You are here: / “Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming”...

Search Results

/

“Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming” Rule Applied—Workers’ Compensation Claim Is Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s sole remedy against her employer (defendant Margaret Layton) was a Workers’ Compensation claim.  Plaintiff was asked by Layton to walk Layton’s dog because Layton was in court on a personal matter and could not walk the dog herself. Plaintiff fell down a staircase in Layton’s home, apparently in the course of walking the dog. The Second Department held that the walking of the dog “fell within the ‘special errand’ exception to the ‘going and coming’ rule of the Workers’ Compensation Law, thus making workers’ compensation the plaintiffs’ sole remedy” … In the usual case, injury incurred going to or coming from work is not within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law . Curley v Layton, 2015 NY Slip Op 04270, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/ , ,

Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Improper—Defense Waived by Failure to Answer—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect

The Second Department, in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding where defendants did not answer, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed sua sponte for lack of standing.  Because the complaint was not answered, the lack-of-standing defense was waived.  In addition, lack-of-standing is not a jurisdictional defect warranting sua sponte dismissal:

A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and the cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . In any event, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . US Bank Natl. Assn. v Flowers, 2015 NY Slip Op 04308, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/ ,

Foreign Corporation’s Sole Residence for Venue Purposes Is the County Designated In Its Filed Application to Conduct Business in New York State

In the context of a dispute over proper venue, the Second Department determined that plaintiff foreign corporation’s sole residence in New York State is the county designated in its application for authority to conduct business in New York State as filed with the State. Therefore plaintiff’s bringing the action in Nassau County, where it alleged its principal place of business is located, as opposed to New York County, the county designated in its filed application, was improper:

…[T]he law is clear that “[f]or purposes of venue, the sole residence of a foreign corporation is the county in which its principal office is located, as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the State of New York” …, regardless of where it transacts business or maintains its actual principal office (see CPLR 503[c]; Business Corporation Law § 102[a][10]…). We note that, since the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ demand to change venue failed to set forth factual averments that were prima facie sufficient to show that its designation of Nassau County for trial of the action was proper, the defendants were authorized to notice their motion to change venue to be heard in Saratoga County (see CPLR 511[b]…). Further, the defendants are not responsible for the delay occasioned by the denial of their motion by the Supreme Court, Saratoga County.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to change the venue of the action from Nassau County to Saratoga County, despite the fact that an order granting class certification had already been issued in the action. American Bldrs. & Contrs. Supply Co., Inc. v Capitaland Home Improvement Showroom, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04262, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/ ,

Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only One SORA Disposition for the “Current Offenses” (Which Included the Offenses from Both Counties) Can Be Held

The Defendant was convicted (by guilty pleas) of sex offenses committed in two counties.  The two district attorney offices coordinated the defendant’s sentences to run concurrently.  Prior to defendant’s release a SORA hearing was held in one of the two counties, taking into account all of the offenses to which defendant pled guilty.  When defendant was notified the second county had scheduled a SORA hearing he filed a motion to dismiss the second proceeding, arguing it was unauthorized by SORA and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The Second Department agreed and dismissed the second proceeding.  The decision includes a substantive discussion of statutory interpretation and the purposes and application of the Sex Offender Registration Act:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to charges contained in accusatory instruments filed in two different counties, two in Queens County and one in Richmond County. Nonetheless,… all of those offenses constituted “Current Offenses” for the purpose of determining the defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA and, indeed, were considered as such by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, in conducting their SORA assessment.

The only reasonable interpretation of the statute and Guidelines, and the one that most effectuates SORA’s purpose, is that only one SORA “disposition” may be made per “Current Offense,” or group of “Current Offenses.” Once a court has rendered “an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” and submitted such order to the Division (Correction Law § 168-d[3]), the Division has all the information it needs to create a file for the defendant and add it to the registry (see Correction Law § 168-b[1]). In this case, once the Division received the SORA order from Richmond County, it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of “protect[ing] the public from” this particular sex offender … . People v Cook, 2015 NY Slip Op 04295, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/

Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here

In finding the motion to vacate a foreclosure sale was properly denied, the Second Department explained the circumstances in which a foreclosure sale will be set aside: “In the exercise of its equitable powers, a court has the discretion to set aside a foreclosure sale where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct” … . “Absent such conduct, the mere inadequacy of price is an insufficient reason to set aside a sale unless the price is so inadequate as to shock the court’s conscience”… . Chiao v Poon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04268, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/

To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant Must Demonstrate the Defendant (1) Did Not Control the Plaintiff’s Work and (2) Did Not Create or Have Constructive Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant homeowners in this Labor Law 200 action. It was alleged the homeowners created a dangerous condition by placing an unsecured tarp in the area where plaintiff placed his ladder. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the ladder.  The Second Department explained that the defendants, to be entitled to summary judgment, were required to demonstrate (1) they did not “have authority to supervise or control the methods or materials of the injured plaintiff’s work” and (2) they did not create the dangerous condition that caused the accident or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here the defendants failed to demonstrate they did not create the dangerous condition:

Where a plaintiff’s injures are alleged to have been caused by defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both of the foregoing liability standards … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … . Pacheco v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 04293, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault

The Second Department determined defendant movie theater’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.  Plaintiffs were assaulted at the theater.  Depositions revealed there had been four or five similar incidents at the theater and one of the plaintiffs screamed for help throughout the 15-to-20-minute assault:

A property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, which includes a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . However, “the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … . Solomon v National Amusements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04306, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/ ,

Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic and Speeding Problems Did Not Violate the “Prior Public Use” Doctrine

The Second Department determined the town’s passing of a resolution installing a temporary barrier on a street to address complaints about traffic and speeding was proper.  Installing the barrier did not violate the “prior public use” doctrine because the barrier did not interfere with a prior public use:

The prior public use doctrine limits “the general grant of the power of eminent domain extended in Town Law § 64(2)” by prohibiting towns from “acquir[ing] rights in property already devoted to another public use where the acquisition will interfere with or destroy the prior public use” … . The subject breakaway barrier that the Town installed on Samuel Road did not interfere with or destroy the prior public use of Samuel Road. Accordingly, the prior public use doctrine is inapplicable, and does not prohibit the Town from installing the barrier … . Matter of County of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04314 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/

Tractor-Trailer Veered Into Oncoming Lane Striking Bus/Emergency Doctrine Required Dismissal of Complaint Against Bus Company and Driver as a Matter of Law/Lessor of Trailer Protected Against Vicarious Liability by Graves Amendment/Negligent Entrustment Cause of Action Against Lessor of Trailer Dismissed as a Matter of Law (No Special Knowledge Use of Trailer by Lessee Would Render It Unreasonably Dangerous)

A tractor trailer suddenly veered into oncoming traffic and struck a bus owned by one of the defendants, Schoolman.  The Second Department determined the emergency doctrine precluded, as a matter of law, the suit against the bus company and the driver of the bus (Zimmardi). The court also determined the company which leased the trailer, EMH,  was protected from vicarious liability by the Graves Amendment, and was not liable, as a matter of law, under a negligent entrustment theory. The leasing company had no special knowledge of a use of the trailer by the lessee that would render the use of the trailer unreasonably dangerous:

Here, Schoolman established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaints … by demonstrating that its driver, Zimmardi, was faced with an emergency situation not of his own making when the truck suddenly veered into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in the context of that emergency … . * * *

EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the vicarious liability causes of action by demonstrating, prima facie, that the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) applied to shield it from liability for the plaintiffs’ injuries by virtue of its status as a commercial lessor of motor vehicles that was free from negligence in maintaining the subject vehicle (see Castillo v Amjack Leasing Corp., 84 AD3d 1297, 1297-1298; Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 57-58). Further, EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligent entrustment causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not possess special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition … that rendered the use of the leased vehicle … unreasonably dangerous … . Pacelli v Intruck Leasing Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 04292, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

/ , , ,

Criteria for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Submitted) Explained—Criteria for Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence Explained—Pleading Requirements for Legal Malpractice Explained

In finding the legal malpractice complaint properly survived motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted (question is whether plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether one has been stated, affidavits considered to remedy defects in complaint), the criteria for a motion to dismiss founded on documentary evidence (documents must utterly refute allegations in complaint), the elements of legal malpractice, and the adequacy of damages allegations in a legal malpractice complaint (cannot be conclusory or speculative but plaintiff not obligated to show it actually sustained damages) :

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see CPLR 3026…). Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), “the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one” … . ” [A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint'” … .

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law… .

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal profession, and (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of the actual damages sustained … . A plaintiff must plead “actual[,] ascertainable damages” resulting from the attorney’s negligence … . Conclusory or speculative allegations of damages are insufficient… . However, “[a] plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages. It need only plead allegations from which damages attributable to the defendant’s malpractice might be reasonably inferred” … . Randazzo v Nelson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04299, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

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