You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly Granted Without a Hearing/No “Conflicting Facts” Concerning Whether the Attorney Was Discharged Was For Cause

The Second Department determined the client’s motion to quash the attorney’s charging lien was properly granted (without a hearing) because the attorney failed to raise a question of fact whether his discharge was for cause:

A client has “an absolute right, at any time, with or without cause, to terminate the attorney-client relationship by discharging the attorney” … . “Where an attorney’s representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien” (…see Judiciary Law § 475…). In contrast, “[a]n attorney who is discharged for cause . . . is not entitled to compensation or a lien” … . “Where there are conflicting claims as to whether an outgoing attorney was discharged with or without cause, a hearing is necessary to resolve such dispute” … .

On his motion to quash Wilson’s charging lien, Romero submitted evidence in support of his contention that the plaintiff had discharged Wilson for cause. In opposition, Wilson failed to dispute or address Romero’s factual assertions and, thus, there were no “conflicting claims” as to whether the discharge was for cause … . Sacarello v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00350, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

Complaint by Members of a Congregation against the Congregation’s Board of Trustees Stemming from the Termination of a Rabbi Reinstated—Criteria for Motions to Dismiss, Statutory Interpretation Principles, Criteria for Stating a Defamation Cause of Action, and the Qualified Immunity Afforded Board Members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law Discussed in Some Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversed Supreme Court's dismissal of a complaint against the congregation's board of trustees by members of the congregation alleging causes of action stemming from the board's termination of a Rabbi. The Second Department held Supreme Court had not properly interpreted the Religious Corporations Law and the congregation's by-laws (Supreme Court had erroneously concluded the board had the power to act as it did under the statute and by-laws). The court further held the complaint sufficiently alleged malice in support of the defamation cause of action and sufficiently alleged the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law may not apply.  The court discussed the criteria for a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, statutory interpretation principles, the elements of defamation, and the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit-Corporation Law in some depth. Only a portion of the statutory-interpretation discussion is quoted here.  Supreme Court had interpreted the statutory phrase “The trustees … shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister…” to refer only to the trustees' actions concerning “the salary of the minister.”  The Second Department interpreted the phrase to mean the trustees have no power to “settle,” “remove,” or “fix the salary of” the minister:

We conclude that a more natural reading of the provision “[t]he trustees . . . shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister” (Religious Corporations Law § 200) establishes that “settle or remove” do not modify “the salary of the minister.” Rather, a more natural reading of this passage would be that the terms “settle,” “remove,” and “fix the salary of” all modify “the minister.” Under this reading, the trustees have no power to settle, or hire, the minister; they have no power to remove, or terminate the engagement of, the minister; and, finally, they have no power to fix the salary of the minister.

Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant language, the words “settle” and “fix” would have the same meaning, thus rendering one of these terms superfluous. ” Words are not to be rejected as superfluous where it is practicable to give each a distinct and separate meaning'” (…see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 231). Moreover, the Supreme Court's interpretation would lead to the somewhat unnatural provision for the “removal” of a clergyperson's salary. Furthermore, the use of the word “or” to separate each of the three terms suggests an intent to distinguish three distinct concepts.

Additionally, our interpretation of the statute, prohibiting the trustees from settling or removing the minister, or fixing his or her salary, is supported by the consistent, and quite similar, language set forth in Religious Corporations Law § 5. We note in this regard that ” [a] statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent'” … . Kamchi v Weissman, 2014 NY Slip Op 09109, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the elevator company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the elevator suddenly stopped between floors but was unable to raise a question fact whether the elevator company had notice of the problem which caused the elevator to stop:

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found” … . Nouveau established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of an ongoing condition that would have caused the elevator to abruptly stop, and that it did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition of which it should have been aware … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a prior problem with the elevator provided notice of the specific defect that allegedly caused the elevator to stop on the date of the subject incident. In addition, the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert was conclusory, lacking in foundation, and speculative … . Further, the plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because he failed to demonstrate that the accident was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence … . Reed v Nouveau El Indus Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09116, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Supervision of Student Could Not Have Prevented Injury

In finding that the school's duty to supervise was not the proximate cause of the student's injuries, the Second Department explained the relevant law.  Here, the student tripped and fell after stepping on the straps of his book bag as he left the school:

Schools are under a duty to supervise students in their charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . ” Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students'” … . Moreover, where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury … . Goldschmidt v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 09103, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts over Custody Proceedings Brought by the Child’s Grandmother Two Months After the Child and Mother Moved to Florida

The Second Department determined New York did not have jurisdiction over the custody matter by virtue of Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(a) but did have jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(b) ( Unified Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]).  Respondent mother had moved from New York to Florida with the child two months before the custody proceedings were commenced by petitioner, the child's grandmother (who lives in New York).  The mother argued the New York courts did not have jurisdiction:

UCCJEA provides the jurisdictional grounds for a court of this state to hear an initial custody dispute, including when “this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]…).

It is not disputed that New York was the home state of the child within six months prior to the time that petitioner commenced this proceeding. Because the child moved to Florida approximately two months prior to the commencement of the proceeding, the question presented is whether Family Court properly concluded that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” for the purposes of the UCCJEA. A “person acting as a parent” is one who “(a) has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of six consecutive months . . . within one year immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding; and (b) has been awarded legal custody by a court or claims a right to legal custody under the law of this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [13]). …[B]ecause petitioner neither claims a right to legal custody nor has been awarded legal custody of the child, Family Court erred when it determined that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a).

…Having found that petitioner was not a “person acting as a parent,” it follows that, at the time this proceeding was commenced, the child, who had been living in Florida for fewer than six months, did not have a home state for purposes of the UCCJEA … . In such a case, a New York court may exercise jurisdiction if “(i) the child [and the parent] . . . have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [b]).

* * * … [W]e find that the record supports a finding that, at the time that the petition was filed, the child and respondent had a significant connection with New York and that “substantial evidence regarding her present and future welfare” existed in New York … . Accordingly, we find that Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Matter of Breselor v Arciniega, 2014 NY Slip Op 09084, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


,

In reversing Family Court in a custody proceeding and sending the matter back for complete forensic evaluations of the parties and a de novo hearing, as well as ordering the appointment of a new attorney for the child, the Second Department noted several significant evidentiary errors, including inadmissible hearsay, a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the failure to order forensic evaluations of the parties:

Before a hearing on the petitions was held, the attorney for the subject child, based on the out-of-court statements of the day care provider, made an application for the father to be awarded temporary custody of the subject child. The Family Court granted that application. Such an award was improper, as it was based on the disputed hearsay allegations … .

During the hearing on the petitions, the Family Court erred in permitting the father to testify that the subject child told him that the mother's other daughter “did it.” The father's testimony was intended to show that the mother's other daughter might have sexually abused the subject child. The statement was inadmissible hearsay, and did not qualify as either prompt outcry evidence, or as a spontaneous declaration… . * * *

The Family Court also erred in overruling the mother's objection to the testimony of her other daughter's treating physician about his treatment of that child on the ground that the Privacy Rule standard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (hereinafter HIPAA) for disclosure of her other daughter's medical information was not met (see 45 CFR 164.512[e][1][i], [ii]). The mother's other daughter was not a party to the proceeding, and permitting her treating physician to testify in violation of HIPAA directly impaired the interest protected by the HIPAA Privacy Rule of keeping one's own medical records private. As such, the Family Court should have sustained the mother's objection to this testimony … . * * *

The Family Court erred in failing to order forensic evaluations of the parties, their living environments, and the subject child prior to issuing a decision on the petitions. “In custody disputes, the value of forensic evaluations of the parents and children has long been recognized” … . “Although forensic evaluations are not always necessary, such evaluations may be appropriate where there exist sharp factual disputes that affect the final determination” … . Here, in the absence of such evaluations, the record in this case is inadequate to support the court's finding that it was in the best interest of the subject child for the father to be awarded sole custody of her… .

Moreover, “[an attorney for the child] should not have a particular position or decision in mind at the outset of the case before the gathering of evidence” … . It is only appropriate for an attorney for a child to form an opinion as to what would be in the child's best interest, after such inquiry … . Here, it was inappropriate for the attorney for the subject child to have advocated for a temporary change in custody without having conducted a complete investigation. The attorney for the subject child acknowledged that his application was based solely on his discussion with the father and the subject child's day care provider, which was located near the father's residence, and that he did not speak to the mother or the subject child's other day care provider closer to the mother's residence. Matter of Brown v Simon, 2014 NY Slip Op 09127, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Neither CPLR 5015 Nor Family Court Act 451 Was a Bar to Mother’s Petition to Modify a Child-Support Money Judgment by Temporarily Suspending Interest

In reversing Family Court's denial of mother's petition to modify a child-support money judgment (temporary suspension of interest), the Second Department explained that neither CPLR 5015, nor Family Court Act 451 was a bar to the petition:

The mother's failure to allege any of the grounds listed in CPLR 5015 did not preclude her from seeking modification of the money judgment since the grounds set forth in the statute are not exhaustive … . Additionally, Family Court Act § 451 provides the Family Court with continuing jurisdiction over any support proceeding brought under Family Court Act article 4 “until its judgment is completely satisfied,” and authorizes it to “modify, set aside or vacate any order issued in the course of the proceeding” without limitation as to grounds (Family Ct Act § 451[1]). * * *

Contrary to the Family Court's conclusion, the prohibition contained in Family Court Act § 451 on modifying or vacating an order or judgment so as to “reduce or annul child support arrears accrued prior to the [filing of the petition for modification]” did not preclude the modification the mother sought through her motion, inasmuch as she proposed only to suspend interest on the money judgment prospectively from the date her modification petition was filed (Family Ct Act § 451[1]). Moreover, DSS, the party in whose favor the money judgment was entered, expressly consented to the suspension of interest on the money judgment as requested by the mother.  Matter of Nassau County Dept of Social Servs v Schapp, 2014 NY Slip Op 09139, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


Child Unborn When Sibling Found to Be Neglected Properly Found to Be Derivatively Neglected—Summary Judgment Properly Granted

The Second Department determined Family Court correctly granted summary judgment finding a child not yet born when a sibling was adjudicated neglected to be derivatively neglected.  The court explained the analytical criteria, including when summary judgment in such a case is warranted:

In determining whether a child born after the underlying acts of neglect should be adjudicated as a child who was derivatively neglected, the determinative factor is whether, taking into account the nature of the conduct and any other pertinent considerations, the conduct that formed the basis for a finding of neglect as to one child is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists … . “In such a case, the condition is presumed to exist currently and the respondent has the burden of proving that the conduct or condition cannot reasonably be expected to exist currently or in the foreseeable future” … . “[I]n an appropriate case, the Family Court may enter a finding of neglect on a summary judgment motion in lieu of holding a fact-finding hearing upon the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect as a matter of law and the respondent's failure to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion” … . Matter of Alicia P …, 2014 NY Slip Op 09140, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


Recommencement of A Dismissed Action Pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) Not Allowed Where Prior Action Was Dismissed for Neglect to Prosecute

The Second Department determined that dismissal of plaintiff's action for neglect to prosecute precluded the commencement of another identical action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a):

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that a prior action commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, which asserted the same causes of action, was dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant and neglect to prosecute, and that the order of dismissal entered in that action adequately set forth the conduct of the plaintiff that constituted the neglect and demonstrated a general pattern of delay in proceeding (see CPLR 205[a]). Accordingly, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff could not avail herself of CPLR 205(a), which provides that, under certain circumstances, an action that has been dismissed, albeit not on the merits, may be recommenced within six months after its dismissal… . Webb v Greater NY Auto Dealers Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09121, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Default Judgment of Foreclosure Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Plenary Proceeding/Former Property Owner Cannot Contest Sale of Property After Default Judgment of Foreclosure

The Second Department noted that petitioner, Amona, could not bring a plenary action (an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding) after a tax foreclosure proceeding in which she defaulted and which resulted in the sale of her property.  Amona's only recourse was a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure.  However, Amona's default in the foreclosure action precluded any action to contest the sale of the property:

The Supreme Court properly granted the Conservancy's motion, in effect, to dismiss the petition/complaint. The relief sought herein by Amona should have been pursued by way of a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015(a) in the in rem tax lien foreclosure proceeding … . “A plenary action or proceeding for such relief does not lie and must be dismissed” … . Since Amona has improperly sought to collaterally attack the judgment by way of this proceeding/action, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, dismissed the proceeding/action.

Moreover, Amona's default in the foreclosure action forever barred and foreclosed her of “all right, title, and interest and equity of redemption in and to the parcel” in which she had had an interest (RPTL 1131). Thus, Amona has no standing to contest the County's sale of the property … (see RPTL 1136[3]…).  Matter of Amona v County of Orange, 2014 NY Slip Op 09125, 2nd Dept 12-31-14

 

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