You are here: / Under the Facts, a Stairwell Partially Covered by a Piece of Wood Was Not...

Search Results

/

Under the Facts, a Stairwell Partially Covered by a Piece of Wood Was Not an Unreasonably Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined that a stairwell leading to the basement of defendant’s restaurant, which was partially covered by a piece of wood, did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition.  Plaintiff fell down the stairwell after leaving a nearby bar by the back door and climbing over a fence:

A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable injuries … . The scope of such duty is determined in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk … . “Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness’”… .

[Defendant] submitted evidence demonstrating that it was not aware of any other prior similar incidents or injuries on its premises and that there was no access between the rear of its premises and the rear portions of the stores situated to the west of it, which included the subject bar. Additionally, [defendant’s] submissions demonstrated that the restaurant was closed at the time of the incident, that the back door of the restaurant was locked, and that none of [defendant’s] employees was at the premises. Thus, [defendant] established, prima facie, that under the circumstances of this case, the basement stairwell partially covered by a piece of wood did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Assefa v Bam, 2013 NY Slip Op 08220, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/

Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the mortgage lender failed to submit adequate proof of the value of the property for purposes of entering a deficiency judgment:

RPAPL 1371(2) permits a mortgage lender to enter a deficiency judgment for the amount owed “less the market value as determined by the court or the sale price of the property whichever shall be the higher.” “The mortgagee has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of the fair market value of the property as of the foreclosure sale date” … . An affidavit by a “licensed real estate appraiser setting forth his [or her] opinion as to the fair market value of the premises on the date of the foreclosure sale, and stating in conclusory fashion that his [or her] opinion was based upon his [or her] personal inspection of the subject premises, examination of the neighborhood, a review of sales and rentals of comparable properties, and general economic trends and expenses data,” without describing the subject premises or appending evidence of comparable sales and market date, is not sufficient … . In the instant case, the plaintiff relied upon such a conclusory affidavit, two exterior photographs of the front and side of the subject premises, and information purportedly indicating the average sale price of properties in the relevant zip code area, without explaining how those average prices related to the appraiser’s conclusion that the fair market value of the subject property on the date of the foreclosure sale was $550,000. The plaintiff’s submission was, thus, insufficient to meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to a deficiency judgment. Eastern Sav Bank FSB v Brown, 2013 NY Slip Op 08228, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/ , ,

Numerous Core Issues Discussed in Complicated Case Stemming from Mold in a Complex of Apartments Which Necessitated Termination of All the Leases

In perhaps the most complicated decision this writer has ever read, the Second Department reversed many of Supreme Court’s rulings and sorted out the defense and indemnification responsibilities for an astounding array of insurance companies.  The lawsuits arose from the intrusion of water and mold into a complex of rental apartments causing the termination of all the leases. The general contractor and a large number of subcontractors all had insurance policies issued by many different companies. Among the issues addressed: (1) “[C]ontract language that merely requires the purchase of insurance will not be read as also requiring that a contracting party be named as an additional insured”…; (2) Whether damage from water intrusion and mold is an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy-language; (3) Whether the law of the insured’s domicile should apply; (4) The use of extrinsic evidence to determine an insurer’s duty to defend; and (5) Disclaimer based upon late notice.  QBE Ins Corp v Adjo Contr Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 08238, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/

Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The Second Department determined petitioners did not have standing to bring an action alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because petitioners’ properties were not sufficiently close to the location of the development project:

To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA … . An injury in fact may be inferred from a showing of close proximity of the petitioner’s property to the proposed development … . Generally, the relevant distance is the distance between the petitioner’s property and the actual structure or development itself, not the distance between the petitioner’s property and the property line of the site … . Here, the individual petitioners’ properties were not located in sufficient proximity to the proposed development to give rise to standing … . Matter of Tuxedo Land Trust Inc v Town Bd of Town of Tuxedo, 2013 NY Slip Op 08255, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/ ,

Defendant Understood the Reference to the “Appellate Division” Was a Reference to a Higher Court—Waiver of Appeal Was Therefore Valid

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the defendant’s waiver of appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.  The defendant was asked by the prosecutor if he understood he was waiving the right to appeal his conviction and sentence to “the Appellate Division, Second Department.”  Because the defendant was 27 years old, had prior contact with the criminal justice system, had filed a notice of appeal pro se, and had requested appellate counsel, the court concluded the defendant understood the reference to the “appellate division” was a reference to a higher court. People v Sanders, 2013 NY Slip Op 08276, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/ , ,

Purported Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect/Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department noted that a court’s power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte should rarely be used and further noted that a purported lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect warranting sua sponte dismissal:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint. ” 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, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Moreover, the defendants, having failed to answer the complaint or make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, waived the defense of lack of standing … . “Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court”… .  Onewest Bank FSB v Fernandez, 2013 NY Slip Op 08233, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

 

/ ,

Uncovered Baseboard Radiator May Constitute an Unsafe Condition Created by Landlord

The First Department determined there were questions of fact about whether the landlord assumed a duty to cover a baseboard heating unit, whether the landlord created an unsafe condition by removing the baseboard heating unit’s cover, and whether the uncovered unit needed repairs or was defective.  The infant plaintiff, who suffers from mental retardation and cerebral palsy, was burned when her face and hand was in contact with an uncovered baseboard radiator for an unknown period of time.  Nina W v NDI King Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 08202, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

/ ,

Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, the First Department determined a (hearsay) statement by a witness indicating she (not the defendant) was driving when the property-damage accident occurred should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest.  The central question was whether the declarant was aware she was admitting to a violation of law when the statement was made:

The decision whether to admit a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule requires, among other factors, that the declarant be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his or her penal interest. The issue in this case is whether a statement in which an individual admits to conduct constituting an offense is a statement against penal interest, where the individual believes that the conduct may be illegal but does not know whether it is or not. It arose in the context of a DWI case where the defense was that defendant, who was intoxicated, was not the driver of the car, but a passenger. Specifically, the driver, a 19-year-old woman with no prior criminal history and only a learner’s permit, who met defendant approximately eight hours earlier, made a statement to a defense investigator indicating that she, and not defendant, was driving defendant’s car at the time it collided with a parked car, but refused to testify at trial on Fifth Amendment grounds. We find that the statement was a declaration against penal interest notwithstanding that some of the witness’s apprehension in making the statement was based on her fear that her parents would learn of her involvement with defendant or that, as the court noted, her exposure to criminal liability was relatively minor. The court therefore erred in keeping the statement out. * * *

…[W]e hold that regardless of whether [the witness] was specifically aware that the conduct she admitted constituted a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600, which prohibits an operator of a motor vehicle who causes property damage from leaving the scene, or whether she was specifically aware that she faced a penalty of up to 15 days’ imprisonment and a fine for that offense, the evidence established that her statement satisfied this hearsay exception. Her expressions, at the time of or immediately after her statement, of apprehension that she could get in trouble for her conduct, including repeated inquiries about consulting with a lawyer, sufficed to satisfy the requirement that “the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his [or her] penal interest”… . People v Soto, 2013 NY Slip Op 08217, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

 

/ , ,

Subpoena Which Could Result In Compelling a New York Reporter to Reveal Her Sources in an Out-of-State Proceeding Should Not Have Been Issued by a New York Court

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, with three dissenting judges, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and held that a New York reporter (Winter) could not be subpoenaed to testify in Colorado.  Under Colorado law, it was likely the reporter would have been compelled to reveal her sources for a story about a notebook provided by James Holmes to his psychiatrist.  Holmes was the shooter in a mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a midnight showing of a “Batman” movie.  The court determined that the public policy underlying New York’s Shield Law would be violated if the subpoena were issued and, therefore, issuance of the subpoena was prohibited:

…New York public policy as embodied in the Constitution and our current statutory scheme provides a mantle of protection for those who gather and report the news — and their confidential sources — that has been recognized as the strongest in the nation.  And safeguarding the anonymity of those who provide information in confidence is perhaps the core principle of New York’s journalistic privilege, as is evident from our colonial tradition, the constitutional text and the legislative history of the Shield Law.  * * *

It is therefore evident based on the New York Constitution, the Shield Law and our precedent that a New York court could not compel Winter to reveal the identity of the sources that supplied information to her in relation to her online news article about Holmes’ notebook.  Holmes does not argue otherwise but relies on our decision in Matter of Codey (Capital Cities, Am. Broadcasting Corp.) (supra, 82 NY2d 521) for the proposition that, when New York functions as the “sending state” in relation to a CPL 640.10(2) application, issues concerning testimonial privilege — including the applicability of the absolute privilege afforded by the Shield Law — simply cannot be considered by a New York court.  …

CPL 640.10(2) is New York’s codification of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, which has been adopted by all 50 states. * * *

We … conclude that an order from a New York court directing a reporter to appear in another state where, as here, there is a substantial likelihood that she will be compelled to identify sources who have been promised confidentiality would offend our strong public policy — a common law, statutory and constitutional tradition that has played a significant role in this State becoming the media capital of the country if not the world.  Matter of Holmes v Winter, 245, CtApp 12-10-13

 

/

Determination Town Justice Should Be Removed from Office Sustained

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, sustained the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s finding of misconduct and the determination the non-lawyer town court justice should be removed from office. The essence of the alleged misconduct was that the judge presided over matters involving his friends and relatives without disclosing the relationships. With respect to the judge’s presiding over a traffic-ticket proceeding (seatbelt violation) against a long-time friend and business associate (Johnson), the court wrote:

Although the charge against Johnson was relatively minor, petitioner’s decision to hear a case involving a friend and former employer without even disclosing the existence of the personal relationship to the District Attorney was, under the circumstances presented here, no small matter.  The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct direct that “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR § 100.3[E][1]).  A judge’s perception of the nature or seriousness of the subject matter of the litigation has no bearing on the duty to recuse or disclose a relationship with a litigant or attorney when necessary to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism.  Indeed, although petitioner denies giving Johnson preferential treatment, he does not defend his decision to sit on the case and acknowledges in his brief that he made the “wrong choice.”  Matter of George, 249, CtApp 12-10-13

 

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