Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Husband and wife divorced after almost 30 years of marriage and their settlement agreement set forth a comprehensive division of marital property. At issue was whether husband had presented facts sufficient to support the reformation or setting aside of the agreement based on a claim of mutual mistake pertaining to an investment account. The court concluded that husband failed to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 and therefore dismissed the amended complaint. View "Simkin v Blank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the former spouse of Stephen Walsh, who was a defendant in related actions brought by plaintiffs, alleging that the property derived from Walsh's illegal securities activities went into the former spouse's possession under the parties' separation agreement and divorce decree. At issue, in certified questions to the court, was whether the former spouse had a legitimate claim to those funds, which would prevent plaintiffs from obtaining disgorgement from her. The court held that an innocent spouse who received possession of tainted property in good faith and gave fair consideration for it should prevail over the claims of the original owner or owners consistent with the state's strong public policy of ensuring finality in divorce proceedings. View "Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Walsh, et al." on Justia Law

The Family Court terminated Stephen K.'s parental rights due to his persistent failure to comply with court-mandated conditions and the lack of evidence evincing efforts to adequately provide for his family. At issue was whether Stephen K.'s application to represent himself was unequivocal and timely. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's unanimous holding that his application was not unequivocal and timely where counsel proffered no compelling circumstances to justify the need to grant the application and where there was nothing in the record to indicate that a compelling factor had arisen to warrant particular consideration by the court. View "In the Matter of Kathleen K." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the father of decedent, commenced an action seeking to recover from defendants, decedent's grandparents, for decedent's wrongful death and for her conscious pain and suffering where she accidentally drowned in defendants' pool. At issue was an exclusion in defendants' homeowner's insurance policy excluding coverage for bodily injury to an insured where an insured would receive "any benefit" under the policy. The court held that judgment should have been granted in plaintiff's favor where the exclusion did not operate to bar coverage for the noninsured plaintiff's wrongful death claim for the death of the insured decedent. Accordingly, the court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cragg v. Allstate Indemnity Corp." on Justia Law

The Duchess County Department of Social Services ("DSS") filed neglect petitions pursuant to Family Court article 10 against respondents, a mother and a father, alleging that father neglected his children because he was an "untreated" sex offender whose crimes involved victims between 13 and 15 years-old and mother allegedly failed to protect the children from father. At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that respondents' children were neglected pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act. The court affirmed the Appellate Division and held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove neglect where DSS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that father posed an imminent danger to his children and therefore, DSS necessarily failed to prove that mother neglected the children by allowing father to return home.