You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that two children born in Hong Kong, and living with their father in New York, did not meet the “dependency-on-the-family-court” requirement such that they could petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SJIS) pursuant to 8 USC1101 (which provides undocumented children with a gateway to lawful permanent residency in the US).  The court explained:

In New York, a child may request that the Family Court, recognized as a juvenile court (see 8 CFR 204.11[a]), issue an order making special findings and a declaration so that he or she may petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for SIJS … . Specifically, the findings of fact must establish that: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her home country (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]). With the declaration and special findings, the eligible child may then seek the consent of the Department of Homeland Security for SIJS (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]).  * * *

The requirement that a child be dependent upon the juvenile court or, alternatively, committed to the custody of an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, ensures that the process is not employed inappropriately by children who have sufficient family support and stability to pursue permanent residency in the United States through other, albeit more protracted, procedures. In this case, there has been no need for intervention by the Family Court to ensure that the appellants were placed in a safe and appropriate custody, guardianship, or foster care situation, and the appellants have not been committed to the custody of any individual by any court….

While the appellants met all of the other requirements for SIJS, the Family Court correctly determined that the dependency requirement had not been satisfied. A child becomes dependent upon a juvenile court when the court accepts jurisdiction over the custody of that child, irrespective of whether the child has been placed in foster care or a guardianship situation… . The Family Court has only granted applications for SIJS special findings where dependency upon the court was established by way of guardianship, adoption, or custody.  Matter of Hei Ting C, 2013 NY Slip Op 05310, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

Attorney for Child Could File Abuse Petition After Abuse Petition Withdrawn by Department of Social Services

The Second Department determined that the attorney for the child had the power to file a child abuse petition after the Department of Social Services withdrew its petition:

Although the primary responsibility for initiating a child neglect or abuse proceeding “has been assigned by the Legislature to child protective agencies” … , Family Court Act § 1032 also permits such a proceeding to be initiated by “a person on the court’s direction.” “The requirement for court approval or authorization for proceedings prompted by those other than child protective agencies indicates the Legislature’s concern that judicial proceedings touching the family relationship should not be casually initiated and imposes upon the courts the obligation to exercise sound discretion before permitting such petitions to be filed” … . Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record demonstrates that the attorney for the child was in fact authorized by the Family Court to file a new abuse petition on behalf of Amber A., and that the Family Court’s decision to authorize him to do so was a provident exercise of its discretion… .  Matter of Amber A, 2013 NY Slip Op 05308. 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

,

Executor’s Motion to Be Substituted for Decedent in Negligence Action Too Late

In affirming the dismissal of an executor’s motion to be substituted as a party in a negligence action (on behalf of the decedent), the Second Department explained:

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate.” CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … . The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit….

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute himself as a party plaintiff and granting the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint, in light of the 21-month delay in obtaining preliminary letters testamentary, the further one-year delay in seeking substitution, the failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delays, the absence of any affidavit of merit, and the prejudice to the defendant… .  Terpis v Regal Hgts Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05200, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a).  The plaintiff had sought a notice to admit that a vehicle owned by the defendant and operated by defendant’s employee ‘was in contact with the plaintiff.”  The Second Department wrote:

“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial”…. Here, the plaintiff’s notice to admit improperly sought the defendant’s admission concerning a matter that went to the heart of the controversy in this case…. Moreover, ” the purpose of a notice to admit is not to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, such as the taking of depositions before trial'” …. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for a protective order. Ramcharran v NY Airport Services LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05195, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Therapeutic Dog Allowed In Court to Support Alleged Child Victim of Sexual Offenses During Trial Testimony

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, determined that the “courts of this State should permit the presence of a therapeutic ‘comfort dog’ in a trial setting when the court determines that the animal may provide emotional support for a testifying crime victim.”  The defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child.  The alleged victim was his daughter who 15 years old at the time of trial.  It was alleged that the victim twice became pregnant by the defendant and the defendant arranged for abortions in both instances.  The Second Department found support for its determination in Executive Law section 642-a (procedures making the judicial process less threatening to child victims).  The Second Department rejected defendant’s arguments that the presence of the dog violated his right to due process of law and right of confrontation.  People v Tohom, 2013 NY Slip Op 05234, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Refusal to Allow Relative’s Testimony Did Not Deny Right to Present a Defense

The Second Department determined defendant was not denied his right to present a defense by County Court’s refusal to allow defendant’s sister-in-law to testify:

A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to produce witnesses, and “absent a showing of bad faith, an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to the defense should not be denied”…. However, a trial court may, in its discretion, exclude evidence that is of slight or remote significance, speculative, lacking a good-faith factual basis, or solely based on hearsay….

In the instant case, the proposed testimony of the defendant’s sister-in-law regarding the relationship between the defendant and his wife consisted largely of hearsay, was cumulative to other evidence, and was only marginally, if at all, relevant. Consequently, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding that testimony, and that ruling did not deprive the defendant of the right to present a defense… .  People v Strzelecki, 2013 NY Slip Op 05233, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

Action Properly Brought by Third Party Beneficiary of Indemnity Agreement

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss brought by a defendant who had entered an indemnity agreement with a judgment debtor.  The Second Department explained that plaintiff had stated a cause of action based upon plaintiff’s being a third-party beneficiary of the indemnity agreement:

Pursuant to CPLR 5227, a special proceeding may be commenced by a judgment creditor “against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor.” Such a proceeding is properly asserted against one who agreed to indemnify the judgment debtor in the underlying proceeding. The judgment creditor stands in the judgment debtor’s shoes, and may enforce the obligations owed to the judgment debtor by the indemnifying party… * * *.

Here …the judgment debtor … was not a party to the indemnification agreement. However, the Supreme Court properly determined that [the judgment debtor] was an intended third-party beneficiary of the indemnification agreement. Parties asserting third-party beneficiary rights under a contract must establish: (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties; (2) that the contract was intended for their benefit; and (3) that the benefit to them is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate them if the benefit is lost…. Where performance is rendered directly to a third party, it is presumed that the third party is an intended beneficiary of the contract….

Indemnity contracts are to be strictly construed to avoid reading into them duties which the parties did not intend to be assumed…. Here, however, the intent … to benefit [the judgment debtor] is apparent from the face of the indemnification agreement… . Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05220, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

Criteria Where Defendant Not Specifically Mentioned in Allegedly Defamatory Statement

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of a defamation cause of action, the Second Department explained the plaintiff’s burden when the plaintiff is not specifically named in the allegedly defamatory statements:

While a plaintiff need not be specifically named in a publication to sustain a cause of action sounding in defamation, a plaintiff who is not specifically identified “must sustain the burden of pleading and proving that the defamatory statement referred to him or her” … .. “In determining whether a complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for defamation, the dispositive inquiry is whether a reasonable listener or reader could have concluded that the statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff”…. A court may grant a motion to dismiss a defamation cause of action if the complaint cannot support a finding that the statement refers to the plaintiff …. Indeed, the burden of pleading and proving that statements are ” of and concerning'” the plaintiff … is not a ” light one'”… . Dong v Hai, 2013 NY Slip Op 05191, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

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