You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Criteria for Modification of Existing Visitation Arrangement

The Second Department explained the principles relevant to a modification of an existing visitation arrangement as follows:

An existing visitation arrangement may be modified “upon [a] showing . . . that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is required” (Family Ct Act § 652 [a];…). “Extraordinary circumstances are not a prerequisite to obtaining a modification; rather, the standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered'”… .. “The best interests of the child generally lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents”…. “In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with her [or his] child, visitation must be frequent and regular. Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges”….  Matter of Grunwald v Grunwald, 2013 NY Slip Op 05069, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

Mother Should Not Have Been Required to Contribute to Children’s Educational Expenses

In determining Family Court abused its discretion in ordering mother to contribute to the children’s educational expenses (where father affirmatively stated he was not seeking the contribution), the Second Department explained:

“Unlike the obligation to provide support for a child’s basic needs, support for a child’s college education is not mandatory'”…. “Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240(11-b)(c)(7), the court may direct a parent to contribute to a child’s education, even in the absence of special circumstances or a voluntary agreement of the parties, as long as the court’s discretion is not improvidently exercised in that regard”…. Here, however, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the mother to pay 29% of the subject children’s educational expenses, since the father affirmatively stated that he was not seeking such contribution from the mother. Matter of Grubler v Grubler, 2013 NT Slip Op 05068, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Permanent Neglect Explained

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found father had permanently neglected the child and explained the criteria as follows:

“To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for a period of one year following the child’s placement with an authorized agency, the parent failed to substantially and continuously maintain contact with the child or, alternatively, failed to plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship”…. According to the statute, planning for the future of the child means taking such steps as may be reasonably necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time that is reasonable under the financial circumstances available to the parent (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][c]). The plan must be realistic and feasible, and good-faith effort shall not, of itself, be determinative …. At a minimum, planning for the future of the child requires the parent to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the home… .  Matter of Egypt AAG, 2013 NY Slip Op 05065, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

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