April 25, 2024 Appellate Decisions

April 25, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, has recently issued rulings affirming the dismissal of a personal injury claim against Swarovski North America, upholding a lawsuit against a sports camp under the Child Victims Act, confirming the consideration of out-of-state juvenile records in a sex offender registration, ordering a hearing for the sealing of an old weapons conviction, and upholding the dismissal of the City of New York from a personal injury lawsuit. Brooklyn Eagle file photo by Robert Abruzzese

Second Department upholds dismissal of personal injury claim against Brooklyn Museum

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, has affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit against Swarovski North America and its related entities regarding a personal injury claim. The plaintiff, Francisca Paden, alleged that she was injured after tripping over a sign outside the Brooklyn Museum of Art in June 2018.

The sign, advertising the “2018 CFDA Fashion Awards in partnership with Swarovski,” was claimed by Paden to be negligently placed or maintained. In her lawsuit, filed in 2021, Paden sought damages from Swarovski for injuries she claims to have sustained in the incident.

The legal issue at the center of the appeal was whether Swarovski owed a duty of care to Paden, which is a prerequisite for a negligence claim. The initial ruling by the Supreme Court of Kings County, which dismissed the complaint, was based on the absence of evidence that Swarovski owned, occupied, controlled, or specially used the property adjacent to where the incident occurred.

Under New York law, as cited in the decision, establishing a duty of care in cases involving property requires demonstrating control or a special use of the property where the injury happened. The appellate court’s decision noted that Paden’s allegations against Swarovski were conclusory and lacked factual support necessary to establish such a duty.

The appellate court, comprising Justices Mark Dillon, Linda Christopher, Lara Genovesi and Barry Warhit, unanimously agreed that the plaintiff did not adequately plead facts to show that Swarovski had any responsibility for the location and maintenance of the sign.

The order, affirmed on April 17, 2024, reinforces the importance of establishing a clear connection between a defendant’s control over a space and an injury for a successful negligence claim. The decision concludes that the dismissal by Justice Karen Rothenberg of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was appropriate under the circumstances. The court also awarded costs to the defendants.

Court upholds lawsuit against sports camp under Child Victims Act

The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, has affirmed a lower court’s decision not to dismiss a lawsuit against a sports camp company and its owners related to claims of negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The lawsuit alleges childhood sexual abuse by a coach at the company’s football camps during the 1970s.

The plaintiff, who attended the camps in Vermont and Massachusetts, argues that the negligence of the camp company and its owners contributed to the abuse. The defendants sought to dismiss the case, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. However, the lawsuit was revived under the Child Victims Act (CVA), which provides a window for old claims of child sexual abuse to be filed.

The legal issue central to this appeal was whether New York’s CVA applies to acts of abuse that occurred outside the state. The defendants argued that the claims were time-barred and that the CVA should not apply extraterritorially to revive these claims. In contrast, the plaintiff, a New York resident at the time of the abuse, contended that the CVA’s provisions should indeed apply.

The appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the CVA is intended to benefit New York residents like him, allowing them to seek justice for abuses suffered in their childhood, regardless of where the abuse occurred. This decision aligns with similar rulings in other departments that have recognized the CVA’s applicability to New Yorkers, emphasizing that the residence of the plaintiff at the time of abuse is pivotal in applying the CVA.

This affirmation by the Appellate Division, issued on April 17, with concurrence from Justices Francesca Connolly, Cheryl Chambers, Barry Warhit and Lourdes Ventura, means the lawsuit can proceed in the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial decision to deny the dismissal was made by Justice Mark Partnow, who has since retired.

Appellate Division upholds consideration of out-of-state juvenile records in sex offender registration

The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, has upheld a lower court’s decision involving the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) that considered a defendant’s prior out-of-state juvenile delinquency adjudication in assessing his risk level. The appeal, challenging a decision by Supreme Court Justice Guy Mangano, Jr., was heard by Justices Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Paul Wooten, Lillian Wan and Laurence Love, who affirmed the lower court’s ruling without overturning it.

The legal issue revolved around whether a SORA court could consider a juvenile delinquency adjudication from New Jersey in determining a sex offender’s risk level, despite a previous ruling that New York Family Court juvenile adjudications should not influence such assessments.

In a previous case, People v Campbell, the court held that New York Family Court Act article-3 juvenile delinquency adjudications could not be used in SORA proceedings. This was based on specific legislative protections that prevent such records from being used adversely against the individual in other court proceedings, except for sentencing after an adult conviction.

However, the current case distinguishes itself by involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication from New Jersey. New Jersey law does not share the same prohibitions as New York’s Family Court Act regarding the use of juvenile records, which allowed the court to consider these records in its SORA assessment. The court emphasized that New Jersey actively uses such adjudications in its own sex offender registration and classification system.

Appellate Court orders hearing on sealing old weapons conviction

In a decision issued on April 10 by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department, a prior ruling by the Supreme Court, Kings County, was reversed, leading to a remanding of the case for a hearing. The panel, consisting of Justices Mark Dillon, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, William Ford and Lourdes Ventura, overturned the decision made by Justice Miriam Cyrulnik that had denied a motion to seal a decades-old conviction without a hearing.

The case involved an appeal from a 2019 decision where the defendant, who had been convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in 1989, sought to have his conviction sealed under CPL 160.59. This statute permits the sealing of up to two eligible offenses, including no more than one felony, provided the offenses are not classified as violent felonies under section 70.02 of the Penal Law.

Despite the district attorney’s opposition to the motion, the law clearly mandates a hearing if the conviction qualifies as an “eligible offense” and the application is not subject to mandatory denial. The Appellate Division found that the lower court had erred by denying the defendant’s motion without conducting the necessary hearing, especially since the conviction was confirmed as a non-violent felony, making it an “eligible offense” for sealing.

The Appellate Division’s ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rights under CPL 160.59, which includes the requirement to conduct a hearing when an eligible conviction’s sealing is contested. The case has been sent back to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and subsequent determination on the motion to seal the conviction.

Appellate Court upholds dismissal of city for liability in personal injury case

The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, affirmed a lower court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the City of New York in a personal injury lawsuit. The case, which arose from an incident where a plaintiff sustained injuries after falling on a staircase in a Brooklyn apartment building, was heard by Justices Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Joseph Maltese, Helen Voutsinas and Janice Taylor.

The original decision, made by Justice Gina Abadi of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed the complaint against the City of New York on the grounds that the city did not own, occupy, control or specially use the property in question, nor did it create the alleged dangerous condition.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff argued that the city, along with other defendants including the New York City Housing Authority, Hope Gardens I, LLC, and Pinnacle City Living, LLC, was responsible for the injuries he suffered. The building where the accident occurred was owned by the New York City Housing Authority, leased to Hope Gardens I, LLC, and managed by Pinnacle City Living, LLC.

Upon review, the appellate panel concurred with the lower court’s finding that there was no evidence to suggest that the city had any direct involvement with the management or maintenance of the staircase where the plaintiff was injured. The city successfully demonstrated that it neither owned nor controlled the premises, nor had it contributed to any alleged hazardous condition there.

This decision underscores the principle that liability for real property must be based on ownership, occupancy, control, or creation of a hazardous condition. The appellate judges unanimously agreed that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the city had any direct role in creating a dangerous situation that could have led to the accident.