You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition Even If Nonparent Has Custody Pursuant to Prior Consent Order

In upholding Family Court’s denial of mother’s petition for sole custody, the Second Department determined the paternal grandparents, who were sharing custody under a consent order, met their “extraordinary circumstances” burden.  The Second Department noted that even where there is a prior order granting custody to a nonparent, the nonparent still has the burden of demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances” to continue the arrangement in the face of a petition for custody:

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, ” the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances'”…. The nonparent has the burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances even where, as here, there is a prior order awarding physical custody of a child to the nonparent that had been issued on the consent of the parties…. Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody….   Matter of DiBenedetto v DiBenedetto, 2013 NY Slip Op 05064, 2nd Dept 7-3-12

 

Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail

In upholding Family Court’s determination the father was estopped from denying paternity, in spite of his executing the acknowledgment based upon a mistake of fact, the Second Department explained the relevant legal principles:

A party seeking to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution must prove that it was signed by reason of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact (see Family Ct Act § 516-a[b][ii]). If the petitioner meets this burden, the court is required to conduct a further inquiry to determine whether the petitioner should be estopped, in accordance with the child’s best interests, from challenging paternity…. If the court concludes that estoppel is not warranted, the court is required to order genetic marker tests or DNA tests for the determination of paternity, and to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity in the event that the individual who executed the document is not the child’s father (see Family Ct Act § 516-a[b][ii];…). * * *

The purpose of equitable estoppel “is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would work injustice on the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, while justifiably relying on the opposing party’s actions, has been misled into a detrimental change of position” …. Thus, “a man who has held himself out to be the father of a child, so that a parent-child relationship developed between the two, may be estopped from denying paternity,” in light of the child’s justifiable reliance upon such representations, and the resulting harm that his denial of paternity would engender…. “The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship” …. In all cases, “the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the child” … . Matter of Angelo AR v Tenisha NW, 2013 NY Slip Op 05084, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

Summary Judgment Premature—Disclosure Necessary

In finding Supreme Court should have treated defendant’s motion, which was made after issue was joined, as a motion for summary judgment (not a motion to dismiss), the Second Department determined the motion should not have been granted because facts essential to oppose the motion may exist but could not yet be stated:

An award of summary judgment would be premature at this stage of the case. CPLR 3212(f) permits a court to deny a motion for summary judgment where it appears that the facts essential to oppose the motion “exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212[f];…). ” This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion'”…. Here, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was made prior to the parties conducting depositions. Since the plaintiffs had no personal knowledge of the relevant facts, they should be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, including depositions of the defendant’s employees and other witnesses that were present during the incident complained of….  Wesolowski v St Francis Hosp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05061, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Standard for Liability of Members of Volunteer Fire Company

In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Second Department explained the standard for finding liability on the part of members of volunteer fire companies:

Members of volunteer fire companies may not be held liable for acts done in the performance of their duties in the absence of “willful negligence or malfeasance” (General Municipal Law § 205-b;…. Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the manner in which [defendant]. operated the vehicle at the time of the accident constituted willful negligence or malfeasance….  Schleger v Jurcsak, 2013 NY Slip Op 05056, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Garbage on Sidewalk May Create Liability

The Second Department determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.  The plaintiff was injured when his bicycle struck garbage and debris on a sidewalk abutting a building owned by defendants.

New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes a duty upon property owners to maintain the sidewalk adjacent to their property. That duty includes the duty to remove “dirt or other material from the sidewalk,” which includes debris on the sidewalk which came from garbage bags placed on the sidewalk by the property owner (New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 [b];…). On their motion for summary judgment, the defendants bore the burden of establishing that they neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence…. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to demonstrate that they did not create a dangerous condition, nor did they establish that they properly maintained the sidewalk as required by Administrative Code of the City of NY § 7-210… .  Weinberg v 2345 Ocean Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05060, 2nd  Dept 7-3-13

 

 

,

Orange County Executive Did Not Have Authority to Terminate County Employees Before County Legislature Eliminated Positions

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined the Orange County Executive did not have the authority to terminate county employees before the legislature acted to removed funding for the positions:

The doctrine of “[l]egislative equivalency requires that a position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by correlative legislative act”…. Pursuant to section 2.02(1) of the Orange County Charter and Orange County Administrative Code, the Orange County Legislature possesses sole authority to “establish or abolish positions of employment and titles thereof.” Here, the County Legislature had not taken any action to abolish the subject positions at the time the County Executive terminated the subject employees’ employment. While the Orange County Charter and Orange County Administrative Code give the County Executive the authority to “supervise, direct and control and administer all departments” (Orange County Charter § 3.02[e]; Administrative Code § 3.02[e]), they do not give the County Executive the authority to terminate the employment of civil service employees without a proper abolition of the positions by the County Legislature in accordance with the doctrine of legislative equivalency…. Further, County Charter § 4.10(a) does not authorize the County Executive to undertake any “remedial action” constituting, inter alia, unilateral modification to the budget and/or abolition of legislatively created positions…. Therefore, under these circumstances, the County Executive did not have the authority to terminate the subject employees’ employment for economic reasons, effective October 29, 2010.   Matter of Civil Serv Empls Assn Inc v County of Orange, 2013 NY Slip Op 04798, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

, , ,

Hospital Can Be Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-employee Physician Under Apparent or Ostensible Agency Theory

The Second Department explained when a hospital can be held vicariously responsible, under a theory of apparent or ostensible agency, for the actions of non-employee physicians who provide medical services at the hospital:

“A hospital [is] responsible to a patient who sought medical care at the hospital, . . . rather than from any particular physician although the physician whose malpractice caused injury to the patient was not an employee of the hospital”… . To create an apparent or ostensible agency, the plaintiff must reasonably rely on the appearance of authority, based on some misleading words or conduct by the principal, not the agent. Moreover, the plaintiff must accept the services of the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal, and not on reliance on the agent’s skill…. In the context of a medical malpractice action, the patient must have reasonably believed that the physicians treating her were provided by the hospital or acted on the hospital’s… . In evaluating whether a doctor is the apparent agent of a hospital, a court should consider all attendant circumstances to determine whether the patient could properly have believed that the physician was provided by the hospital… .  Loaiza v Lam, 2013 NY Slip Op 04780, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department determined injury caused by a glass plate that cracked and fell on plaintiff during demolition was not a “falling object” injury within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) because the glass did not requiring securing and the accident was not due to the absence of safety equipment:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Not every object that falls on a worker gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) ….. To recover, a plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”…. The plaintiff also must show that the object fell “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” …. Here, the glass pane that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was slated for demolition at the time of the accident, and the defendants established, prima facie, that the glass pane was not an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, that is, the demolition… .  Maldonado v AMMM Props Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 04781, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department determined that a worker who was injured while he was taking measurements at the worksite for stonework which was to be fabricated offsite was engaged in a covered activity under the Labor Law.  The court further found that the absence of safety equipment supported summary judgment in favor of the worker even though no one witnessed the accident. With respect to “covered activity,” the Second Department wrote:

To invoke the protections afforded by Labor Law § 240(1), a ” plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or their agent,'” to work at the site…. Moreover, the plaintiff must have, at the time of the accident, been engaged in a “covered activity” under the statute…. “Section 240 is intended to place the ultimate responsibility for building practices on the owner and general contractor in order to protect the workers who are required to be there but who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accidents,” and it is to be liberally construed to achieve this purpose…. Here, [plaintiff] had been hired to fabricate sills, lintels, and coping stones to be used in the construction of the subject building. Part of that job included going to the work site and climbing to the roof of the building to take measurements in preparation for the fabrication. Thus, the injured plaintiff was performing a task ancillary to the construction work and was engaged in a “covered activity” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … .  Gallagher v Resnick, 2013 NY Slip Op 04774, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department determined that a worker who was injured while he was taking measurements at the worksite for stonework which was to be fabricated offsite was engaged in a covered activity under the Labor Law.  The court further found that the absence of safety equipment supported summary judgment in favor of the worker even though no one witnessed the accident. With respect to “covered activity,” the Second Department wrote:

To invoke the protections afforded by Labor Law § 240(1), a ” plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or their agent,'” to work at the site…. Moreover, the plaintiff must have, at the time of the accident, been engaged in a “covered activity” under the statute…. “Section 240 is intended to place the ultimate responsibility for building practices on the owner and general contractor in order to protect the workers who are required to be there but who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accidents,” and it is to be liberally construed to achieve this purpose…. Here, [plaintiff] had been hired to fabricate sills, lintels, and coping stones to be used in the construction of the subject building. Part of that job included going to the work site and climbing to the roof of the building to take measurements in preparation for the fabrication. Thus, the injured plaintiff was performing a task ancillary to the construction work and was engaged in a “covered activity” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … .  Gallagher v Resnick, 2013 NY Slip Op 04774, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

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