You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody/Access Matters Because the Children No Longer Had a Sufficient Connection with New York State

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to consider child custody/access matters because the children no longer had a significant connection with New York:

New York is the children’s “home state,” since they resided here for six consecutive months before the commencement of the child custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a]; see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a…). The judgment of divorce, which determined the parties’ child custody issues, confers continuing jurisdiction over the children with the New York Courts (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 76, 76-a). However, a New York court may decline to exercise jurisdiction where, as here, neither of the parents nor any of the children retain a significant connection with New York and substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a]…). A court may also decline to exercise jurisdiction where it determines that the children or the children’s parents no longer reside in New York (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a], [b]…). Under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it determines, after an evaluation of statutory factors, that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state provides a more appropriate forum … . Here, since the defendant resides in California, and the plaintiff and children moved to Maryland in November 2012, the Supreme Court, after considering the statutory factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(2)(a) through (h), properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the issues concerning the defendant’s access to the children. Pelgrim v Pelgrim,2015 NY Slip Op 02738, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Re: Whether Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition Thereby Negating the Written-Notice Requirement

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed whether the village created the dangerous sidewalk condition, thereby eliminating the written-notice prerequisite to a lawsuit:

A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice statute may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective condition in a sidewalk unless it either has received written notice of the defect or an exception to the written notice requirement applies … . Recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement exist where the municipality has created the defect through its affirmative negligence, or where a special use of the property has conferred a special benefit upon the municipality … . The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition … .

Where, as here, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the Village created a defect by an affirmative act of negligence, the Village, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, must demonstrate that it did not create the condition … . The Village failed to do so. Monaco v Hodosky, 2015 NY Slip Op 02735, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Emergency Power to Demolish a Building Properly Exercised

The Second Department determined the city properly exercised its emergency power to demolish plaintiff’s building due to exigent circumstances:

“A municipality may demolish a building without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard if there are exigent circumstances which require immediate demolition of the building to protect the public from imminent danger” … . “[W]here there is competent evidence allowing the official to reasonably believe that an emergency does in fact exist, or that affording pre-deprivation process would be otherwise impractical, the discretionary invocation of an emergency procedure results in a constitutional violation only where such invocation is arbitrary or amounts to an abuse of discretion” … . Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there exists a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have rationally concluded that the defendant’s determination that immediate demolition of the building was required in order to protect the public from imminent danger was arbitrary … . Rapps v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02743, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect

In the context of a mortgage foreclosure, the defendant made a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to open a default judgment.  The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied and explained the difference between allegations of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” fraud as the basis of the motion.  The court noted that a lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect:

The defendant alleged, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud,” by submitting fraudulent documents in support of its claim for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . She did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter” … . Therefore, the defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for her default … . However, she failed to offer any excuse for her default … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 02757, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Foreign Money Judgment Properly Enforced—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly enforced a Canadian money judgment.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Under CPLR article 53, a judgment issued by the court of a foreign country is recognized and enforceable in New York State if it is final, conclusive and enforceable when rendered'” … . “[A] foreign country judgment is considered conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money'” … . “However, a foreign country judgment is not conclusive, and thus may not be recognized, if (1) it was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law’ or (2) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant'” … . “A plaintiff seeking enforcement of a foreign country judgment bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the mandatory grounds for nonrecognition do not exist” … .

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is part of a judicial system that provides impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process of law … and, here, that court had a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant purposefully transacted business in Ontario (see CPLR 5305[b]; CPLR 302[a][1]…). Moreover, CPLR 5305(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a foreign country judgment “shall not be refused recognition” by New York “for lack of personal jurisdiction if . . . the defendant voluntarily appeared” in the foreign court proceedings for purposes other than “contesting the jurisdiction of the court” over him or her. Although the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was properly served with process in the Canadian action …, the plaintiff nonetheless demonstrated that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant “voluntarily appeared” in the Canadian action (CPLR 5305[a][2]…) and “did more than [it] had to do to preserve a jurisdictional objection” … .  Gemstar Can., Inc. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02726, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Concise Description of the Application of the DeBour Street-Encounter Criteria Leading to the Seizure of a Weapon

The Second Department, in finding the seizure of a gun from the defendant proper, provided a concise application of the DeBour street encounter factors:

The arresting officer testified that he saw, from a distance of “[l]ess than a foot” away, “what looked to be” “two to three inches” of “the butt of a firearm” that was “pulling down” the defendant’s rear pants pocket. These observations gave the officer an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant … . Upon seeing the officer, the defendant immediately turned sideways to obscure his rear pants pockets from the officer’s view, giving the officer a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” justifying greater intrusion to conduct an inquiry … . At that point, when the defendant lowered his hands in the direction of his waist area, the officer had reason to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury and was authorized to conduct a protective frisk (see CPL 140.50[3]…). Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest arose after the officer grabbed the defendant’s hands for his own safety and, upon “wrestling” with the defendant, saw that the item in the defendant’s back pocket was, in fact, a firearm … . Thus, the record establishes that the officer’s conduct was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope and intensity to the circumstances of the encounter as it developed … . Moreover, given the legality of the officer’s actions, the defendant’s claim that his post-arrest statement to police should be suppressed as the product of an illegal search or seizure is without merit… . People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02790, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Sentencing Court Must Place on the Record Its Reasons for Denying Youthful Offender Status

The Second Department noted that the sentencing court must always place on the record its reasons for denying youthful offender status to an eligible youth:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … .

Here, the Supreme Court failed to adequately place on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status. Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v Stevens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02794, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Court’s Failure to Share Entire Contents of Note from Jury Constituted a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the trial court’s failure to share the entire contents of a note from the jury was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

CPL 310.30 requires that trial courts give notice to the People and the defense before responding to a note from a deliberating jury … . A court’s ” core responsibility under the statute is both to give meaningful notice to counsel of the specific content of the jurors’ request—in order to ensure counsel’s opportunity to frame intelligent suggestions for the fairest and least prejudicial response—and to provide a meaningful response to the jury'” … . Meaningful notice means notice of the “actual specific content of the jurors’ request” …, and “a court must read a jury note verbatim’ so that the parties have the opportunity to accurately analyze the jury’s deliberations and frame intelligent suggestions for the court’s response'” … .

“Although not every violation of CPL 310.30 is immune from normal preservation principles, a failure to apprise counsel about the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenants of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error,” which does not require preservation … .

Here, the trial court’s failure to share the entire contents of a substantive note from the jury constituted a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal … . People v Cotton, 2015 NY Slip Op 02780, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under DeBour Criteria—Criteria Explained and Applied

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer, Schwizer, properly escalated the intrusiveness of his encounter with the defendant (under the DeBour criteria) based upon the actions of the defendant:

“On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” …, the Court of Appeals established a graduated four-level test for evaluating the propriety of police encounters when a police officer is acting in a law enforcement capacity … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality … . The second level, known as the common-law right of inquiry, requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion … . The third level permits a police officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual. Such a detention, however, is not permitted unless there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime … . The fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime … .

“Encounters between citizens and the police in public places are of an endless variety with no two being precisely alike” … . Here, Schwizer properly exercised his common-law right of inquiry when he initially encountered the defendant, as the defendant matched the general description of a man with a gun at the subject location … .

At this stage in the encounter, absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, Schwizer could not forcibly detain the defendant … . However, during his common-law right of inquiry, Schwizer was permitted to ask the defendant to show or raise his hands as a self-protective measure … .

The defendant’s failure to comply with Schwizer’s request to show his hands, coupled with the nature of the report, and the presence of the defendant’s hands in his waist area, escalated the encounter and justified Schwizer’s conduct in grabbing the defendant’s hands as a self-protective measure … . Once Schwizer felt the firearm in the defendant’s waist area, he was furnished with reasonable suspicion … . People v Abdul-Mateen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02489, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

,

Criteria for Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement (Re: Entry of an Apartment) Not Met

The Second Department determined the police should not have entered and apartment without a warrant because the emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.  The landlord had simply indicated a woman was in the apartment without any indication the woman was in distress:

Under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … . The United States Supreme Court has determined that the second prong, regarding the subjective intent of the police, is no longer relevant under the Fourth Amendment (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 404-405). However, we need not decide whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution because we conclude that the People did not satisfy the first prong of Mitchell … . The mere sound of unspecified banging and a woman’s voice coming from the upstairs apartment was insufficient to show that there was an emergency at hand requiring the immediate assistance of the police in order to protect life or property … . The owner did not say that she heard the woman screaming or crying for help, and the officers did not observe any indicia of an emergency … . People v Hammett, 2015 NY Slip Op 02498, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

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