You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing this asbestos-related products liability action should not have been granted. Defendants merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and did not submit prima facie proof demonstrating their products were not the source of asbestos exposure. Therefore summary judgment should have been denied without any reference to the opposing papers:

In February 2015, plaintiff Eileen A. O’Connor was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Alleging that her illness stemmed from exposure to equipment containing asbestos while working at the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research (hereinafter WCDLR) from approximately 1975 to 1979, O’Connor, along with her husband, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action in 2015 against, among others, defendants Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Thomas Scientific, Inc. and VWR International, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) … . * * *

… [T]he proof submitted by defendants, respectively, failed to establish that they did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR during the time that O’Connor was employed or that O’Connor was not exposed to any such products … . * * *

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could not have caused O’Connor’s asbestos-related illness… . Fisher Scientific’s lack of documentation from the 1970s does not establish that it did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR. Otherwise, defendants, respectively, “merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff[s’] proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why [plaintiffs’] claims fail” … . O’Connor v Aerco Intl., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05487, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

,

PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not allow the placement of a child in another state absent that state’s permission, even when the placement is with a relative (custody, Family Ct Act article 6) and does not involve placement in foster care (neglect, Family Ct Act article 10). Here the grandmother, who lives in North Carolina, sought custody of the child with mother’s consent. The North Carolina authorities, however, determined placement with grandmother would not be appropriate because she was caring for three other children:

Here, DSS argues that the pending Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding against the child’s mother mandated that DSS, as the child’s custodian, comply with the ICPC in the first instance; therefore, the argument continues, absent approval from the appropriate authorities in North Carolina, Family Court was statutorily barred from placing the child with the grandmother in that state. The grandmother, on the other hand, contends the ICPC does not apply at all because custody of the subject child is being sought in the context of a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding (rather than in conjunction with the related Family Ct Act article 10 neglect proceeding against the mother). Specifically, the grandmother argues that the statute — on its face — is limited to foster care situations or other similar instances in which the receiving state would bear some responsibility for providing aid or services to the subject child. Asserting that she is fully prepared to assume financial responsibility for the child, the grandmother contends that the statutory goals/concerns are not implicated and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that North Carolina did not recommend the requested placement, the ICPC should not bar placement of the child with her.

The case law interpreting the ICPC is limited and is complicated by both the interplay between related and often (as is the case here) contemporaneous proceedings brought under Family Ct Act articles 6 and 10 … and the overarching desire to effectuate an appropriate placement for a child — particularly in those situations where the relevant statutory scheme may be more of an impediment than an aid in achieving a placement that is consistent with the child’s best interests. Here, although there is no question that the grandmother’s efforts to seek custody of the child were well-intentioned, the fact remains that, at the time that the grandmother’s custody petition was filed, DSS had custody of the child in the context of the then-pending Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding … . To that end, “[w]here the custody of a child who is under the supervision of [DSS] is transferred to the custody of a parent or relative in another state, the provisions of the ICPC apply” … — even where, as here, there is a pending Family Ct Act article 6 petition for custody … . Matter of Dawn N. v Schenectady County Dept. of Social Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 05482, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT)/INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) (PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT)

,

COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision and the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) were not necessary parties to this review of a disciplinary proceeding and other grievances:

“CPLR 1001 (a) states that an individual or entity is a necessary party to litigation ‘if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action’ or if the entity [or individual] ‘might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action [or proceeding]'” … . Here, respondent maintains that the Commissioner and CORC are necessary parties to this action because complete relief cannot be accorded in their absence. Although respondent correctly notes that the Commissioner is the individual who renders the final determination in tier III disciplinary proceedings … and CORC is the entity having the final decision on whether to grant or deny an inmate grievance … , the failure to name either the Commissioner or CORC as a party has never before inequitably affected them or prevented this Court from according complete relief in similar proceedings… . Moreover, in light of the fact that respondent, the Commissioner and CORC are integrally related inasmuch as they each fall under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, we find that the Commissioner and CORC are at no risk of prejudice and would not be “inequitably affected by a judgment” if they were not joined in this proceeding … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Commissioner and CORC are not necessary parties, and the failure to name them in proceedings such as this can be ignored. Matter of Green v Uhler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05491, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/NECESSARY PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)

,

HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined County Court should not have dismissed two hate crimes (attempted murder and assault) upon reading the grand jury minutes. Defendant, who is white, shot the victim, who is black, after a tirade of racial slurs:

Viewed most favorably to the People, the evidence before the grand jury provided a prima facie case of the hate crimes of attempted murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree. The foregoing testimony established that defendant repeatedly hurled several denigrating, racial slurs at the victim alone, whom he did not know, from the outset of the confrontation until the moment before he shot the victim at point blank range. Racial animosity and the use of epithets relating to a protected attribute, such as race, are probative of a defendant’s motive and intent for purposes of proving a hate crime … . The grand jury could have rationally inferred from this evidence — as well as the testimony that defendant had, just a half hour earlier, openly stated to another bar patron that he “hate[d] black people” — that the acts constituting the crimes at issue were motivated “in whole or in substantial part” by the victim’s race (Penal Law § 485.05 [1] [b…). Because the grand jury could have rationally drawn the inference of guilt from this proof, the fact “‘[t]hat other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant'”… . Accordingly, we modify the judgment and reinstate counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. People v Spratley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05478, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/HATE CRIMES (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)

,

MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant denied stealing the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence indicated there were security cameras on businesses which may have captured the events, Defendant alleged his attorney did not make any effort to investigate whether videos existed and did not interview a man who was present during the incident:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he alleged certain “non-record facts” that “are material and, if established, . . . would entitle him to relief” so as to warrant a hearing … . Defendant, in particular, averred that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to engage in needed discovery related to his claim that he did not take the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence established that the incident occurred in an area surrounded by businesses with security cameras installed and that defense counsel was aware of this fact. Defense counsel, according to defendant, did not investigate whether those security cameras captured the incident on video prior to trial and did not obtain the footage to determine whether it undercut the victim’s claim that defendant had robbed him. Defendant further noted that he was with another man when the incident occurred and alleged that defense counsel failed to interview that individual to learn whether his testimony would be helpful to the defense. If defense counsel failed without reason to investigate known proof that had the potential to corroborate defendant’s account of events, it “may have amounted to less than meaningful representation”  … . Inasmuch as those questions “cannot be determined on the motion papers, . . . we remit for a hearing where proof can be presented on” them … . People v Cruz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05476, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the convictions, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should have been granted:

At an apppearance on May 19, 2014, defendant’s counsel informed County Court (Drago, J.) that defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The court duly inquired into defendant’s educational background, which included a GED earned in 2003, and engaged in an extensive colloquy with defendant emphasizing the importance of having counsel represent him. During this exchange, when asked to explain his decision, defendant gave the extraordinary response, “I don’t really have much explanation for it, just like I’ve been making bad choices, why not continue.” Defendant then illogically acknowledged this was a bad choice on his part. County Court understandably encouraged defendant to reconsider his decision, and directed that a transcript of the proceeding be provided to the trial judge who would make the decision on the application.

When the trial began on May 27, 2014, County Court (Catena, J.), having reviewed the transcript, directly addressed the representation issue with defendant. Defendant elaborated that he had decided to represent himself because he had been unrepresented for the “first seven months of incarceration” and felt he had “a better chance of representing [himself].” He continued, “So I feel like nobody’s going to fight for my life like I’m going to fight for it.” After confirming that assigned counsel was prepared to go forward, County Court denied defendant’s request to proceed pro se, reasoning that it would not be appropriate or a “wise choice” for defendant to do so. As understandable as that reasoning is, the issue is not whether defendant was making a prudent decision, but whether he had the capacity to knowingly waive his right to counsel … .While defendant’s initial extraordinary explanation raised a cause for concern, we conclude that his confirmation at trial demonstrates that he knowingly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. Since defendant was improperly denied the right to proceed pro se, the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial … . People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 05475, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)

DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation should not have been granted. The relevant period of postreadiness delay was due to motion practice by co-defendants and was therefore not chargeable to the People for any of the defendants:

The five codefendants who were named with defendant in the joint indictment were arrested and arraigned at various times. During the 27-day period that Supreme Court charged to the People as postreadiness delay, several of these codefendants were engaged in motion practice, including motions that were due but had not yet been filed, were awaiting the People’s response, or were awaiting the court’s decision. In a prosecution involving a single defendant, delay resulting from motion practice is not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]…). Likewise, periods of delay that result from motion practice by any codefendant in a joint prosecution are excludable as to all of them … . Defendant did not meet his burden to show that the delay resulting from his codefendants’ motion practice was unreasonably lengthy or that the exclusion provided by CPL 30.30 (4) (d) should not be applied here for any other reason … .

As the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (d) implies, a defendant’s remedy for delays caused by codefendants in a joint prosecution is to move for severance. Here, although defendant was represented by counsel throughout the pertinent period, he neither moved for severance at any time nor showed that good cause for severance existed … . Thus, the 27-day period charged by Supreme Court to the People as postreadiness delay should not have been added to the 163-day period of prereadiness delay, with the result that the People declared readiness within six months and complied with their statutory obligation. People v Chrysler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05477, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses’ testimony firsthand …. .

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe … . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court … that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the small claims action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action between the same parties was a property dispute concerning a right-of-way. Although the small claims matter arose from the property dispute, pursuant to the permissive counterclaim rule, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The Third Department also determined the pretrial motion to dismiss the small claims matter should not have been granted, noting such a motion should rarely be entertained within the simplified small claims procedure:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Nevertheless, the permissive counterclaim rule operates to “save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action” so long as the second action is not based on “a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

A review of the record establishes that, although some of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that predate the first action and are connected to defendants’ attempts in the first action to assert their rights as property owners, the monetary relief that plaintiff now seeks is different than the relief he obtained in the first action and would in no way impair the rights established by the first action. Thus, we find that County Court’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising his negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in this action was clearly erroneous … . Accordingly, we conclude that “substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law” as to these claims … .

We also find that County Court erred in addressing the merits of defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss as it related to the malicious prosecution claim inasmuch as informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see UCCA 1804), and pretrial motions to dismiss should rarely be entertained … . In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to present his evidence at a hearing, we find that substantial justice will best be served by remittal to City Court for a prompt trial … . Rackowski v Araya, 2017 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/RES JUDICATA (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE (RES JUDICATA, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/SMALL CLAIMS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/DISMISS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO (SMALL CLAIMS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/COUNTERCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION CONCERNING THREE OF THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES.

The Third Department determined Family Court did not engage in an age-appropriate consultation concerning three of the children to determine their wishes in this “termination of parental rights” proceeding. The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Contrary to the argument by the attorney for the three younger children, the mere participation at the hearing and the giving of a closing statement, without more, by the attorney who represented Dawn, Summer and Samantha do not satisfy the age-appropriate consultation requirement of Family Ct Act § 1089 (d). The closing statement by the attorney for the three younger children was devoid of any statement indicating the preferences of Dawn, Summer or Samantha … .. Nor does the attorney for the three younger children point to any other evidence in the record that reflects their wishes. We are mindful that the court is ultimately guided by the best interests of the children … . The Legislature, however, has made it explicitly clear that a permanency hearing “shall” include an age-appropriate consultation … , carry significance and cannot be lightly overlooked. Given that the record does not disclose the wishes of Dawn, Summer or Samantha, the matter must be remitted so that Family Court may conduct the age-appropriate consultation under Family Ct Act § 1089 (d) with respect to these children. Matter of Dawn M. (Michael M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05282, 3rd Dept 6-29-17

 

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