felony override” which would allow the defendant to participate in a variety of programs while incarcerated. Where a defendant is statutorily qualified (as defendant was) it is up to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to determine a defendant’s eligibility for the programs.  Therefore, defendant’s guilty plea was reversed because it was based in part on misinformation (not knowing and voluntary):

… [A] “violent felony override” is “an imprecise and potentially confusing term that is sometimes used to describe a document referred to in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) that permits the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) to ascertain whether an inmate has met one of the threshold requirements to be eligible for a temporary release program despite conviction of a specified violent felony offense” (id.; see Correction Law § 851[2]; Executive Order [Spitzer] No. 9 [9 NYCRR 6.9]; Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 2 [9 NYCRR 8.2]; 7 NYCRR 1900.4[c][1][ii], [iii]; [2]). “Certain subdivisions of the specified violent felony offenses will not disqualify an inmate from eligibility for temporary release. The document provided for in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) need only set forth the exact offense, including the section, and subdivision if any, of the crimes of which the inmate was convicted. When the document indicates that the inmate was convicted of a subdivision of one of the enumerated violent felony offenses that does not automatically disqualify the inmate from eligibility for temporary release, the inmate may use it to establish that he has met one of the threshold requirements for eligibility” … . The document itself does not qualify an inmate for eligibility for temporary release … “It is for DOCCS, and not the court or the district attorney, to determine whether conviction under a particular section and subdivision disqualifies an inmate from eligibility” (id.; see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4). The issuance of the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) is not discretionary, and a defendant is entitled to have the exact statutory provisions under which he or she was convicted specified in the sentence and commitment … .

As part of the plea agreement, the County Court promised the defendant that it would sign a “violent felony override,” which would make the defendant eligible for several programs in prison. Since the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) does not, by itself, qualify an inmate for eligibility for temporary release, and eligibility for temporary release programs are determined by DOCCS, the court exceeded its authority by promising the defendant something that it had no authority to promise in exchange for the defendant’s plea of guilty. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent… . People v Ballato, 2015 NY Slip Op 04140, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

 

,

Conviction In a Military Tribunal of “Assault with Intent to Commit Rape” Was Not a “Sex Offense” Under New York Law—However, the Conviction Could Be Considered Under the “Prior Criminal History” Risk Assessment Category

The Second Department determined that conviction of “assault with intent to commit rape” in a military tribunal should not have been as a “prior sex crime” to determine defendant’s risk level.  The offense did not qualify as a “sex offense” under New York law and did not include all the elements of any New York sex offense.  The conviction, however, could be considered as “a prior criminal history” in the risk assessment:

…[T]he military offense of which the defendant was convicted did not qualify as a “sex offense,” as defined in Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii) … . Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s military offense does not “include[ ] all of the essential elements” (Correction Law § 168-a[2][d][i]) of attempted rape in the first degree under New York law, and thus does not qualify as a “sex offense” on that basis.

Although the defendant’s prior military offense of assault with intent to commit rape [*2]does not qualify as a sex offense, it does evidence a prior criminal history, People v Lancaster, 2015 NY Slip Op 04106, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises

he Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendants, who held a fair on their premises, were liable to plaintiff who was attacked by two teenage boys during the fair. There was evidence a security guard had been notified that a fight was about to break out and did nothing:

“While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults … .

Here, the church defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence which demonstrated that the infant plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an unexpected and unforeseeable assault … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault of the infant plaintiff was unexpected and unforeseeable. The plaintiffs presented a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s girlfriend, who explained that, approximately 30 minutes before the subject incident, she spoke to a security guard at the fair and advised him that there was a “confrontation” and that it was “getting worse.” Bisignano v Raabe, 2015 NY Slip Op 04081, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient

The Second Department noted that the “prior written notice” requirement (as a prerequisite for municipal liability for a dangerous condition) is independent of any actual or constructive notice of a defect.  Although there is an exception to the “prior written notice” requirement where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, that act of negligence must immediately result in the existence of a dangerous condition. It is not sufficient to allege that the defect developed over a period of years (here allegedly stemming from work done in 2008):

“A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice” … . A defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition does not satisfy the prior written notice requirement … . Further, although an exception to the prior written notice requirement exists where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence …, that exception “[is] limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition”… . DeVita v Town of Brookhaven, 2015 NY Slip Op 04086, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging an act of deception in an online business promotion.  Defendants “offered to provide to visitors to their website who entered their email address a $1 coupon toward the purchase of their products and further promotional materials.” The complaint alleged the members of the class provided their email addresses but never received a coupon. The Second Department determined the complaint, which alleged breach of contract and a violation of General Business Law 349, was properly dismissed. Because the website indicated the supply of coupons was limited, there was no clearcut “offer” which could form a contract upon acceptance. The online promotion constituted only an “invitation for offers.” Because of the disclaimers, the promotion was not “deceptive” within the meaning of General Business Law 349. Nor did the plaintiff suffer any “actual injury” within the meaning of General Business Law 349:

…[T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the online promotion did not constitute an offer. Rather, it constituted only an invitation for offers, in light of the fact that the promotion expressly stated that the supply of coupons was “limited.” In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret the promotional materials under the circumstances herein … . The record thus showed as a matter of law that the promotion did not create the power of acceptance for consumers and, consequently, no unilateral contract was formed… . * * *

[Re: General Business Law 349], in addition to showing that the conduct was consumer oriented, “[a] prima facie case requires . . . a showing that [the] defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . “Whether a representation or an omission, the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … . A plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an actual injury, as a result of the deceptive act or practice… . …

…[T]he defendants … showed … that the plaintiff did not suffer any “actual injury,” for purposes of the General Business Law § 349 cause of action. To recover damages under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff need not prove intent to defraud or justifiable reliance … . The plaintiff may not “set[ ] forth deception as both act and injury” … . Here, the record showed as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered no actual injury, apart from the alleged deceptive act itself … . Amalfitano v NBTY, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04077, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Unopposed Motions to Enter a Default Judgment Properly Denied—Insufficient Proof of Facts Constituting the Claim

In finding the denial of plaintiff’s unopposed motions to enter a default judgment was proper, the Second Department explained the documentary requirements: “A party’s right to recover upon a defendant’s failure to appear or answer is governed by CPLR 3215… . Thus, a plaintiff moving for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant’s failure to appear or answer… . … The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]). While a verified complaint may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]), it must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge … . [A] pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits…” [internal quotations omitted]. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v United Gen. Tit. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04087, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Defect Was Trivial As a Matter of Law—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the slip an fall case should have been dismissed.  The defect was trivial as a matter of law: “… [P]roperty owners may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip … . There is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that the condition must be of a certain height or depth to be actionable … . In determining whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, the court must examine all of the facts presented, “including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance’ of the injury … . “Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable … “. [internal quotations omitted]  Santacruz v Taco Bell of Am., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04111, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Counts Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Testimony/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Charge to Which No Objection Was Made/Prosecutorial Misconduct Mandated a New Trial

The Second Department determined: (1) many counts of the indictment were rendered duplicitous because the complainant in this sex-offense case testified to more than one offense within the time-periods encompassed by indictment counts; (2) the prosecution must be held to the erroneous jury charge to which no objection was made (stating proof complainant was less than 14 was required when the statute says less than 15); (3) the prosecution did not prove complainant was less than 14—relevant counts dismissed; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during summation (prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness, invited the jury to speculate, shifted the burden of proof, and made inflammatory remarks) mandated a new trial on the remaining counts:

Each count of an indictment may charge one offense only” (CPL 200.30[1]). A count in an indictment is void as duplicitous when that “single count charges more than one offense” … . Where, as here, the crime charged ” is completed by a discrete act, and where a count in the indictment is based on the repeated occurrence of that act over a course of time, the count includes more than a single offense and is duplicitous'” … . ” Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented . . . at trial makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . * * *

… [S]ince the People did not object to the erroneous jury charge, they were “bound to satisfy the heavier burden” … of proving, for counts 1 through 40, that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years old. Since the evidence demonstrated that the complainant was 14 years old during the time periods encompassed by counts 17 through 40 of the indictment, the People failed to satisfy this burden as to those counts. * * *

“[S]ummation is not an unbridled debate in which the restraints imposed at trial are cast aside so that counsel may employ all the rhetorical devices at his [or her] command” … . Rather, “[t]here are certain well-defined limits” (id. at 109). Among other things, “[the prosecutor] must stay within the four corners of the evidence’ and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . A prosecutor would be well-advised not to test these limits, both so as to stay within his or her proper truth-seeking role … and so as to avoid the waste of time and expense that occurs when a new trial must be conducted solely on the basis of summation misconduct. Here, the prosecutor surpassed the “well-defined limits” … .

The prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness when, in response to defense counsel’s summation comments regarding the lack of corroborative medical evidence and the failure to call certain witnesses, the prosecutor told the jury that the uncalled witnesses had “nothing to offer” and that the medical records the prosecution failed to offer into evidence were “either irrelevant or cumulative” … . The prosecutor also improperly invited the jury to speculate as to certain matters, despite advance warning by the trial court not to engage in that line of comment … . Further, the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof by telling the jury, and repeatedly returning to this theme, that it had not “heard” any “compelling reason” for the complainant to lie, and by suggesting that the jury would have to convict the defendant if it did not “buy” the defendant’s explanation of certain evidence … . The prosecutor further improperly suggested that the jury would have to conclude that the complainant was “evil” in order to acquit the defendant … . The prosecutor repeatedly vouched for the complainant, while denigrating the defense and expressing his personal opinion as to the defendant’s lack of credibility … . Finally, the prosecutor made a number of inflammatory references to the defendant using the complainant as his “personal sex toy” … . People v Singh, 2015 NY Slip Op 04157, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Inadequate Excuse for Delay In Answering Complaint—Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Should Have Been Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the bank’s (BAC’s) motion to vacate a default judgment in a foreclosure action.  The bank’s excuse (clerical error) was conclusory and belied by a pattern of neglect:

“To defeat a facially adequate CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there was no default, or that it has a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … .

Here, BAC’s proffered excuse, that its default in appearing and answering the complaint was due to a clerical error, was unsubstantiated, conclusory, and inadequately explained, and, therefore, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default … . Moreover, the record demonstrates that the alleged mistake was not an isolated error, but part of a pattern of “repeated neglect” … . In that regard, BAC failed to present a reasonable excuse for its further delay, after being apprised of its default, in cross-moving to vacate its default. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Krauss, 2015 NY Slip Op 04123, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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