You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly found that California, rather than New York, was the appropriate forum for determining child custody and visitation matters:

A court of this State which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1]…). The factors to be considered in making this determination include the length of time the subject child has resided outside the state, any agreement between the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction, the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence, and the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2]…). “Particularly relevant to the jurisdictional determination is whether the forum in which the litigation is to proceed has optimum access to relevant evidence” … . “Maximum rather than minimum contacts with the State are required” … . Greenfield v Greenfield, 2014 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

, ,

Defendant Entitled to Hearing on Motion to Vacate His Conviction (by Guilty Plea) Based Upon Defense Counsel’s Alleged Failure to Inform Him of the Risk of Deporatation

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing about whether his attorney’s alleged failure to inform him that his guilty plea could result in deportation constituted ineffective assistance of counse under Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“In order to prevail on a claim that, prior to deciding whether to plead guilty, a defendant was deprived of the right to the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution, he or she must meet the two-part standard set forth in Strickland v Washington … . “Under the first prong of that standard, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness'” … . “The second prong focuses on whether counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process'” … . * * *

In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice to the defendant about the risk of deportation which will arise as a result of a plea of guilty … . Thus, in those cases in which Padilla is applicable, “where an attorney fails to advise a criminal defendant, or misadvises the defendant, regarding clear removal consequences of a plea of guilty, his or her representation falls below an objective standard of reasonableness” … . * * *

“To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland standard, also known as the prejudice prong, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . “In the context of a Padilla claim, the defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances'” … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant established, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational.  People v Varenga, 2014 NY Slip Op 01472, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

,

Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have precluded plaintiff’s expert from testifying based upon the timing of the retaining of the expert and the serving of his expert information.  There was no evidence the delay was intentional or willful,  and no showing of prejudice to the opposing party:

CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) “does not require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute,’ unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party” … . Here, the record does not support a conclusion that the plaintiff’s delay in retaining his expert or in serving his expert information was intentional or willful. Furthermore, any potential prejudice to the defendants was ameliorated by a two-month adjournment of the retrial agreed to by the parties … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying at the retrial … . Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 2014 NY Slip Op 01426, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, the Second Department determined the so-called “Prompt Pay Law” (Insurance Law 3224-a) affords an implied private right of action.  The law, therefore, can be enforced by a private lawsuit based upon its breach.  The defendant insurance company (First United) argued only the NYS Insurance Department could enforce the statute.

The Prompt Pay Law requires an insurer to pay undisputed claims within 30 days after receipt of an electronic submission or within 45 days after receipt by other means (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[a]). If a claim is disputed, the insurer is obligated to pay the undisputed portion of the claim, if there is any, and, within 30 days of receipt of the claim, notify the policyholder, covered person, or health care provider in writing of the specific reason that the insurer is not liable to pay the claim (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[b][1]). In the alternative, the insurer may request additional information necessary to determine its potential liability with respect to payment of the claim (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[b][2]). First United allegedly did neither. An insurer that fails to comply with the provisions of the Prompt Pay Law is obligated to pay the health care provider or the person submitting the claim the full amount of the claim, plus 12% interest per annum, to be computed from the date the claim was required to be paid (see Insurance Law § 3224-a[c][1]). * * *

Where a statute does not expressly confer a private cause of action upon those it is intended to benefit, a private party may seek relief under the statute “only if a legislative intent to create such a right of action is fairly implied’ in the statutory provisions and their legislative history” … . This inquiry involves three factors:” (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … .Only the third factor, which is generally the “most critical” … is disputed here. * * *

A review of the legislative history of the Prompt Pay Law reflects that the law was directed toward the protection of health care providers and patients from late payment of claims, and was not primarily designed to provide a mechanism for preventing harm to the public in general.  Maimonides Med Ctr v First United Am Life Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 01441, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

,

Police Pursuit Not Justified by Defendant’s “Grabbing of his Waistband Area” or Subsequent Flight/Gun Suppressed

The Second Department affirmed the suppression of a weapon.  After seeing the defendant “grab… his waistband area” the police approached and the defendant ran, ultimately discarding a gun.  The pursuit was not justified by what the police saw prior to the defendant’s flight:

A suspect’s “flight alone . . . even [his or her flight] in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information, is insufficient to justify pursuit” … . However, flight, “combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit” … .Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s “grabb[ing]” of his “waistband area” in such a way that it “[s]eemed” to the detectives that the defendant “had a bulge or something heavy that he was holding on the outside of his garments,” did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion that was necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s having made eye contact with the detectives and his flight from the detectives … . As the detectives’ pursuit of the defendant was unlawful, and the defendant’s disposal of the weapon during the pursuit was precipitated by the illegality and was not attenuated from it …, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the weapon. People v Haynes, 2014 NY Slip Op 01462, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

,

Testimony of Defense Expert About Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications Properly Precluded/Criteria for Such Testimony Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court appropriately denied the defendant’s request to present expert testimony about the reliability of eyewitness identifications because there was sufficient corroborating identification evidence.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

Where a case “turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to exclude expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications if that testimony is (1) relevant to the witness’s identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror” … . Here, there was sufficient corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crimes to obviate the need for expert testimony, including, inter alia, independent identifications by two witnesses other than the three complainants, surveillance videos, and the defendant’s incriminatory statements to police officers … . People v Rhodes, 2014 NY Slip Op 01469, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

Stipulation of Settlement Not Unconscionable/Provision Relating to Child Support Invalid Because No Indication Parties Were Advised of the Relevant Portions of the Child Support Standards Act

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have vacated a stipulation of settlement as unconscionable. However, the provision in the stipulation relating to child support was invalid because it did not indicate the parties were advised of the relevant portions of the Child Support Standards Act. The court explained the criteria for unconscionability in this context:

“A stipulation of settlement which is made in open court by parties who are represented by counsel and who unequivocally agree to its terms will not be set aside absent a showing that the stipulation was tainted by mistake, fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability” … . As relevant here, a stipulation of settlement is unconscionable if it “is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the … judgment of any person of common sense” … . However, a stipulation of settlement is not unconscionable “simply because it might have been improvident or one-sided” … . The defendant here, as the party seeking to vacate the stipulation of partial settlement, had the burden of showing that its terms were unconscionable … . O’Hanlon v O’Hanlon, 2014 NY Slip Op 01303, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted Awarding Sole Custody to Plaintiff

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had correctly found a change in circumstances justifying a change in the custody arrangement (sole custody awarded to the plaintiff). Despite the stipulation allowing liberal visitation by the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply with the agreement:

“Where parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time [*2]of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children'” … . In determining the child’s best interests, the court must look to the totality of the circumstances … . “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [c]ourt’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .In this case, the critical issue facing the Supreme Court was the parties’ relative abilities to foster a relationship with the noncustodial parent and to cooperate in coordinating long-distance visitation. As we have stated, “one of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” … . In contrast, “[w]illful interference with a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation is so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” … . Alvarez v Alcarez, 2014 NY Slip Op 01286, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Father Demonstrated Child Was Constructively Emancipated/Child Support Obligation Terminated

The Second Department determined Family Court should have terminated father’s child support obligation because the child was “constructively emancipated:

””It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21″ … . “However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment”… . ” [W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his [or her] child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his [or her] visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent’… . Such a breakdown in communication between a parent and a child may result from the parent’s “malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse” … . Where a child justifiably refuses to continue a relationship with a parent due to such parental conduct, the child will not be deemed to be self-emancipated … . “The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it”… . * * *The evidence at the hearing established that the father consistently made a serious effort to maintain a relationship with the subject child during the relevant time period. The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the father regularly called the subject child at the mother’s home, but his calls would either go unanswered, or, according to the mother, the subject child would refuse to speak with him. The father testified that he left messages indicating his willingness to participate in counseling with the subject child, but these offers were not accepted. On special occasions, the father left gifts and cards for the child that the child did not acknowledge. The father also contacted the child’s therapist and suggested therapeutic visitation with the child. However, the child refused this offer. In addition to demonstrating the father’s serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child, the evidence demonstrated that, during the relevant period of time, the father’s behavior was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with the subject child. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the father satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the subject child was constructively emancipated, and a finding in the father’s favor in connection with this issue is warranted by the facts. Matter of Jurgielewicz v Johnston, 2014 NY Slip Op 01325, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

, ,

Unjust Enrichment Does Not Require a Wrongful Act by the One Enriched

The Second Department explained the criteria for determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and the elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action. Unjust enrichment does not require a wrongful act:

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … .”The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether … it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . A plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered … .”Unjust enrichment . . . does not require the performance of any wrongful act by the one enriched” … . “Innocent parties may frequently be unjustly enriched” … . “What is required, generally, is that a party hold property under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain it'” … . Alan B Greenfield MD PC v Beach Imaging Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01285, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

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