You are here: / Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not Given Res Judicata...

Search Results

/

Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not Given Res Judicata Effect

The Second Department noted that a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is not a determination on the merits and will not be given res judicata effect:

“As a general rule, a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is not on the merits and, thus, will not be given res judicata effect” … . Since the dismissal of the prior action was not on the merits, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss, on the ground of res judicata… . Hock v Cohen, 2015 NY Slip Op 01243, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ ,

CPLR 5239 Is the Proper Vehicle for Vacation of an Execution—Here Defendant’s Brother Brought a CPLR 5239 Proceeding to Vacate an Execution Against the Brother’s Property Which Purported to Relate to a Debt Owed by Defendant—The Execution Was Vacated Based Upon the Brother’s Proof of Ownership

The Second Department determined Kamel, a non-party, had demonstrated that he did not have an ownership interest in property which was executed against to satisfy a judgment against the defendant, Kamel’s brother. The court explained the procedure to vacate an execution pursuant to CPLR 5239:

Pursuant to CPLR 5239, “any interested person may commence a special proceeding against the judgment creditor or other person with whom a dispute exists to determine rights in the property or debt” (CPLR 5239…). The court may “vacate the execution or order, void the levy, direct the disposition of the property or debt, or direct that damages be awarded” and, if necessary, may hold a hearing to determine the proper disposition (CPLR 5239…). As the party seeking relief, “it [is the] petitioner’s burden to proffer evidence demonstrating that the property was not subject to the lien identified in the notice of sheriff’s sale” … .

At the hearing, Kamel presented mortgage documents relating to the purchase of the LIC property, as well as documents identifying him as the principal of the LLC which held legal title to that property and his own personal guaranty for the $1.45 million mortgage loan for that property. Accordingly, Kamel met his burden of demonstrating that the LIC property was not subject to execution … . Born to Build LLC v Saleh, 2015 NY Slip Op 01232, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ ,

Police May Direct Occupants to Step Out of the Car After a Vehicle-Stop

In affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle stop the Second Department determined the police properly requested that the occupants step out of the car:

“In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 01292, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ ,

Defendant’s Verbal Abuse of His Lawyer Did Not Constitute a Waiver of His Right to Counsel—Criteria for Valid Waiver Explained

The Third Department determined the defendant did not, by his disruptive behavior and his telling his lawyer she was fired, waive his right to counsel:

Defendant’s “conduct unambiguously indicate[d] a defiance of the processes of law and . . . disrupt[ed] the [hearing] after all parties [were] assembled and ready to proceed,” and he arguably thereby forfeited his right to be present at the hearing … . Nevertheless, he did not validly waive his right to counsel. “For such a waiver to be effective, the trial court must be satisfied that,” among other things, “it has been made competently, intelligently and voluntarily” … . Thus, the court must undertake a “searching inquiry . . . when a defendant [seeks to] waive[] the right to counsel in favor of self-representation[,] aimed at [e]nsuring that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . Here, Supreme Court did not make any attempt to apprise defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se or the importance of counsel’s role, and there is no indication on the record before us that defendant “acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate” … . Indeed, defendant stated that he did not wish to represent himself. Inasmuch as the court “did not make the requisite searching inquiry to [e]nsure that defendant was aware of the drawbacks of self-representation before allowing him to go down that path” … . People v Middlemiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 01208, 3rd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Inform Defendant of His Right to Counsel for an Appeal Taken by the People Deprived Defendant of that Right

The Second Department determined that a defendant must be informed of his right to counsel on an appeal taken by the People:

A defendant has important interests at stake on an appeal by the People, and is thus entitled to certain protections, including “the right to appellate counsel of defendant’s choice and the right to seek appointment of counsel upon proof of indigency” … . “The ultimate duty of informing the defendant of his right to have counsel on appeal rests with the State” … and, absent record evidence that the defendant was informed of the right to counsel and waived that right, the Appellate Division should not proceed to consider and decide an appeal by the People … . Since there is no such record evidence in this case, we agree with the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel on the People’s appeal to this Court … . Accordingly, we assign counsel to represent the defendant on the People’s appeal …, and will consider and decide the remainder of the application upon the submission of all briefs. People v Clemente, 2015 NY Slip Op 01287, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/

Comments Made by Dean and Assistant Dean in Their Professional Capacities Protected by a Qualified Privilege

The Second Department determined comments made about plaintiff-coach by the dean and assistant dean of the school where plaintiff worked were protected by a qualified privilege:

“Generally, a statement is subject to a qualified privilege when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his interest is concerned” … . The defendants demonstrated that the statements at issue made by [defendants] in their official capacities as Dean and Assistant Dean of the School, respectively, and that the persons to whom they made the statements, had corresponding interests in the subject matter of the statements … .  Melious v Besignano, 2015 NY Slip Op 01247, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ ,

abor Law Definition of “General Contractor” Applies In Subrogation Action

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the Style defendants, whose role in a building project was limited to procuring the building permit and some minor carpentry, were not the general contractor for the project and were therefore entitled to summary judgment.  After paying the fire-related claim, plaintiff insurance company brought a subrogation action against the Style defendants (as the alleged general contractor). In finding the Style defendants were not the general contractor, the Second Department used the definition of “general contractor” applied under the Labor Law:

The Style defendants established, prima facie, that they were not the general contractor on the … renovation project through the submission of evidence showing that they did not undertake general contractor duties such as supervising, hiring, or paying contractors … . The evidence submitted in support of the Style defendants’ motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the Berensons hired the Baruch defendants as the general contractor on the project, and that the Baruch defendants undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors … . The evidence demonstrated that the only function the Style defendants performed in connection with the renovation project was obtaining the work permit and, at most, performing some minor carpentry and molding work at the beginning of the project … . * * *

…. [T]he rule enunciated in [the] Labor Law cases, which is based on the basic definition of a general contractor as one who, for instance, coordinates and supervises the work and hires and pays subcontractors … , applies equally to this subrogation action. To ignore our Labor Law precedent in this action would, in effect, create a different definition of a general contractor in the subrogation/property damage context, one that would confer general contractor status on an entity simply by virtue of it being listed as the contractor on a work permit. There is no persuasive reason for having two separate definitions of a general contractor, one for the Labor Law/personal injury context and another for the subrogation/property damage context… . Utica Mut Ins Co v Style Mgt Assoc Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01266, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

/

Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action based upon the presence of snow and ice on the work site.  Plaintiff was directed to carry a piece of plywood over an area covered with ice and snow.  He fell and was injured.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

As a predicate for liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of a snow and ice condition that was permitted to remain on the worksite in violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d). That section of the Industrial Code unequivocally directs that ice and snow “shall be removed” from worksites so as “to provide safe footing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[d]…). The duty imposed is nondelegable … . Indeed, here, the Construction Management Agreement … provided that [the contractor] “shall remove snow or ice from the Project Site.” The plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition and his averments in his affidavit in support of his motion established that he slipped and fell as a result of the snow and ice at the location where he was performing the tasks assigned to him. The plaintiff also demonstrated his freedom from comparative fault, as he was following his employer’s directives, using the equipment provided, and wearing proper shoes as required by his employer. The plaintiff thereby demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . … Moreover, “[s]ince an owner or general contractor’s vicarious liability under section 241 (6) is not dependent on its personal capability to prevent or cure a dangerous condition, the absence of actual or constructive notice sufficient to prevent or cure must also be irrelevant to the imposition of Labor Law § 241 (6) liability” … . Reynoso v Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01256, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ ,

One- and Two- Family Homeowners’ Exemption Precluded Labor Law 240 (1) and 246 (1) Causes of Action/Defendant-Owner’s Failure to Demonstrate He Did Not Create or Have Notice of the Alleged Dangerous Condition Precluded Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action

After finding that the Labor Law 240(1) and 246(1) causes of action were properly dismissed (one- and two-family homeowner exemption), the Second Department determined the summary judgment should not have been granted to the homeowner on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action.  The motion for summary judgment failed to address the allegation the owner created or had notice of the dangerous condition:

The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused both by a dangerous condition on the premises and the “means and methods” of construction. Accordingly, in order to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action, Elias was required to address both theories … . Since Elias failed to establish, prima facie, that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises, that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against him should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s papers submitted in opposition… . Pineda v Elias, 2015 NY Slip Op 01254, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

/ , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).

After finding there was a question of fact whether the dentist (Weiss) who treated plaintiff was an employee of defendant-Toothsavers or an independent contractor, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure:

“The Toothsavers defendants contend that because Weiss was an independent contractor, not an employee, they cannot be vicariously liable for Weiss’s malpractice. The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced or, more importantly, the means used to achieve the results” … . …

“To establish a cause of action [to recover damages] for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, [a] plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . Chan v Toothsavers Dental Care Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01236, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

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