You are here: / Cause of Action Accruing Outside New York Brought by a Nonresident Deemed...

Search Results

/

Cause of Action Accruing Outside New York Brought by a Nonresident Deemed Untimely—Relevant Law Explained

In finding an action brought by a nonresident based upon a cause of action which accrued outside New York untimely, the Second Department explained the applicable law:

” [W]hen a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, CPLR 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitation periods of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued'” … . When borrowing the foreign jurisdiction’s statute of limitations, its tolling provisions are also borrowed … .

Here, it is undisputed that the applicable limitations period is three years under either New York law or Kazakh law (see CPLR 214[2]; Kazakh Civil Code Article 178). In general, “the applicable Statute of Limitations is triggered once a cause of action accrues” … . “A cause of action accrues, for the purpose of measuring the period of limitations, when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court'” …. An action to recover for a liability created or imposed by statute must be instituted “according to the language of the statute generating the liability” … . Grynberg v Giffen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04901, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error

The Second Department determined that denial of defendant’s request to inspect his laptop computer, from which evidence was extracted to prosecute him, was reversible error:

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to compel the People to provide the defendant with the opportunity to inspect the laptop computer that was seized from his home and for an adjournment of the trial, in order to permit the defense to examine that computer (see CPL 240.20[1][f]…). The defendant was entitled to inspect the laptop computer, pursuant to CPL 240.20(1)(f), and the defendant made a timely demand to inspect the laptop computer (see CPL 240.20[1][f]…).

Further, the laptop computer was central to the People’s case against the defendant; the People’s expert witness testified, at length, as to his examination of the laptop computer, the evidence that was extracted from that computer, and the basis for his conclusion that such evidence was accessed from or uploaded to the internet by the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution provided no reason for its failure to provide the computer to the defense. Under these circumstances, this error warrants reversal … . People v Naran, 2014 NY Slip Op 04969, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/

Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department determined the indictment must be dismissed (without prejudice) because the defendant was not afforded his right to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50(5) provides that a defendant has a right to appear and testify before a grand jury if he or she serves written notice of his or her intent to do so upon the District Attorney before an indictment is filed. “[T]he opportunity to testify prior to any Grand Jury vote is qualitatively different from and more advantageous than the opportunity to testify . . . after the Grand Jury ha[s] committed itself to a vote based on the prosecution’s ex parte presentment of evidence” … . Thus, a defendant who provides timely notice “prior to the prosecution’s presentment of evidence and prior to the Grand Jury vote on an indictment [is] entitled to testify before the vote” … .

Where, as here, the defendant has been arraigned upon an undisposed felony complaint, the People must notify the defendant of the grand jury proceeding and accord him or her a reasonable time to appear (see CPL 190.50[5][a]…). Here, the People’s notice pursuant to CPL 190.50 indicated that the defendant was “scheduled to testify” before the grand jury on June 8, 2010, and that his testimony was required to have been given before 5:00 p.m. on that date. The record reveals that the defendant provided the People with written notice of his intent to testify before the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50, at the latest, by 3:37 p.m. on June 7, 2010. Thus, the defendant provided the People with the requisite notice more than 24 hours in advance of his proposed appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to testify prior to the grand jury’s vote. People v Ellison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04957, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/

Court’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry After Learning of a Juror’s Comments During Trial Indicating Her Lack of Impartiality Required Reversal

The Second Department determined that the trial judge had been made aware of information raising the possibility that a juror would not be impartial and erred in not conducting an inquiry:

The Court of Appeals, in People v Buford (69 NY2d 290, 299), set forth the basic framework to be followed when conduct occurs during a trial that may be the basis for disqualifying a juror. The court should conduct an in camera inquiry of the juror, in which counsel should be permitted to participate if they desire, and evaluate the nature and importance of the information and its impact on the case … . In addition, the “trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record . . . [and] the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror” … . Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an “in camera inquiry may not be necessary in the unusual case . . . where the court, the attorneys, and defendant all agree that there is no possibility that the juror’s impartiality could be affected and that there is no reason to question the juror” (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 299 n 4), here, defense counsel wanted the juror to be questioned.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera “probing and tactful inquiry” (id. at 299) of juror number seven, during the trial, when it was alleged that he had stated “the evidence speaks for itself or they got themsel[ves] into this situation” …, and subsequently, after deliberations had commenced, when it was alleged that juror number seven had engaged in flirtatious conduct with someone connected to the defendant as well as someone connected to the codefendant … . Since the court’s general inquiry of the jurors with respect to the first incident failed to meet the requirements of Buford …, and no inquiry at all was made with respect to the later incidents …, it is unknown whether the juror held an opinion that affected his ability to be impartial … . Such an error is not subject to harmless error analysis and, thus, the conviction must be reversed … . People v Henry, 2014 NY Slip Op 04962, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Evidence which Should Have Been Presented In the People’s Direct Case Should Not Have Been Allowed in Rebuttal

The Second Department determined the trial court erred in allowing the People to present more evidence after the defense rested. The charges were based upon allegations the defendant caused injuries to her baby by shaking the baby.  The People’s evidence demonstrated the defendant denied knowing that shaking the baby could cause injury.  The People were allowed to present evidence, after the defense had rested, that a nurse had explained the dangers of shaking to the defendant:

A court has the discretion to permit a party to present evidence in rebuttal, which, more properly, should have been presented in that party’s original case (see CPL 260.30[7]…). The Court of Appeals has approved the exercise of this discretion where the evidence proffered relates to an element of the offense which is “simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” … .

Here, the missing element of the People’s case was not a simple, uncontested fact, but, instead, was the mens rea of the subject offense … . Indeed, the People’s own evidence established that the defendant denied knowing that her actions could result in injury to the child. Furthermore, the parties’ expert witnesses ” hotly contested'” … whether shaking could cause the type of injuries at issue and, if so, how much force would be necessary to cause such injuries, and there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the point when rocking or shaking could become potentially injurious.

Because this case does not fit within “the narrow circumstances where . . . the missing element is simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” …, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application to present the nurse’s testimony in rebuttal. Without this testimony, the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish the mens rea element of endangering the welfare of a child beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04970, 2nd Dept 7-2-2014

 

/ ,

Family Court Should Have Determined Child Eligible to Apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status

The Second Department reversed Family Court finding that an order making the requisite Special Immigrant Juvenile Status findings should have been granted:

Here the Family Court properly found that the child is under the age of 21, unmarried, and that it would not be in his best interests to be returned to Honduras … . In addition, inasmuch as the Family Court granted the guardianship petition, the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)… . However, contrary to the court’s determination, based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, including detailed affidavits from the child, fully supports the petitioner’s contention that, because his father neglected and abandoned him, reunification with his father is not a viable option … . The fact that the child’s mother did not also neglect and abandon him does not preclude the issuance of the order requested … . Matter of Miguel C, -N, 2014 NY Slip Op 04923, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

Same result in Matter of Gabriela Y U M…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04937, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Admissible Hearsay Concerning the Child’s Injuries and Evidence Relevant to the Child’s Motivation to Lie Should Not Have Been Excluded from the Neglect Proceeding

The Second Department determined Family Court erred in excluding evidence from a neglect proceeding.  The excluded evidence included hearsay statements by a police officer included in the Investigative Progress notes indicating the child’s (Jonell H’s) bruises were not severe, and evidence relevant to the child’s motivation to lie:

At the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court erred in excluding from evidence Investigation Progress notes dated April 18, 2010, indicating that a police officer had informed a caseworker that the officer had visited Jonell H. shortly after the alleged neglect took place and observed that the bruises on her right arm were “not serious” and that “[t]here [are] not other visible bruises/marks observed” on her. These notes were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule since the caseworker was under a duty to maintain a comprehensive case record for Jonell H., and the officer had a duty to report his or her observations of her condition … .

The Family Court also erred in precluding the mother from calling four particular witnesses to testify. Those witnesses would have given testimony pertaining to Jonell H.’s motivation to lie. Extrinsic proof tending to establish a reason to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground … . Similarly, the court should not have excluded from evidence Family Service Progress notes containing statements by Jonell H.’s foster parents relevant to her motivation to lie. Foster parents are “employees who [are] under a business duty to timely record and report all matters concerning the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the children in their care to the foster care agency” … .  Matter of Grayson J, 2014 NY Slip Op 04934, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Proof Vehicle Was Stolen at the Time of the Accident Defeated Action Based Upon Vehicle-Owner’s Vicarious Liability

The Second Department determined defendant’s evidence that her vehicle had been stolen at the time of the accident entitled her to summary judgment in an action based upon the vehicle-owner’s vicarious liability:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that, with the exception of bona fide commercial lessors of motor vehicles, which are exempt from vicarious liability by virtue of federal law …, the owner of a motor vehicle shall be liable for the negligence of one who operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent … . This statute creates a presumption that the driver was using the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission …, which only may be rebutted by substantial evidence sufficient to show that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s consent … . Evidence that a vehicle was stolen at the time of the accident will rebut the presumption of permissive use … . Fuentes v Virgil, 2014 NY Slip Op 04899, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Lack of Notice of Alleged Dangerous Condition Established by Custodian’s Testimony

The Second Department determined that the testimony of the school custodian that he had inspected the floor shortly before plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on accumulated water entitled the defendant school to summary judgment:

” To impose liability on a defendant for a slip and fall on an allegedly dangerous condition on a floor, there must be evidence that the dangerous condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time'” … . ” A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident that it could have been discovered and corrected'” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the Board of Education established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the custodian engineer assigned to clean the school. He testified that he inspects the school, including the bathrooms, every morning to make sure that it is safe and clean. He further testified that he had last inspected the subject bathroom approximately two to two and one-half hours before the infant plaintiff allegedly was injured, and that there was no liquid on the floor at that time. The Board of Education also submitted the affidavit of a school administrator who averred that the school had not received any complaints regarding water on the floor of the subject bathroom between the time of the inspection and the time of the alleged accident. Additionally, the Board of Education submitted the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s mother, who admitted that, prior to the accident, the infant plaintiff never complained to her about water accumulation on the bathroom floors … . Farren v Board of Educ of City of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 04896, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

/ ,

Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been denied and the complaint dismissed:

Amendments to notices of claim are appropriate only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial “technical mistakes, defects, or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve and file an amended notice of claim. The proposed amendments to the notice of claim included substantive changes to the facts, adding that the plaintiff was injured after he climbed a ladder to go over a fence, changing the situs of the accident, and identifying the plaintiff as a worker at the site. The proposed amendments to the notice of claim also added a theory of liability under the Labor Law. Such changes are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Granting leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim would prejudice the Housing Authority by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted the Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the notice of claim was inadequate. A notice of claim must provide timely notice of the essential facts and legal theories supporting the claims alleged in the complaint … . The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes enough information to enable the defendant to promptly investigate the allegations at issue … . The plaintiff’s original notice of claim did not sufficiently apprise the Housing Authority of the relevant facts or legal theories supporting the plaintiff’s claims to enable the Housing Authority to promptly and adequately investigate the allegations at issue in the complaint, resulting in prejudice to the Housing Department … . Ahmed v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 04883, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

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