Appellate division : fourth judicial department decisions filed


part of the Support Magistrate’s order that rejected his request for a


Download 3.95 Mb.
Pdf ko'rish
bet15/19
Sana15.12.2019
Hajmi3.95 Mb.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19
part of the Support Magistrate’s order that rejected his request for a
reduction of his child support obligation.  The father requested that
reduction after the mother became the payee for the children’s SSD
benefits, and the father contended that he received less income due to
the change in payee.  It is well settled that, “although a dependent
child’s Social Security benefits are derived from the disabled
parent’s past employment, they are designed to supplement existing
resources, and are not intended to displace the obligation of the
parent to support his or her children” (Graby, 87 NY2d at 611; see
Matter of Hollister v Whalen, 244 AD2d 650, 650).  Therefore, the fact
that the Support Magistrate directed the father to request that the
Social Security Administration designate the mother as the children’s
representative payee, together with the father’s resulting loss of the
use of that money, does not provide a basis for a downward
modification of the father’s child support obligation (see Matter of
McDonald v McDonald, 112 AD3d 1105, 1107-1108; see generally Graby, 87
NY2d at 611).  
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1214    
CA 16-00538  
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
JEFFREY MALKAN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,                         
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
                    
RICHARD E. CASAGRANDE, LATHAM (ANTHONY J. BROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR
CLAIMANT-APPELLANT.   
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JULIE M. SHERIDAN OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.                                    
                   
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson,
J.), entered June 19, 2015.  The order denied the motion of claimant
for leave to file and serve a late claim.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:  We reject claimant’s contention that the Court of
Claims erred in denying his motion seeking permission to file a late
claim against defendant based upon its alleged breach of contract.  
“ ‘A determination by the Court of Claims to grant or deny a motion
for permission to file a late . . . claim lies within the broad
discretion of that court and should not be disturbed absent a clear
abuse of that discretion’ ” (Ledet v State of New York, 207 AD2d 965,
965-966).  Here, the court considered the requisite statutory factors
and concluded that three of them favored claimant, i.e., notice,
opportunity to investigate, and lack of substantial prejudice to
defendant (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; see also Ledet, 207 AD2d
at 966).  We nonetheless decline to disturb the court’s exercise of
discretion inasmuch as we agree with the court’s conclusions that
claimant failed to demonstrate an adequate excuse for the delay, that
the proposed claim lacks merit, and that claimant had and/or has
alternative remedies (see Lange v State of New York, 133 AD3d 1250,
1250; Matter of Magee v State of New York, 54 AD3d 1117, 1118; Olsen v
State of New York, 45 AD3d 824, 824-825). 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1215    
CA 16-00496  
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
JAMIE LEE RODRIGUEZ AND ERIC RODRIGUEZ, JR., 
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL 
GUARDIANS OF ERIC RODRIGUEZ, III, INFANT, 
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,                          
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
DYNASTY MAINTENANCE CREW, LLC, ET AL., 
DEFENDANTS,
AND JOVINO PROPERTY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,               
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.                                        
                                                            
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (LUISA JOHNSON OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.   
                                                                    
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy
J. Drury, J.), entered October 19, 2015.  The order denied the motion
of defendant Jovino Property and Financial Management for summary
judgment and for sanctions.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of the motion
seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant
Jovino Property and Financial Management, and as modified the order is
affirmed without costs. 
Memorandum:  Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages
for burn injuries sustained by their son, who was involved in an
accident near a fire pit at a family gathering.  Jovino Property and
Financial Management (defendant) appeals from an order denying its
motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and
for the imposition of sanctions and costs against plaintiffs and/or
their counsel for their failure to discontinue the action against it. 
We conclude that Supreme Court erred insofar as it denied that part of
the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against
defendant, and we modify the order accordingly.  
We conclude that defendant met its burden on the motion of
establishing as a matter of law that it did not employ the individual
who allegedly caused the accident, defendant DeParis R. Vives, and
that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Kats-
Kagan v City of New York, 117 AD3d 686, 687; Berger v Dykstra, 203
AD2d 754, 755, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 965; see generally Kavanaugh v
Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535, 546).  Defendant further established as a

-2-
1215    
CA 16-00496  
matter of law that it did not manage the property on which the
accident occurred, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of
fact on that point as well (see Reynolds v Avon Grove Props., 129 AD3d
932, 933).  Finally, we see no basis in the record for the imposition
of liability against defendant as the alleged owner of the vehicle
from which Vives allegedly unloaded a certain gas can prior to the
incident (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1]).  The
record establishes as a matter of law that the van and the gas can
were owned by Vives or his company, defendant Dynasty Maintenance
Crew, LLC, and not by defendant.  We thus agree with defendant that it
cannot be held liable to plaintiffs because, as a matter of law, it
had nothing to do with the property, the van, the gasoline, or the
fire, and because it did not employ Vives.
We nevertheless further conclude that the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying defendant’s request for the imposition of
sanctions against plaintiffs and/or their counsel (see 22 NYCRR 130-
1.1 [a]; Kern v City of Rochester [appeal No. 1], 267 AD2d 1026, 1026;
Scaccia v MacCurdy, 239 AD2d 942, 942; see also CPLR 8303-a [a];
Leonard v Reinhardt, 20 AD3d 510, 511; Lavin & Kleiman v J.M. Heinike
Assocs., 221 AD2d 919, 919). 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1218    
CA 16-00544  
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF JAYSON BULMAHN, 
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR 
GENERAL AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 
HEALTH, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.   
                                                            
STAMM LAW FIRM, WILLIAMSVILLE (GREGORY STAMM OF COUNSEL), FOR
PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.                                 
                        
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,
Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered June 26, 2015 in a
proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.  The judgment denied the
amended petition.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision
at Supreme Court.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1219    
CA 15-01355  
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,  
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
JOSEPH SCHOLTISEK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
                    
NEIL T. CAMPBELL, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.  
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF
COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.                                   
                  
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County
(Dennis S. Cohen, A.J.), entered June 26, 2015 in a proceeding
pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10.  The order, among other
things, directed that respondent be committed to a secure treatment
facility.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:  Respondent appeals from an order pursuant to Mental
Hygiene Law article 10 determining, following a jury trial, that he is
a detained sex offender who has a mental abnormality within the
meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) and determining, following a
nonjury dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender
requiring confinement in a secure treatment facility.  We affirm. 
To the extent that respondent contends that the evidence is
legally insufficient to establish that he has a mental abnormality, we
reject that contention.  Petitioner’s expert witnesses testified that
respondent suffers from “pedophilic disorder”; had four victims
spanning ten years; re-offended after going to prison and while under
parole supervision; and has not progressed or completed any sex
offender treatment.  In addition, one of petitioner’s experts 
testified that, despite the fact that respondent has ready
accessibility to age-appropriate sexual partners, he continues to
pursue children, which, according to petitioner’s expert witness, is
an indication “of the strength of that interest and urge, that sex
with people his own age isn’t enough.”  We therefore conclude that
petitioner sustained its burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that respondent suffers from “a congenital or
acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional,
cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that

-2-
1219    
CA 15-01355  
predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex
offense and that results in [him] having serious difficulty in
controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]; see Matter
of State of New York v Stein, 85 AD3d 1646, 1647, affd 20 NY3d 99,
cert denied ___ US ___, 133 S Ct 1500; Matter of State of New York v
Bushey, 142 AD3d 1375, 1376; Matter of State of New York v
Gierszewski, 81 AD3d 1473, 1473-1474, lv denied 17 NY3d 702).  We
reject respondent’s further contention that the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence.  “The jury verdict is entitled to great
deference based on the jury’s opportunity to evaluate the weight and
credibility of conflicting expert testimony” (Matter of State of New
York v Chrisman, 75 AD3d 1057, 1058), and it should be set aside only
if the evidence preponderates so greatly in respondent’s favor that
the jury’s determination is not supported by any fair interpretation
of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v Nervina, 120 AD3d
941, 943, affd 27 NY3d 718).  Here, we conclude that the jury’s
determination is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. 
Contrary to respondent’s further contention, we conclude that
petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the
dispositional hearing that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring
confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03 [e]; 10.07 [f]).
“ ‘Supreme Court, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to
evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting [psychological]
testimony presented . . . , and we see no basis to disturb its
decision to credit the testimony of petitioner’s expert over that of
respondent’s expert’ ” (Matter of State of New York v Connor, 134 AD3d
1577, 1578, lv denied 27 NY3d 903; see Matter of State of New York v
Adkison, 108 AD3d 1050, 1052; see also Bushey, 142 AD3d at 1376-1377). 
Finally, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court was under no
obligation to “consider the possibility of a ‘least restrictive
alternative’ in rendering its disposition” (Matter of State of New
York v Bass, 119 AD3d 1356, 1357, lv denied 24 NY3d 908; see Matter of
State of New York v Michael M., 24 NY3d 649, 657-658; Matter of State
of New York v Parrott, 125 AD3d 1438, 1439-1440, lv denied 25 NY3d
911). 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1226    
KA 15-00736  
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
SAMUEL RIVALDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.                        
                                                            
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                    
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A.
Randall, J.), entered March 28, 2014.  The judgment revoked
defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of
imprisonment.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1227    
TP 16-00762  
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF TERRY DAUM, PETITIONER,                    
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 
SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.                                               
 
WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF
COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                         
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial
Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M.
Mohun, A.J.], entered May 4, 2016) to review a determination of
respondent.  The determination found after a tier III hearing that
petitioner had violated various inmate rules.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously
confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1228    
TP 16-00691  
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL FREDERICK, PETITIONER,             
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
DONALD E. VENETOZZI, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING 
UNIT, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 
AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.                                 
  
MICHAEL FREDERICK, PETITIONER PRO SE.   
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                 
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial
Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Thomas G.
Leone, A.J.], entered April 22, 2016) to review a determination of
respondent.  The determination found after a tier III hearing that
petitioner had violated an inmate rule.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously
confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1229    
KA 15-00902  
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
PATRICK J. ELLIOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
                   
JOHN J. RASPANTE, UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.   
LEANNE K. MOSER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOWVILLE, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO,
ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.          
                                                           
Appeal from a judgment of the Lewis County Court (Daniel R. King,
J.), rendered November 8, 2013.  The judgment convicted defendant,
upon a jury verdict, of rape in the second degree and endangering the
welfare of a child.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
after a jury trial of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30
[1]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]).  Contrary
to his sole contention on appeal, viewing the evidence in light of the
elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson,
9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the
weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,
495).  The 14-year-old victim testified that defendant had sex with
her, and the forensic evidence, although inconclusive, was not
inconsistent with her testimony.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1230    
KA 14-00230  
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.    
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
MALQUAN R. JUNIOUS, ALSO KNOWN AS PIG
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM,
PLLC (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
MALQUAN R. JUNIOUS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                    
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M.
Argento, J.), rendered December 19, 2013.  The judgment convicted
defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted assault in the first
degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and
criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon a jury verdict of attempted assault in the first degree (Penal
Law §§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]), criminal possession of a weapon in the
third degree (§ 265.02 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the
fourth degree (§ 265.01 [4]).  Defendant is convicted of firing a
shotgun toward a woman, who was living with his uncle in a house owned
by defendant’s grandmother, after defendant and his uncle had engaged
in a physical altercation.  We reject defendant’s contention in his
main and pro se supplemental briefs that the verdict on the attempted
assault count is against the weight of the evidence.  Viewing the
evidence in light of the elements of the crime of attempted assault in
the first degree as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9
NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the evidence established that
defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the woman by
means of a deadly weapon (see § 120.10 [1]), and that he engaged in
conduct that tended to effect the commission of the crime (see 


Download 3.95 Mb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling