You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , , ,

A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY WHICH VIOLATES NEW YORK LAW IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that the forum selection clause in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable. The opinion is comprehensive and discusses several substantive civil procedure, contract law, corporation law, insurance law, workers’ compensation law and public policy issues which cannot fairly be summarized here:

This action is just one of many such actions commenced across the country alleging that the defendant Applied Underwriters, Inc. (hereinafter Applied Underwriters), and affiliated entities, all subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., deceptively circumvented state laws and regulations in the marketing and sale of an unlawful workers’ compensation insurance program. Here, the defendants seek to enforce a forum selection clause, in favor of Nebraska, contained in an insurance policy that New York State regulators have found violates New York law. While parties are generally free to select a forum in which to resolve their contractual disputes, here, where it is alleged by the plaintiff, and found by New York State regulators, that New York law has been violated, a foreign corporation may not profit from such violation to the detriment of New York employers and workers. The forum selection clause contained in an illegal insurance policy is not enforceable. As a matter of public policy, New York companies shall not be compelled to litigate in Nebraska to vindicate their rights. Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v Applied Underwriters, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02032, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A forum selection clause (designating Nebraska as the forum) in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined that, although a New York juvenile delinquency adjudication under article 3 of the Family Court Act cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level determination, a New Jersey juvenile delinquency adjudication can be considered:

Although the express language in the Guidelines provides that a juvenile delinquency adjudication constitutes proof for the assessment of points under risk factors 8 and 9, in People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5), this Court held that a juvenile delinquency adjudication rendered under Family Court Act article 3 could not properly be considered in a SORA proceeding. * * *

… [T]his Court’s holding in Campbell does not preclude a SORA court from considering the defendant’s New Jersey adjudication. As discussed above, the prohibition in Campbell rested on the language of Family Court Act § 381.2 … . The Legislature, while protecting Family Court Act article 3 proceedings, has also identified the age of a sex offender at the time of the first sex offense to be a factor “indicative of high risk of repeat offense” to be considered under the Guidelines … , in addition to the nature of prior offenses … . While an adjudication or statements made to the court or an officer in a Family Court Act article 3 proceeding may not be used as proof at a SORA hearing, the People are not precluded from establishing the underlying conduct by other means … . The defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication was not rendered under New York’s Family Court Act article 3, and, thus, the provisions of the Family Court Act … do not apply to it. People v Hart, 2024 NY Slip Op 02071, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A New York juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level assessment because of a prohibition in the Family Court Act. Because the Family Court Act does not apply to a New Jersey juvenile delinquency determination, and because New Jersey does not have a similar prohibition, the New Jersey adjudication can be considered in a New York SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

ACQUITTAL ON THE RAPE AND FORCIBLE TOUCHING CHARGES RENDERED THE “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD” CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s “endangering the welfare of a child” conviction, determined defendant’s acquittal on the rape and forcible touching charges rendered the conviction “against the weight of the evidence:”

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we consider the jury’s acquittal on other counts, and, under the circumstances of this case, find the jury’s acquittal on the other counts supportive of a reversal of the conviction on the count of endangering the welfare of a child … . Here, the defendant was charged with, but acquitted of, rape in the second degree, rape in the third degree, and forcible touching, and the alleged conduct that formed the basis of those charges was essentially the same alleged conduct that formed the basis of the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. Once the jury discredited the complainant’s testimony with respect to the charges of rape and forcible touching, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant “knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” … , as charged on the count of endangering the welfare of a child. People v Liston, 2024 NY Slip Op 02066, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point; Defendant was acquitted of the rape and forcible touching charges which were based on the same allegations as was the conviction on the “endangering the welfare of a child” charge. The conviction, therefore, was “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER MUST CONSENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICE IMPOSED AS PART OF A SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying the sentence imposed by County Court, noted that the defendant youthful offender did not consent to community service as part of his sentence, as required by the Penal Law:

… [A] court may require a defendant, as a condition of a sentence of probation, to “[p]erform services for a public or not-for-profit corporation, association, institution[,] or agency” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][h]; cf. CPL 170.55). However, a community service condition “may only be imposed upon conviction of” certain types of crimes, including a “class E felony, or a youthful offender finding replacing any such conviction, where the defendant has consented to the amount and conditions of such service” … . …

… [T]he defendant correctly asserts that “the record is . . . devoid of any indication that [he] actually consented to the terms and conditions of community service imposed at the time of sentencing” … . The comments of defense counsel at sentencing did not provide the requisite consent, as defense counsel’s suggestion of community service was made in the context of arguing that a term of incarceration was unwarranted. In any event, even if defense counsel’s statements could be construed as providing the defendant’s “consent to the possibility of community service . . . , there is no proof whatsoever on the record that [the] defendant consented to the amount and conditions of the community service actually imposed by [the] County Court, which is what is specifically required by [Penal Law § 65.10(2)(h)]” … . People v Joseph D., 2024 NY Slip Op 02064, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: Penal Law 65.10 requires the consent of a youthful offender to community service as part of a sentence.

 

PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff 120 Lexington Ave Corp, as the successor in interest to 122-24 Lexington Ave Corp, was precluded from bringing the action by the doctrine of res judicata. A nearly identical action by 122-24 Lexington Ave Corp had been dismissed based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and orders, which is deemed a dismissal on the merits:

Plaintiff concedes that it is the successor in interest to 122-24 Lexington Avenue Corp., an entity whose nearly identical case against Wesco was dismissed in May 2021 for failure to comply with discovery demands and court orders after the court had issued a conditional preclusion order. Because plaintiff is the successor to 122-24 Lexington, it is in privity with that entity and is bound by prior adjudications against it … . Furthermore, a dismissal based on a failure to provide discovery in the face of a preclusion order is considered an award on the merits, and thus is given res judicata effect … . 120 Lexington Ave. Corp. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02004, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: An action which was dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with discovery demands and orders bars a subsequent action pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER; THE JURY’S REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S “EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE” DEFENSE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REDUCED; THE STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s murder conviction to manslaughter first degree, over an extensive dissent, determined the jury’s determination that defendant failed to prove he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]), was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who suffered from mental illness, had been involuntarily committed to to a medical facility. The victim, who was beaten and strangled, allegedly sexually assaulted defendant in the shower. The dissent argued defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence of defendant’s mental illness in support of the motion to suppress statements defendant made to a detective:

… [W]e find that the jury’s determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]) when he killed the victim was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s state of mind is a subjective question, and the existence of a reasonable excuse is an objective question … . The first element, the “subjective element[,] ‘focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance'” … . The second element requires an objective determination as to whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, and “[w]hether such a reasonable explanation or excuse exists must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, ‘however inaccurate that perception may have been'” … .

From the dissent:

At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of the detective who had interviewed the defendant. The defense did not present any evidence. Defense counsel was well aware of the … voluminous psychiatric documentation concerning the defendant’s mental illness. However, defense counsel failed to move to admit into evidence any of these records. Rather, in support of the motion to suppress, defense counsel merely presented arguments that the defendant’s mental state at the time that the Miranda warnings were administered precluded the admissibility of his statements to the detective. People v Andrews, 2024 NY Slip Op 01935, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Here, the appellate court determined the jury’s rejection of defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” affirmative defense was against the weight of the evidence. The murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter first degree.

 

, ,

HERE FAMILY COURT HAD THE INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS THE CHILD’S FATHER; RESPONDENT WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING PATERNITY BASED ON HIS POSITION IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court had the power to determine whether father (Gunderson) is responsible for the support of the child and father was judicially estopped from contesting paternity because he was awarded parental access in a prior proceeding:

… [T]he Support Magistrate, sua sponte, dismissed the mother’s petition without prejudice on the ground that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order of child support because the parties were never married and there was no acknowledgment of parentage or order of filiation. * * *

… [B]ecause the Family Court has jurisdiction to determine whether an individual parent is responsible for the support of a child (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]), in appropriate cases, it also has the inherent authority to ascertain whether a respondent is a child’s parent … .

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed” … . Here, Granderson successfully obtained an order awarding him parental access with the child based on his assertion that he was a parent to the child. Matter of Joseph v Granderson, 2024 NY Slip Op 01921, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Here, based upon Family Court’s authority to determine whether a parent is responsible for the support of the child, Family Court had the inherent authority to determine whether respondent is the child’s father.

Practice Point: Here respondent sought and was awarded parental access in a prior proceeding. He was judicially estopped from contesting paternity in this proceeding.

 

,

THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARENT TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING OR TREATMENT AS PART OF A CUSTODY OR PARENTAL ACCESS ORDER; BUT THE COURT MAY NOT IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS ON SEEKING PARENTAL ACCESS IN THE FUTURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that a court may order a parent to submit to counseling or treatment as part of a custody or parental access order, but the court cannot not impose those same conditions upon seeking parental access in the future:

“A court deciding a custody proceeding may ‘direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] or custody order'” … . Here, the Family Court properly directed the father to submit to hair follicle, drug, and alcohol testing as a component of his parental access … . However, the court should not have made the father’s submission to such testing a condition to seeking future parental access … . Matter of Buskey v Alexis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01917, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: A court may impose treatment or counseling conditions in a parental access order, but cannot so condition the seeking of future parental access.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION” OR “SPECIFIC CAUSATION” FRYE CRITERIA IN THIS MOLD-INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert did not offer sufficient proof plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold. Neither the “general causation” nor “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, were met:

General causation cannot be established through studies showing only a “risk” or “association” between mold exposure and the development of certain medical conditions … . The defendants’ expert relied on a position paper of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published in 2006 … , that controverts the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of causation … . The scientific literature and testimony proffered by the plaintiff’s expert was insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of general causation has gained general acceptance in the scientific community … . …

… [T]he method used by [plaintiff’s] expert to establish specific causation did not satisfy Frye. … [I]t is not enough for a plaintiff’s expert to testify that “exposure to a toxin is ‘excessive’ or ‘far more’ than others,” or to offer testimony “that merely links a toxin to a disease or ‘work[s] backwards from reported symptoms to divine an otherwise unknown concentration’ of a toxin” … . “… [W]e have never dispensed with a plaintiff’s burden to establish sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . “At a minimum, . . . there must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of th[e] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01904, Second Dept 4–10-24

Practice Point: Here the expert evidence purporting to demonstrate plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold did not satisfy the “general causation” or “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, criteria explained.

 

, ,

BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition to modify custody should not have summarily dismissed because father and child were living out-of-state. Because New York has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court should have allowed mother to present evidence on any connections to New York:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, a court of this state which has made an initial custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that determination until it finds, as is relevant here, that it should relinquish that jurisdiction because “neither the child” nor “the child and one parent” have a “significant connection” with New York, and “substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … .

… [T]he initial custody determination was rendered in New York. … Family Court should not have summarily dismissed the mother’s petitions on the ground that the child was living with the father out of state, without considering whether the court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1), and affording the mother an opportunity to present evidence as to that issue … . Matter of Brandon v Brady, 2024 NY Slip Op 01916, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Where New York has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, it is error to summarily dismiss a custody petition on the ground the child lives out-of-state. It must be determined whether there exist sufficient connections with New York to warrant hearing the case in New York.

 

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