You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Elements of Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained

In affirming the denial of mother’s motion to hold father in civil and criminal contempt for failing to exercise his right to visitation, the Second Department explained the elements of each:

To find a party in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, ” (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” (…see Judiciary Law § 753[A]). To satisfy the prejudice element, it is sufficient to allege and prove that the contemnor’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party … .

In a criminal contempt proceeding, proof of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt … . “The purpose of criminal contempt (see Judiciary Law § 750) is to vindicate the authority of the court. No showing of prejudice to the rights of a party to the litigation is needed since the right of the private parties to the litigation is not the controlling factor'” … . “However, [a]n essential element of criminal contempt is willful disobedience. Knowingly failing to comply with a court order gives rise to an inference of willfulness which may [*2]be rebutted with evidence of good cause for noncompliance'” … . Matter of Figueroa-Rolon v Torres, 2014 NY Slip Op 06584, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

,

“Substantial Evidence” Standard of Court Review Explained

The Second Department explained the “substantial evidence” standard of court review of an administrative agency’s determination after a disciplinary hearing:

Substantial evidence “is related to the charge or controversy and involves a weighing of the quality and quantity of the proof”; the term “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . “Where there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists'” … . Matter of Sullivan v County of Rockland, 2014 NY Slip Op 06593, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

,

Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie

Re: an elevator-maintenance contract, the Second Department explained when a fraud cause of action must be dismissed in the context of a breach of contract action:

We find unpersuasive the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the fifth cause of action, which alleged fraud. “Where a claim to recover damages for fraud is premised upon an alleged breach of contractual duties, and the allegations with respect to the purported fraud do not concern representations which are collateral or extraneous to the terms of the parties’ agreement, a cause of action sounding in fraud does not lie” … . Here, the complaint and the accompanying affidavits alleged that the individual defendants made knowingly false statements that the subject elevators would be promptly repaired and properly maintained, and that any governmental violations that were issued with regard to them would be resolved and closed. However, the parties’ agreement, as referenced by the defendants in support of their motion, “conclusively established that the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations at issue were not collateral or extraneous to the contract. Rather, the alleged misrepresentations amounted only to a misrepresentation of the intent or ability to perform under the contract” … . Renaissance Equity Holdings LLC v Al-An El Maintenance Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06570, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

Meaning of Imprecise and Confusing Term “Violent Felony Override” Explained

The Second Department, in response to the defendant’s request for a “violent felony override” at sentencing, explained that the confusing term relates to a document that sets force the precise statute, including the section and subdivision, of which the defendant was convicted.  Certain specific enumerated offenses, although violent felonies, will not disqualify an inmate from eligibility for temporary release. Only the Department of Corrections can make the determination whether a conviction disqualifies an inmate from eligibility:

“Violent felony override” is not a term contained in a statute or regulation. It 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 (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 … . One source of confusion that may arise from the use of the term “violent felony override” is that the term may imply that the document itself qualifies the inmate for eligibility for temporary release. It does not. 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 (see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4).

A second source of confusion that may arise from the use of the term “violent felony [*2]override” to describe the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) is the erroneous belief that the issuance of the document is discretionary. Although this provision refers to “a court-generated document or document generated by the Office of the District Attorney,” a defendant is entitled to have the exact subdivision of the statutory provisions under which he or she was convicted specified in the sentence and commitment: “[a] sentence and commitment or certificate of conviction, specifying the section, and to the extent applicable, the subdivision, paragraph and subparagraph of the penal law or other statute under which the defendant was convicted, or a certified copy thereof . . . must be delivered to the person in charge of the correctional facility or office of children and family services facility to which the defendant is committed at the time the defendant is delivered thereto” … . People v Lynch, 2014 NY Slip Op 06608, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

Criteria for Expanded Jury Instruction on the Voluntariness of a Statement Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)—Trial Judge Should Not Have Participated in Readback of Testimony (Not Reversible Error Here)

The Second Department explained when an expanded jury instruction concerning the voluntariness of defendant’s statement is proper (criteria not met here), and noted that a judge should never participate in the readback of testimony (not reversible error here):

A defendant is entitled to raise the issue of voluntariness both at a suppression hearing and at trial (see CPL 710.70[3]…). At trial, however, the court is not required to instruct the jury on the issue of voluntariness unless the defendant requests the charge, and “evidence sufficient to raise a factual dispute has been adduced either by direct or cross-[*2]examination” … . Here, nothing in the evidence adduced at trial raised a factual dispute about the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement … . * * *

…[W]e again remind the trial justice that he should not participate as a reader when readbacks are requested by a jury …, and that this type of participation should not be repeated. In this regard, the court’s practice risks erroneously conveying to the jury that the court is aligned with the party or counsel whose role the court has assumed in the readback … . “[A]s a general matter, a trial judge should shun engaging in readbacks of testimony. In the usual case, it is easy enough for a judge to assign this task to non-judicial court personnel and thereby avoid any risk of creating a misperception in the minds of the jurors”… . People v Baranov, 2014 NY Slip Op 06596, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

, ,

Parol Collateral Agreement Can Be Alleged Where Written Contract Does Not Embody Entire Agreement/Where Existence of Contract Is Disputed, Causes of Action for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit Are Okay/Courts Can Not Excuse Failure to Strictly Comply with Lien Law Requirements

The Second Department noted:  proof of a parol collateral agreement is okay where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement; where the existence of a contract is in dispute, causes of action for unjust enrichment and quantum merit are okay; courts do not have discretion to excuse strict compliance with Lien Law 11:

…”[A] written agreement does not exclude proof of a parol collateral agreement made even between the same parties, where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement and does not on its face purport to cover completely the subject-matter of the alleged collateral agreement” … . Here, although the first cause of action was based on a written contract, the plaintiff stated a second cause of action based on the breach of an alleged oral agreement as to services not encompassed in the written agreement.

As to the third and fourth causes of action, where, as here, the existence of the contract is in dispute, the plaintiff may allege causes of action to recover for unjust enrichment and in quantum meruit as alternatives to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014…).

Lien Law § 11 provides that within 5 days before or 30 days after filing the notice of lien, a lienor “shall” serve a copy of such notice upon the owner, as relevant here, at the owner’s “last known place of residence.” However, the plaintiff’s affidavit of service of the mechanic’s lien demonstrates that the plaintiff failed to serve the notice of the mechanic’s lien in compliance with Lien Law § 11, as the notice was not sent to the defendants’ last known place of residence. As strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated and the courts do not have discretion to excuse noncompliance… . Thompson Bros Pile Corp v Rosenblum, 2014 NY Slip Op 06577, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

,

Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed because the police arrested him in the absence of probable cause.  Two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest were in the backseat of a legally parked vehicle.  Defendant was in the driver’s seat, fumbling with the ignition keys when the police first saw him.  The police pulled him from the vehicle and arrested him.  The Second Department found the arrest premature. Because of the presence of the two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest, there was only a reasonable suspicion of the defendant’s involvement which justified only forcible detention for a brief investigation:

The hearing testimony established that at approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 10, 2009, the police received a radio transmission regarding a robbery in progress, perpetrated by two black males, at a Queens residence. The police activated their sirens and lights and went to the specified house, arriving within two minutes of receiving the transmission. When the police arrived, two of the complainants, still gagged and partially bound, were on the porch of the house. The complainants used gestures to direct the officers’ attention to two men, Myers and Santos, who were walking on the sidewalk, about four houses away. Myers and Santos, who were the only civilians on the block, started running, and the officers chased them. During the chase, Santos discarded an object, which the police later recovered and found to be a gun. When Myers and Santos turned a corner several blocks from the complainants’ house, the officers lost sight of them briefly. When one of the officers turned the corner, he did not see any people, but saw the rear passenger door on a sport utility vehicle being closed. The vehicle was legally parked and the engine was off. The officer ran to the vehicle and peered inside through the tinted windows. After spotting Myers and Santos in the rear passenger seat, the officer “punched” the driver’s side window to alert the driver not to drive away. The officer pulled the driver’s door open and saw the defendant in the driver’s seat, “fumbling” with the keys and trying to put them in the ignition. The officer pulled the defendant out of the car, placed him face-down on the ground, and handcuffed him. Eventually, the defendant was placed in a police car. People v Delvillartron, 2014 NY Slip Op 06327, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

Five-Month Delay In Disclaiming Coverage—Insurer Estopped

The Second Department determined the insurer’s delay in disclaiming coverage in a legal malpractice action prejudiced the attorney.  The insurer was therefore estopped from disclaiming coverage:

Where, as here, the matter does not involve death or bodily injury, the untimely disclaimer by an insurer does not automatically estop the insurer from disclaiming on the basis of late notice unless there has been a showing of prejudice to the insured due to the delay … . Although the court did not make a determination that [the attorney] was prejudiced by the defendants’ approximate five-month delay in disclaiming coverage, based upon this record, [the party injured by the alleged malpractice] made a sufficient showing of prejudice to [the attorney]due to the [insurer’s] late disclaimer such that the defendants are estopped from disclaiming coverage … .Moreover, the purported reason for the disclaimer of coverage was evident on the face of the original complaint, and did not require any additional investigation by the insurer … . The [insurer] failed to rebut this showing. B & R Consol LLC v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06287, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the property owner’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  Although the NYC Administrative Code exempts owner-occupied one- two- and three-family residential properties from liability for the failure to remove snow and ice from an abutting sidewalk, the property owner failed to demonstrate the property was owner-occupied:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . However, this liability shifting provision does not apply to the failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk of “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210[b]). The purpose of the exception is to recognize ” the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair'” … .

Here, the defendant property owner … failed to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the theory that he is exempt from liability pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210(b). Although there was evidence that the subject property was a three-family residence, [the owner’s] deposition testimony raises issues of fact as to whether the premises were “owner occupied” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 7-210(b)… . Medina v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 06302, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled

The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to justify the annulment of the marriage of an incapacitated person (Aldo D.). for whom a temporary guardian had been appointed, to the appellant:

…[C]lear and convincing evidence was presented at the hearing that Aldo D. was incapacitated … . Among other things, testimony was adduced that Aldo D. suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and the temporary guardian testified that he observed symptoms of dementia in Aldo D. For example, the temporary guardian related that Aldo D. did not seem to understand that he was being evicted from his apartment, and that he had married without intending to do so. The temporary guardian further testified that Aldo D. was very limited in his ability to walk and dress himself, and he could not cook for himself. He did not recognize his need for help. When questioned by the court, Aldo D. repeatedly denied marrying the appellant, said that he did not remember marrying the appellant, and did not want to be married to her. The appellant acknowledged during her testimony that they had, “to a degree,” two marriage ceremonies, because, at the time of the first ceremony, Aldo D. “wasn’t feeling well.” The evidence before the Supreme Court was legally sufficient to establish that Aldo D. was incapacitated. Because there was legally sufficient evidence presented to the Supreme Court establishing that Aldo D. was incapacitated, it was proper to annul the marriage between him and the appellant pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) … . Matter of Dandridge, 2014 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

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