Facts
- V.A. gave birth to L.T. in April 2024, with hospital staff raising concerns about her mental health and capability to care for the baby [lines="35-40"].
- Mother exhibited severe mental health symptoms, including disassociative thoughts, and was admitted for inpatient psychiatric care shortly after childbirth [lines="45-47"].
- The Sonoma County Human Services Department filed a section 300 petition for failure to protect/neglect, citing mother’s unresolved mental health issues [lines="63-70"].
- Despite being offered transportation and support, mother repeatedly failed to attend hearings and psychological evaluations ordered by the court [lines="126-135"].
- The juvenile court determined that mother's noncompliance with mandated evaluations justified bypassing reunification services due to her mental disability [lines="201-204"].
Issues
- Whether the juvenile court erred in bypassing reunification services for V.A. due to her mental disability [lines="208-209"].
- Whether the court properly applied the disentitlement doctrine to deny services to a parent refusing to comply with court orders [lines="213-214"].
Holdings
- The court did not err in bypassing reunification services, as mother's mental disability and inability to utilize services were sufficiently established [lines="211"].
- The application of the disentitlement doctrine was appropriate, allowing the court to deny services due to mother's refusal to participate in the ordered psychological evaluation [lines="265-266"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 American Express Natl. Bank v Kleiman 2024 NY Slip Op 33113(U)
September 6, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 152537/2021 Judge: Debra A. James
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
*2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: PART 59 HON. DEBRA A. JAMES Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK MOTION DATE 08/26/2021
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V - DECISION + ORDER ON
SHEILA KLEIMAN,
MOTION Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
ORDER
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
ORDERED that the motion of the defendant Sheila Kleiman to dismiss the complaint is denied, and it is further
ORDERED that defendant Sheila Kleiman shall serve and file an answer to the complaint within 20 days from service of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel are directed to post on NYSCEF a proposed preliminary discovery conference order or competing proposed preliminary discovery conference order(s) at least two days before October 24, 2024, on which date counsel shall appear via Microsoft Teams, unless such appearance be waived by the court. Page 1 of4
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Motion No. 001 *3 DECISION
The defendant Sheila Kleiman ("Kleiman") moves to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff American Express National Bank ("AmEx") (the "Complaint"), which seeks damages for breach of a credit card agreement. She moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8), asserting that she was not properly served with process, and that the Complaint fails to state a meritorious claim for breach of contract.
"The affidavit of service filed by plaintiff was prima facie evidence that defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) " JP Morgan Chase Bank v Dennis, 166 AD3d 530 (1st Dept 2018). The affidavit states that the summons and complaint was left with the concierge, who confirmed that the location was Kleiman's dwelling or usual place of abode. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 011.
Kleiman does not submit her own affidavit, but instead, submits an affirmation from her daughter Diane Kleiman, who is an attorney. In such affirmation, Diane Kleiman states that Kleiman never resided at the location where process was served. Attached to such affirmation is a letter to Kleiman, in which AmEx "confirms [Kleiman' s] assignment of [her daughter] as Account Manager", which letter is addressed to Kleiman at a different address. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 008.
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001
The unsworn affirmation of Kleinman's daughter is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service or to warrant a further hearing on such issue. See JP Morgan Chase Bank, 166 AD3d 530 (1 st Dept 2018) ("To rebut this prima facie showing, defendant was required to submit a sworn, nonconclusory denial of service or swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit").
Moreover, Diane Kleinman identifies herself as an attorney and it is unclear whether or not as "Account Manager" she is the real party in interest in this action. Therefore, her use of an affirmation, without the complete declaration "which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law", effective January 1, 2024, or without a notary public acknowledgement, effective before January 1, 2024, pursuant to CPLR 2106, is not permitted. See Household Finance Realty Corp of New York v Cioppa, 153 AD3d 908, 911 (2d Dept 201 7) .
Finally, as argued by AmEx, the allegations of its complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action against Kleiman for breach of the credit agreement. In any event, the court may consider the Affidavit of AmEx's Assistant Custodian of Records, as to such Custodian's assertions that AmEx performed under the credit agreement. See Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 (1994) and
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001 *5 Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka, 180 AD3d 564, 565 (1st Dept 2020).
P- ~ .A - } ~ 20240906 l 64343DJ AME543 l 623A 7717E4 7CD8FFAC87F2E35A36F 9/6/2024 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DENIED ~ ~ GRANTED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE 152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page4 of 4 Motion No. 001