You are here: / Property Owner Not Liable for Tracked-In Rain

Search Results

/

Property Owner Not Liable for Tracked-In Rain

In finding the grant of summary judgment to defendant was proper, the Second Department explained a property owner’s liability for tracked-in rain water:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . A general awareness that water might be tracked into a building when it rains is insufficient to impute, to a defendant, constructive notice of the particular dangerous condition … . Moreover, a property owner is “not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Grib v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 07472, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

In support of similar findings in another case, the Second Department explained:

While a “defendant [is] not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” …, a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “A general awareness that water might be tracked into a building when it rains is insufficient to impute to the defendants constructive notice of the particular dangerous condition”… . Murray v Banco Popular, 2015 NY Slip Op 07482, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

Instructions In Will Re: Payment of Estate Taxes Properly Followed

The Second Department determined the instruction in the will that estate taxes be paid out of the residuary estate was properly followed:

All estate tax payments must be equitably apportioned among recipients of estate assets “unless otherwise provided in the will or non-testamentary instrument” (EPTL 2-1.8[c]), and such a contrary direction must be clear and unambiguous … . Although there is a strong policy favoring apportionment …, that policy gives way where the clear and unambiguous wishes of the testator direct otherwise … . Analysis begins with the general rules of will construction which provide that a court is to determine and effectuate the intent of the testator and that in doing so, it must construe his or her words according to their ordinary and natural meaning … .

Here, the second paragraph of the decedent’s will directs that all estate taxes, “in respect to any property required to be included in my gross estate for estate tax or like purposes by any such government, whether the property passes under this Will or otherwise, without contribution by any recipient of any such property,” were to be paid out of the residuary estate. The words clearly and unambiguously reflect the decedent’s intent that his preresiduary and nontestamentary beneficiaries … are to take their property without liability for the payment of any estate taxes, regardless of whether the taxes are imposed on property and assets passing under the will or outside of the will … . Matter of Priedits, 2015 NY Slip Op 07508, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Advise Appellant of Right to Counsel In Contempt Proceedings Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, which found appellant, Patricia Howlett, to be in civil and criminal contempt for the alleged failure to comply with a court order, because appellant was not informed of her right to counsel in the contempt proceedings:

The Supreme Court erred in holding Patricia Howlett in criminal and civil contempt. There is no evidence in the record which would establish that the court informed Howlett of her right to the assistance of counsel in connection with the contempt proceedings (see Judiciary Law § 770…). Howlett must be fully advised of her right to counsel, and her right to appointed counsel must be adequately explored, with counsel to be provided if appropriate … . Accordingly, we must reverse the order dated January 7, 2015, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination of the motion to hold Howlett in contempt. Matter of Anthie B. (Howlett), 2015 NY Slip Op 07496, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

Mandamus to Compel Judge to Decide Motions Proper

The Second Department determined mandamus was the proper vehicle to compel a judge to decide pending motions:

“Mandamus will lie to compel the determination of a motion” … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought … . Accordingly, the petition must be granted insofar as asserted against the respondent …, and that respondent is directed to issue written orders within 30 days of this decision and judgment determining the four fully submitted motions pending in the underlying action … . Matter of Liang v Hart, 2015 NY Slip Op 07502, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

Appeal, Rather than a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment, Is the Proper Remedy Where a Party Appears to Contest Motion to Enter a Default Judgment

The Second Department noted that the prohibition of an appeal from an ordered entered upon default does not apply when a party appears to contest a motion to enter a default judgment:

Although CPLR 5511 prohibits an appeal from an order entered upon default, that provision does not apply where, as here, a party appears and contests a motion for leave to enter a default judgment … . Under the circumstances [of this case], the proper remedies were either an appeal from the default order, a timely motion for reargument or renewal, or an appeal from a judgment entered after the inquest on damages, which would bring up for review the default order … . Thus, a motion to vacate the default order was procedurally improper and should not have been entertained … . Cole-Hatchard v Eggers, 2015 NY Slip Op 07466, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

contract for the sale of busiwas not intertwined with the promissory note and personal guaranty

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the contract for the sale of plaintiff’s one-half share of a business to defendant was not intertwined with the promissory note and personal guaranty executed by the defendant in connection with the sale. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in lieu of a complaint based upon defendant’s default:

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, the personal guaranty, and proof of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense … . “[T]he general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are intertwined and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish that the agreement and the promissory note were intertwined, such that any breach of the related agreement by the plaintiff may create a defense to payment on the note. Chervinsky v Rezhets, 2015 NY Slip Op 07463, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

Two-Hour Interval Did Not Return Defendant to Status of One Who Was Not Under the Influence of Unwarned Questioning—Subsequent Mirandized Statement Should Have Been Suppressed—Harmless Error Here However

The Second Department determined the two-hour interval between defendant’s unwarned statement and a mirandized statement did not save the mirandized statement from suppression. During the unwarned statement defendant agreed to make a subsequent videotaped statement (which was mirandized). During the two hours between the unwarned statement and the videotaped statement defendant the defendant was never returned to the status of one who was not under questioning. The error here (admitting the videotaped statement) was, however, deemed harmless:

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events’, there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . In determining whether a subsequent statement made after Miranda warnings were given was part of a “single continuous chain of events,” the court considers various factors including “whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police” … . The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there was a “definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” … .

Here, the statement made by the defendant during the pre-9 a.m. questioning, which the Supreme Court suppressed, and the second videotaped statement were part of a single continuous chain of events inasmuch as during the pre-9 a.m. questioning, Detective Rodriguez asked the defendant to make a further videotaped statement when he interrogated the defendant in violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, during the two-hour break, the defendant was never returned to the status of one who was not under the influence of questioning …, but was anticipating the arrival of the Assistant District Attorney to continue the interrogation. Moreover, Detective Rodriguez, who elicited the 10-to-15 minute statement the defendant made during the pre-9 a.m. questioning without having been again given his Miranda warnings, was present during the subsequent videotaped interrogation, and both interrogations were conducted in the same interview room … . Considering these factors and the nature and extent of the Miranda violation, we cannot conclude that there was a definite, pronounced break between the defendant’s first and second videotaped statements sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who was not under the influence of questioning … . People v Rodriguez, 2015 NY Slip Op 07520, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

/ ,

Where Equitable Relief Described in “Sole Remedy Clause” is Impossible, Monetary Damages Are Available

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, in a case addressing many specific-contract-provision issues not summarized here, determined that where the sole remedy clause of a contract allows only equitable relief, and that equitable relief is impossible, monetary damages may be available. The action stems from the collapse of the residential mortgage -backed securities (RSMB) market. The complaints alleged the breach of several representations and warranties (concerning the underlying mortgages) in the mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA). The “sole remedy clause” in the agreement purported to limit relief to the defendant’s repurchase of defective mortgages. However repurchase of foreclosed or liquidated mortgages was impossible. In that situation, the First Department held, equity allows the imposition of monetary damages:

Under defendant’s interpretation of the “sole remedy” clause, loans that have been foreclosed upon or liquidated cannot be repurchased and, by agreeing to those provisions, plaintiff accepted the risk of loss such an event would entail. However, such an interpretation would leave plaintiffs without a remedy with respect to those loans, as their only recourse would be to commence an action for specific performance, which would be impossible to fulfill. The present state of the law does not support defendant’s contention.

New York law has long held that contracting parties are generally free to limit their remedies. “A limitation on liability provision in a contract represents the parties’ agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor” … . Therefore, by the terms of the “sole remedy” clause, the agreements limit plaintiffs to seeking an order of specific performance requiring defendant to repurchase the defective loans at the purchase price defined in those agreements, or to cure the defects in those loans.

However, specific performance is an equitable remedy. In the RMBS context, most courts have repeatedly held that “while a provision providing for equitable relief as the sole remedy’ will generally foreclose alternative relief, where the granting of equitable relief appears to be impossible or impracticable, equity may award damages in lieu of the desired equitable remedy'” … . Such a rule makes sense, for to hold otherwise would create a “perverse[]” incentive for a sponsor “to fill the trust with junk mortgages that would expeditiously default so that they could be released, charged off, or liquidated before a repurchase claim is made” … . Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07458, 1st Dept 10-13-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

The Fourth Department noted that the court’s failure to advise the non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea required that the case be remitted to afford the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea:

We agree with defendant, a noncitizen, that County Court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his felony plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he faced the risk of being deported as a result of the plea (id. at 176…). People v Traverso, 2015 NY Slip Op 07376, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Failure to Warn Defendant that Failure to Appear Would Result in a Harsher Sentence Required Vacation of the Harsher Sentence

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s enhanced sentence because defendant was not warned that his failure to appear at sentencing would result in a harsher sentence. The matter was remitted for imposition of the bargained-for sentence or the opportunity to withdraw the plea:

“Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by objecting to the enhanced sentence or by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction …, we nevertheless exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” … . We agree with defendant that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence inasmuch as it did not advise defendant at the time of his plea that “a harsher sentence than he bargained for could be imposed if [he] failed to appear at sentencing” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to impose the promised sentence or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Donald, 2015 NY Slip Op 07399, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy