You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Testimony Insufficient to Overcome Presumption Photo Arrays, Which Were Not Preserved, Were Unduly Suggestive—Subsequent Line-Up, Which Included Persons Much Older than Defendant, Was Unduly Suggestive—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined both identification procedures were unduly suggestive and ordered a new trial.  The People did not preserve the photo arrays and the testimony about the photo arrays was insufficient to overcome the presumption the arrays were suggestive.  The subsequent line-up included persons much older that the 18-year-old defendant and, therefore, was unduly suggestive:

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The People's failure to preserve the original photographic arrays viewed by the complainants gave rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, and the People did not present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption … . The fact that the police failed to preserve the arrays viewed by the complainants does not warrant suppression in and of itself. However, the detective's testimony at the suppression hearing as to how the computerized procedure operated was insufficiently detailed to establish its fairness … . The detective gave inconsistent testimony regarding what age criteria he entered in the computer system to generate each photo array. Furthermore, he did not recall how many screens either complainant viewed before each of them recognized the defendant, or how long it took each to make an identification. Therefore, the evidence did not overcome the presumption that the arrays were suggestive … . Although the police had not yet focused on any particular suspect, it cannot be said that the sheer volume of photographs viewed was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness, as it is unknown how many photographs were viewed by the complainants … .

We need not address whether the subsequent lineup was sufficiently attenuated in time from the photo identification procedure to nullify any possible taint, because the lineup procedure was also unduly suggestive … . While there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance, the other individuals in the lineup should sufficiently resemble the defendant so that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification … . Upon our review of a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainants, it is apparent that the defendant and one of the fillers appear to be of similar ages, but the other three fillers appear visibly older than the defendant … . The age disparity was sufficiently apparent as to orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the crimes charged … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 09024, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, ,

Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department, in the context of a legal malpractice action, explained the requirements for common law indemnification and contribution.  The motions to dismiss at issue were brought by the third-party defendant law firm (M & S) against the third-party plaintiff law firm (Danna).  The Second Department determined Danna's common law indemnification cause of action should have been dismissed because Danna's alleged liability was not purely vicarious and Danna's contribution action properly survived dismissal because Danna alleged M & S's legal malpractice contributed to plaintiff's damages:

“The principle of common law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “Common-law indemnification is warranted where a defendant's role in causing the plaintiff's injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious” … . “Thus, a party which has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification” … . Here, the plaintiffs' claims against the Danna defendants in the instant legal malpractice action are based upon the Danna defendants' representation of the plaintiffs in an accounting proceeding they commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey proceeding). * * * …[T]he documentary evidence submitted by M & S in support of its motion conclusively established that any liability on the part of the Danna defendants for legal malpractice was not solely passive and purely vicarious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of M & S's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action for common-law indemnification in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

As to the contribution cause of action, ” [i]n determining whether a valid third-party claim for contribution exists, the critical issue is whether the third-party defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff which was breached and which contributed to or aggravated plaintiff's damages'” … . ” [T]he remedy may be invoked against concurrent, successive, independent, alternative and even intentional tortfeasors'” … . “A defendant attorney may seek contribution from a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent that the subsequently retained attorney's negligence may have contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff's injuries” … . Contrary to M & S's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the contribution cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, since the defendants third-party plaintiffs properly stated a cause of action alleging that M & S's legal malpractice contributed to the plaintiff's damages, and documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a complete defense to that cause of action… . Bivona v Damma & Assoc PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08947, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Petitioner, Who Was Not a Biological or Adoptive Parent of the Child, Was Adjudicated a Parent in a Support Proceeding Brought by the Respondent—Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Petitioner Was Deemed a Parent in a Subsequent Custody/Visitation Proceeding Brought by the Petitioner

The Second Department determined a determination that petitioner (Arriago) was the child's parent in a support proceeding precluded the respondent (Dukoff) from arguing petitioner was not the child's parent in a subsequent custody/visitation proceeding.  Arriago and Dukoff were domestic partners in a same-sex relationship.  Arriago was artificially inseminated and gave birth to the child.  After successfully seeking child support from Arriago because Arriago was a parent of the child, Dukoff argued that Arriago did not have standing, as neither the biological or adoptive parent, to bring the custody/visitation proceeding.  Family Court disagreed and awarded Arriago visitation:

Dukoff … argues that the court's conclusion that Arriaga had standing to commence this [custody/support] proceeding is contrary to the Court of Appeals' holdings in Debra H. v Janice R. (14 NY3d 576) and Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651). We disagree with Dukoff's contentions.

Domestic Relations Law § 70(a) provides, in part, that “either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and [the court] may award the natural guardianship, charge and custody of such child to either parent . . . as the case may require” (emphasis added). This statute has also been construed to grant standing to ” either parent'” to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to determine the issue of visitation rights … . In Debra H., the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its holding …  that the term “parent” in Domestic Relations Law § 70 encompasses only the biological parent of a child or a legal parent by virtue of adoption and that a “de facto parent” or “parent by estoppel” could not seek visitation with a child who is in the custody of a fit parent (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 590 [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]…). In Debra H., however, the Court analyzed the significance of the civil union the parties had entered into in Vermont prior to the child's birth. The Court determined that, under Vermont law, a child born during a civil union was a child of both partners. Thus, it concluded, Debra H. was the child's parent under Vermont law. As a matter of comity, the Court recognized her as the child's parent under New York law as well, thereby conferring standing for her to seek visitation and custody at a best interests hearing (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 601).

The Court of Appeals noted that recognizing Debra H. as a parent did not conflict with the public policy of New York and would not “undermine the certainty that Alison D. promises biological and adoptive parents and their children,” since “whether there has been a civil union in Vermont is as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption. And both civil union and adoption require the biological or adoptive parent's legal consent, as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 600-601). At the heart of the Court's reasoning in Debra H. was a desire to provide a bright-line rule affording certainty and predictability to parents and children. The Court expressed concern that an equitable estoppel hearing would create protracted litigation on the issue of standing.

In this proceeding, Arriaga asserts that she has standing as a parent of the child pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Under that doctrine, ” 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'” … .

The concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals in Debra H. are not implicated in the present case, where Arriaga invoked the doctrine of judicial estoppel, not equitable estoppel. No hearing was required to decide whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in this case, nor did the determination involve a “complicated” or “nonobjective test” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 594). Just as in Debra H., whether Arriaga was adjudicated a parent of the child was “as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption” (id. at 600).

Moreover, just as in second-parent adoptions, the adjudication of Arriaga as a parent of the child required the biological mother's affirmative legal consent, “as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (id. at 600-601). Indeed, here, Dukoff was the party who sought to have Arriaga adjudicated a parent. Although Dukoff did not consent to adjudicating Arriaga a parent of the child for the purposes of visitation rights, the biological mother in Debra H. also did not do so.  Matter of Arriaga v Dukoff, 2014 NY Slip Op 08990, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders

In the course of affirming the finding that appellant was a dangerous sex offender who must be civilly confined, the Second Department noted that Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which applies to “detained sex offenders,” applies equally to lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders.  The court went on to briefly describe the relevant analytical criteria and proof burden:

The appellant's contention that this proceeding was “jurisdictionally flawed” because he did not meet the definition of a detained sex offender is without merit. The appellant was incarcerated upon his conviction of attempted sodomy in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 110.00 and former Penal Law § 130.50 at the time that this proceeding was commenced (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[g][1]). The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not distinguish between lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders … . * * *

A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e]). The State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). Matter of State of New York v Abdul A, 2014 NY Slip OP 09006, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Evidence of General Cleaning Practices Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice

The Second Department noted that the absence of construction notice of a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case cannot be demonstrated by evidence of general cleaning procedures, as opposed to specific evidence when the area in question was inspected and cleaned:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . With respect to the issue of constructive notice, to meet its initial burden, “the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell.” “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Sesina v Joy Lea Realty LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08976, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349

The Second Department determined that the insurer's (Quincy's) failure to notify the insured of a change in a the coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy (in violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) supported a cause of action for deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349. Quincy had notified the insured's broker of the change, but not the insured:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349 are that the defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented, and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deceptive act or practice … . ” Intent to defraud and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not elements of the statutory claim” … . Conduct has been held to be sufficiently consumer-oriented to satisfy the statute where it constituted a standard or routine practice that was “consumer-oriented in the sense that [it] potentially affect[ed] similarly situated consumers” … .

Here, Quincy's submissions failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that its failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Insurance Law § 3425(d) did not constitute a deceptive business practice. Quincy, in its submissions, admitted that it sought to change and reduce coverage by eliminating a particular endorsement to its New York homeowners' insurance policies, including the plaintiffs' insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs' renewal of the policy, Quincy eliminated the endorsement, but failed to notify those insureds of that change in the manner prescribed by the Insurance Law. Moreover, the plaintiffs, who continued to seek full replacement costs in relation to the fire that destroyed their home, were clearly injured by the lack of notice that they were underinsured. Valentine v Quincy Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08984, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion to Set Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Without a Hearing, Criteria Explained/Lower Court Properly Considered Issues Raised for the First Time in Plaintiff’s Reply Papers Because Defendant Availed Himself of the Opportunity to Oppose the Contentions at Oral Argument

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the stipulation of settlement without a hearing.  The court explained the analytical criteria.  (It is worth noting that the Second Department found that Supreme Court properly considered matters raised for the first time in plaintiff's reply papers because the defendant availed himself of the opportunity to oppose the contentions at oral argument.):

“Marital settlement agreements are judicially favored and are not to be easily set aside” … . However, because of the fiduciary relationship existing between spouses, ” [a] stipulation of settlement should be closely scrutinized and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unjust because of the other spouse's overreaching'” … .

“To rescind a separation agreement on the ground of overreaching, a plaintiff must demonstrate both overreaching and unfairness” … . ” [N]o actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the settlement is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other's overreaching . . . in its execution'” … . “[C]ourts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching” … . However, generally, if the execution of the agreement is fair, no further inquiry will be made … . “[W]hile evidence that one spouse was not represented by counsel is insufficient, standing alone, to find overreaching, it is a significant consideration when determining whether the parties entered into the stipulation freely and fairly” … . “[C]ourts have thrown their cloak of protection [over] separation agreements and made it their business, when confronted, to see to it that they are arrived at fairly and equitably, in a manner so as to be free from the taint of fraud and duress, and to set aside or refuse to enforce those born of and subsisting in inequity” … . Jon v Jon, 2014 NY Slip Op 08961, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the Default Pursuant to CPLR 317

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for leave to file a default judgment was properly denied and defendant was properly allowed to serve a late answer.  Although the defendant failed to explain why it failed to file the correct address for service of process with the Secretary of State, there was no question that the defendant did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend and did nothing to deliberately avoid service.  The Second Department used CPLR 317 as its basis for vacating the default, even though that ground was not cited by the defendant below:

Although the defendant did not cite to CPLR 317 in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, under the circumstances of this case, this Court may consider CPLR 317 as a basis for vacating the default (see CPLR 2001…). CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant “did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense” (CPLR 317…). Here, the record reveals that neither the defendant nor its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time to defend itself against this action … . There is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process, especially since the plaintiffs had knowledge of the defendant's actual business address … . In addition, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Gershman v Midtown Moving & Storage Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08959, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Child Not Yet Born When Father Neglected Siblings Was Properly Found to Be Derivatively Neglected

The Second Department determined that a child who had not been born at the time father was found to have neglected two siblings was properly determined to be derivatively neglected by the father:

“In determining whether a child born after underlying acts of abuse or neglect should be adjudicated derivatively abused or neglected, the determinative factor is whether, taking into account the nature of the conduct and any other pertinent considerations, the conduct which formed the basis for a finding of abuse or 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'” … . If such a showing is made, ” 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'” … .

Here, the conduct which formed the basis for the Family Court's finding that the father neglected the subject child's two older siblings was “so proximate in time to [this proceeding] that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” …, and the father failed to complete the programs mandated by the prior order of disposition relating to the older siblings … . Thus, ACS [Administration for Child Services] demonstrated that the father derivatively neglected the subject child, and because the father ” failed to present any evidence to either rebut [ACS's] prima facie case or establish that the condition leading to [the] neglect finding as to the other child[ren] no longer existed,'” the derivative neglect finding was proper … . Matter of Madison B…, 2014 NY Slip Op 08991, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the appointment of a guardian for Mae R, who was 91, was necessary. The Second Department further found that the petitioner was not the appropriate choice for a guardian.  [In addition, the court noted that, in absence of bad faith, it was an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to order petitioner to pay the fees for the court evaluator and appointed attorney.]  The court explained the relevant law and the facts:

Under Mental Hygiene Law article 81, a court may appoint a guardian for a person or a person's property upon determining, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requirements of article 81 have been met (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02[a][2], 81.12[a]…). Before a court may appoint a guardian, it must determine (1) that a guardian is “necessary to provide for the personal needs of that person, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety and/or to manage the property and financial affairs of that person”; and (2) that “the person agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated” within the meaning of the statute (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1], [2]…). The statute specifies the relevant considerations and issues in the determination of the need for a guardian, and expressly requires that the court consider the report of the court evaluator (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]) and the “sufficiency and reliability of available resources” that may satisfy the needs of the proposed ward without requiring the appointment of a guardian (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]…). Even where the court finds that appointment of a guardian is necessary, it is not required to appoint the person proposed by the petitioner … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, which rejected the recommendation of the court evaluator, the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mae R. is an incapacitated person as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02(b). The evidence at the hearing established that Mae R., a 91-year-old woman who presently resides by herself in her two-family home in Queens, is likely to suffer harm because she is unable to provide for her personal needs and manage her property, and does not adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her limited abilities (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b][1], [2]…).

The evidence established, among other things, that, until recently, Mae R. managed her person and property with the daily assistance of a tenant who previously resided with her, and Mae R.'s grandniece, both of whom testified at the hearing and were interviewed by the court evaluator. The evidence further established that, subsequently, Mae R. executed a health care proxy and power of attorney in favor of a neighbor, and a last will and testament bequeathing her entire estate to this neighbor, who procured the attorney who drafted the alleged directives and testamentary instrument. At an interview with the court-appointed evaluator, however, Mae R. did not recall issuing the directives and testamentary instrument. Indeed, she told the court-appointed evaluator that she wished to leave her estate to family members. Further, witnesses at the hearing had heard Mae R. say that the same neighbor “makes me say things I don't mean and then I forget.” Matter of Loftman …, 2014 NY Slip Op 08998, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

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