Paul Wooten

This case involved related Family Court proceedings under articles 6 and 8 between unmarried parents of a child born in 2020, in which the mother sought sole legal and residential custody and filed family offense petitions alleging violations and an assault, while the father sought parental access and alleged violations by the mother. After a consolidated hearing, the Family Court granted the mother sole custody with some access to the father, based on findings that she had been the primary caregiver, the father had failed to meet the child's needs, assaulted the mother, and refused to return the child as ordered. The father, appearing pro se, appealed and filed a brief containing citations to nonexistent cases produced by unverified generative AI. The Appellate Division affirmed the custody order, finding the father's bias claim unpreserved and without merit on the record, and imposed a $250 sanction on the father for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 due to the fabricated legal authority in his brief.

family lawprocedure

This case involved related Family Court proceedings under articles 6 and 8 between unmarried parents of a child born in 2020, in which the mother sought sole legal and residential custody and filed family offense petitions alleging violations and an assault, while the father sought parental access and alleged violations by the mother. After a consolidated hearing, the Family Court granted the mother sole custody with some access to the father, based on findings that she had been the primary caregiver, the father had failed to meet the child's needs, assaulted the mother, and refused to return the child as ordered. The father, appearing pro se, appealed and filed a brief containing citations to nonexistent cases produced by unverified generative AI. The Appellate Division affirmed the custody order, finding the father's bias claim unpreserved and without merit on the record, and imposed a $250 sanction on the father for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 due to the fabricated legal authority in his brief.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a storage unit renter who sued the facility owners for damages under Lien Law § 182 after his personal property was auctioned due to claimed unpaid rent (later found to involve misapplied payments), alleging a wrongful sale with no valid lien. The Appellate Division addressed whether such a damages action is available and concluded it is not, because Lien Law § 182 limits challenges to the validity of an owner's lien to a specific proceeding under § 182(7) filed within the statute's time limits. At trial the plaintiff presented no evidence of unlawful detention of goods or violations of the notice requirements, so the court affirmed dismissal of the fifth cause of action in its entirety.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by a father on behalf of his infant daughter, who was injured falling from a playground slide during a supervised visit with her biological mother while in foster care under the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing it was immune from liability as a governmental function involving discretion and that no special duty or proximate causation existed. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment, holding that a municipality may assume a special duty to a foster child during supervised visitation and thus be subject to liability for negligent supervision. The court identified triable issues of fact as to whether the caseworker provided adequate supervision given the child's young age and the slide's designation for older children, and whether any lack of supervision proximately caused the injury.

family lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned the validity of New York City Local Law No. 11 of 2022, which created a category of 'municipal voters' consisting of non-U.S. citizens who are lawful permanent residents or authorized to work in the U.S., have resided in the city for at least 30 days, and meet other state registration criteria, allowing them to vote in municipal elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council. Plaintiffs, including elected officials, challenged the law, and the trial court granted summary judgment declaring it null and void while permanently enjoining its enforcement. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, holding that the local law violates the New York State Constitution's provisions limiting the right to vote to U.S. citizens, as well as the New York Election Law and Municipal Home Rule Law, which do not authorize localities to expand the electorate beyond state-defined qualifications. The court reasoned that suffrage qualifications are a matter of state constitutional and statutory authority that cannot be altered by municipal legislation.

immigrationelectionscivil rights

This case involved New York City's tax foreclosure action under its Third Party Transfer Program against six Brooklyn properties for unpaid taxes and liens, where the City published and mailed notices, obtained a 2017 foreclosure judgment, allowed a redemption period to expire, and transferred four properties to Neighborhood Restore in 2018. Several defendant owners moved to vacate the judgment as to their properties and to set aside the deeds. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motions, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the motions should have been denied because the statutory notice, foreclosure, redemption, and transfer procedures were followed under existing law. The court noted concerns about the program's application, such as with installment agreements, but concluded that any changes were for the City Council to address.

taxespropertyprocedure

In this medical malpractice and lack of informed consent action, plaintiff Zhiwen Yang alleged that defendant doctor Gregory K. Harmon provided negligent treatment for a cataract, including prescribing contraindicated medication, resulting in vision loss. The appeal concerned whether Yang's daughter, who is a material witness in the case due to her prior role as interpreter during medical visits, could serve as interpreter at Yang's deposition given the difficulty in locating a suitable disinterested interpreter fluent in her specific Chinese dialect. The Appellate Division held that only exceptional circumstances justify allowing a relative or material witness to interpret and that no such circumstances existed here, as the defendants had made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to find an alternative interpreter and the lower court failed to properly inquire into the daughter's ability to interpret objectively. The court therefore reversed the order denying the defendants' motion and vacated the provision directing the daughter to interpret.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In People v. Chung, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree, multiple counts of criminal possession of stolen property, and resisting arrest arising from thefts from homes in Nassau County. The sentencing court directed him to pay restitution of $53,541.85 based solely on a preliminary probation department report that listed total losses for two victims but provided no itemized descriptions, valuations, or explanations of how the figures were determined. The Appellate Division, Second Department, clarified that Penal Law § 60.27 requires a restitution hearing whenever the defendant requests one or when the record contains insufficient evidence to establish the proper amount. Finding the report inadequate, the court modified the judgment by vacating the restitution provision and remitted the matter for a hearing and new determination of the amount and payment terms.

criminal lawprocedure