Escalera v. Favaro, 298 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Escalera v. Favaro, 298 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …to rebut the presumption of good faith, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant was motivated by actual malice. at p. 264 ✓
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dole v. Huntington Union Free School District (ca2, 2017-11-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dole v. Huntington Union Free School District (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
2d Cir. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
to rebut the presumption of good faith, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant was motivated by actual malice.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Biondo v. Ossining Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
School Dist., 29 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2006]; Vaz v Sipsas, 1 AD3d 503, 504 [2003]; Escalera v Favaro, 298 AD2d 552, 553 [2002]).
discussed Cited "see" Lentini v. Page
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
For mandatory reporters such as defendant, a registered nurse (see Social Service Law § 413 [1]; Kempster v Child Protective Servs. of Dept. of Social Servs. of County of Suffolk, 130 AD2d 623, 625 [1987]), their good faith “shall be presumed” (Social Services Law § 419; see Escalera v Favaro, 298 AD2d 552, 553 [2002]), provided they were discharging their duties and acting within the scope of their employment without gross negligence or willful misconduct (see Rine v Chase, 309 AD2d 796, 797 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bologna v. Carmel Richmond Nursing Home, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint ( see Ruth v Elderwood at Amherst , 209 AD3d 1281 [2022]; Crampton v Garnet Health , 73 Misc 3d 543 , 561 [Sup Ct, Orange County 2021]; see also Escalera v Favaro , 298 AD2d 552 , 553 [*4][2002]). ( Id . at 670.) Mera was cited by the Second Department recently in Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bologna v. Carmel Richmond Nursing Home, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint ( see Ruth v Elderwood at Amherst , 209 AD3d 1281 [2022]; Crampton v Garnet Health , 73 Misc 3d 543 , 561 [Sup Ct, Orange County 2021]; see also Escalera v Favaro , 298 AD2d 552 , 553 [*4][2002]). ( Id . at 670.) Mera was cited by the Second Department recently in Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mera v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint ( see Ruth v Elderwood at Amherst , 209 AD3d 1281 ; Crampton v Garnet Health , 73 Misc 3d 543 , 561 [Sup Ct, Orange County]; see also Escalera v Favaro , 298 AD2d 552, 553 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Severo Escalera
v.
Peter Favaro
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 28, 2002.
298 A.D.2d 552
2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10271
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)

In an action, inter alia, to re[*553] cover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated June 11, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. The defendant Peter Favaro, a psychologist, and his facility, the defendant Smart Parenting, were appointed by the Family Court, Nassau County (Koenig, J.), to supervise visitation in the context of the Family Court proceeding between the plaintiff and the mother of his children. While overseeing visitation, the statements made by the plaintiffs daughter, Jennifer, provided Favaro with reasonable cause to suspect child abuse by the plaintiff. As a consequence, Favaro was required by Social Services Law § 413 to report the plaintiffs suspected child abuse.

Social Services Law § 419 provides, in pertinent part, that a person who complies with the reporting requirements of Social Services Law § 413 in good faith is entitled to immunity from any civil or criminal liability that may otherwise result from such actions. That section additionally provides that the good faith of any person required to report cases of suspected child abuse shall be presumed (see Social Services Law § 419; Kempster v Child Protective Servs. of Dept. of Social Servs. of County of Suffolk, 130 AD2d 623, 624). To rebut the presumption of good faith, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant was motivated by actual malice (see Miller v Beck, 82 AD2d 912, 913).

The complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of actual malice. Thus, by virtue of Social Services Law § 419, the defendants are afforded immunity for their compliance with the reporting requirements of Social Services Law § 413 (see Kempster v Child Protective Servs. of Dept. of Social Servs. of County of Suffolk, supra at 624-625). Accordingly, dismissal was warranted.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the plaintiffs remaining contentions. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.