You are here: / THE TIMELY FILING OF A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN TO CORRECT PROBLEMS...

Search Results

/

THE TIMELY FILING OF A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN TO CORRECT PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST MECHANIC’S LIEN WHICH HAD BEEN CANCELLED BY THE COURT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE LIEN LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Lien Law does not prohibit a second filing of a mechanic’s lien after the cancellation of the first:

Lien Law § 38 requires a lienor, upon demand, to provide a statement in writing setting forth, among other things, “the items of labor and/or material and the value thereof which make up the amount for which he [or she] claims a lien.” The statute further authorizes the commencement of a special proceeding upon a lienor’s failure to comply, and ultimately permits a court to cancel a lien if the lienor does not sufficiently comply with a court order requiring itemization … . The statute, however, does not prohibit a lienor from filing a new lien on the same claim following such cancellation … , and the courts have generally recognized that the timely filing of a successive lien on the same claim is permissible to cure an irregularity … . Matter of Red Hook 160, LLC v 2M Mech., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01794, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: It is OK to file a second mechanic’s lien correcting problems in the first mechanic’s lien which was cancelled by the court.

 

/ , ,

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue which must be determined by the court, not the arbitrator:

… [T]he petitioners raised a threshold issue regarding the validity of the purported agreement to arbitrate, as they contended that they did not sign, and that neither Graves nor AMF had the authority to sign, any contract on their behalf concerning the purported transaction involving the respondents. Thus, this threshold issue was for the Supreme Court, rather than an arbitrator, to determine … . Matter of Northeast & Cent. Contrs., Inc. v Quanto Capital, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01791, Second Dept 3-16-22

 

/ ,

SUN GLARE DID NOT CREATE AN EMERGENCY FOR THE BUS DRIVER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the defendant bus driver and bus company did not raise a question of fact on the applicability of the emergency doctrine.. Defendants alleged sun glare prevented the driver from seeing plaintiff pedestrian in the crosswalk:

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Ruff’s foreseeable encounter with sun glare, while driving on a route with which he was familiar, was an emergency not of his own making, which left him with only seconds to react and virtually no opportunity to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . Morales-Rodriguez v MTA Bus Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 01781, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the bus driver alleged sun glare created an emergency which should excuse his striking plaintiff pedestrian. The allegation did not raise a triable question of fact.

 

/ , ,

THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavits in this medical malpractice action did not address all the allegations of negligence and were otherwise deficient. Therefore defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The Koyfman defendants’ expert failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted against the Koyfman defendants … , failed to address conflicting evidence in the record … , and failed to eliminate issues of fact as to the cause of the decedent’s injuries…. . …

… [Defendant] ORMC’s expert merely summarized the medical records and certain deposition testimony, and opined in a conclusory manner that Solomon did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in rendering treatment to the decedent and did not proximately cause her injuries … .. Moreover, ORMC’s expert failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted against [defendant] Solomon … .Martinez v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01780, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: At the summary judgment stage, medical malpractice actions are determined by the expert affidavits. If a party’s expert does not address all the allegations of negligence, that party’s motion for summary judgment will be denied without the need to even consider the opposing papers.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE LEASE OR ANY STATUTE TO REPAIR THE FLOOR OF A WALK-IN FREEZER IN THE LEASED PREMISES; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DENTS IN THE METAL FLOOR CAUSED HIS LADDER TO FALL OVER; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged dents in a metal freezer floor caused his A-frame ladder to fall over:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a ‘duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords which were not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly dangerous condition. The plaintiff did not allege that dents in the floor of the walk-in freezer violated any statutes, and therefore the defendants were not obligated to disprove that they had a duty imposed by statute to repair the complained-of condition as part of their prima facie burden … .. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants adequately authenticated that the lease agreement submitted in support of their motion was in effect at the time of the accident … . Lopez v Mattone Group Raceway, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the lease did not require the out-of-possession landlord to maintain the leased premises and there was no statute imposing a duty to maintain the premises on the landlord. Therefore the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for dents in the walk-in freezer’s floor (in the leased premises) which allegedly caused plaintiff’s ladder to fall.

 

/ , , ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE NORMAL JERKS AND JOLTS OF BUS TRAVEL AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENCE ON DEFENDANTS’ PART; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should not have been granted. The jury could have found plaintiff was injured by the normal “jerks and jolts” of bus travel without any negligence on defendants’ part:

… [G]iving due deference to the jury’s credibility findings … , it could have determined, based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence introduced at trial, including the testimony of the bus driver and a surveillance video, that the movement of the bus as it drove over the speed bump was one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” and not attributable to the negligence of the defendant … . Jones v Westchester County, 2022 NY Slip Op 01774, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the testimony of the bus driver and the surveillance video allowed the jury to determine plaintiff bus-passenger’s injuries were caused by normal movements of the bus and not by the driver’s negligence. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined an entry in the plaintiff’s medical records indicating she fell down a few stairs was inadmissible. Plaintiff alleged she fell through a broken step. The entry in the hospital record was not germane to diagnosis or treatment and the source of the entry could not be ascertained:

… Supreme Court should have precluded the admission into evidence of an entry in a medical record from … the Brookdale medical record … that indicated that the plaintiff sustained a “mechanical fall down ‘a few’ stairs.” An entry in a medical record that is not germane to diagnosis or treatment but is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial is admissible as an admission by that party only when there is evidence connecting the party to the entry … .. “[W]here the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … .

Here, the Brookdale medical record was not germane to the plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment, and thus was not admissible on that basis … .. Moreover, there was no showing that the plaintiff was the source of the information in that record and so it was not admissible as an admission by the plaintiff … . Fraser v 147 Rockaway Pkw, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01772, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: An entry in a hospital record which is not germane to treatment or diagnosis is not admissible. An entry in a hospital record which is inconsistent with a plaintiff’s position at trial is admissible as an “admission” only if it is clear plaintiff was the source of the entry. If, as it was here, the source of the entry is unknown, it is inadmissible.

 

/ ,

IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE MATTER, PLAINTIFF INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NYCRR SUCH THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer did not demonstrate it was entitled to summary judgment based upon the insured’s failure to appear for an independent medical examination (IME):

[Plaintiff insurer’s] its motion papers did not demonstrate that it sustained its burden of showing that it complied with New York State no-fault regulations (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[b], [d]) governing the timeframes for scheduling IMEs … .. Specifically, plaintiff did not establish that it timely requested the IMEs under the applicable no-fault regulations, since plaintiff’s motion papers did not establish the dates of the verification forms that it received from the medical provider defendants; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether plaintiff sent the appropriate notices within 15 business days or 30 calendar days of receiving the forms, as required under (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(b) and (d) …  American Tr. Ins. Co. v Alcantara, 2022 NY Slip Op 01871, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An insurer must show compliance with the regulatory timeframes for scheduling an independent medical examination (IME) before it will be entitled to summary judgment based on an insured’s failure to appear at an IME.

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to compel plaintiff to supplement his interrogatories in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the escalator he was working on started up without warning severely injured his leg. The fact that plaintiff can not identify the cause of the unexpected start-up did not require supplementing his interrogatories as he can so state “under oath:”

“It is well settled that a products liability cause of action may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and thus, a plaintiff need not identify a specific product defect” … . In the absence of evidence identifying a specific defect “a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to [the] defendants” … . If a “plaintiff is unable to prove both elements, ‘a jury may not infer that the harm was caused by a defective product unless [the] plaintiff offers competent evidence identifying a specific flaw'” …

In his interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified several alleged design defects, including the design of the pit, that contributed to his injury. However, he did not identify a cause for the unexpected start up of the escalator. … Presently, plaintiff asserts that he cannot pinpoint the defective component that allowed the escalator’s machinery to begin moving without warning. In an instance where plaintiff “presently lacks the knowledge” to specifically identify the nature of the defect, plaintiff can testify to that “under oath” … . … [I]f he acquires the pertinent information he would be under an obligation to promptly supplement his answers to the interrogatories at issue … . Berkovich v Judlau Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01733, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Products liability actions can be proven by circumstantial evidence. If a plaintiff does not know the cause of a product malfunction (here, an escalator which allegedly started running unexpectedly) at the discovery stage, the plaintiff can testify to that fact under oath.

 

/

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS WAS NOT TIMELY, THE ASSERTION OF THE DEFENSE IN THE REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS TIMELY; THE DEFENSE CAN BE RAISED IN A SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department noted that the statute of limitations affirmative defense was timely served in a reply to a counterclaim

[Defendant] NYCTA did not waive its affirmative defense under CPLR 3211(a)(5) because a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived only if it is neither asserted in a responsive pleading or in a timely motion … . Here the affirmative defense was timely asserted in NYCTA’s reply to the counterclaim. The motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5), however, was not timely made, as required under CPLR 3211(e) … . … We note that NYCTA may pursue relief on its statute of limitations defense by way of a summary judgment motion in the normal course of the litigation … . Han v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01737, First Dept 3-15-22​

Practice Point: Even if it is too late to move to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, if the defense has been timely asserted, it can be the basis of a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

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