You are here: / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this premises liability case should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged a portion of their bedroom ceiling collapsed on them. Defendant owner of the property demonstrated the lack of actual or constructive notice of any defect in the ceiling. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply because the condition was not under defendants’ exclusive control:

The owner of property has a duty to maintain its property “in a reasonably safe condition 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” … . Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that they did not have actual or constructive notice that the bedroom ceiling was in a defective condition … . The evidence submitted by the defendants established that at least one of the plaintiffs had been residing in the third-floor apartment for more than four years, and that prior to the accident, the plaintiffs did not notice any defects in the bedroom ceiling, and had never complained to the defendants about the bedroom ceiling. Moreover, the debris and the ceiling from which it had fallen were dry, and there was no evidence of a leak in the building at or about the time of the accident.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs’ expert, in the absence of a warning about the existence of a latent defect, there was no duty to remove portions of the ceiling plaster to discover what lay behind it … . Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to this case since the defendants did not have the requisite exclusive control over the allegedly defective condition … . Matson v Dermer Mgt., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06842, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A COURT WITH AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CRACK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion was properly granted in this slip and fall, assumption of the risk case. Plaintiff alleged he stepped in a hole inside a crack in a tennis court while playing cricket. The crack was deemed open and obvious:

“Assumption of risk is not an absolute defense but a measure of the defendant’s duty of care” … . The defendants’ duty is “to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, [the participant] has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . “This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it, including less than optimal conditions” . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . “However, participants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . Further, “the doctrine of assumption of risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises” … .

Here, the defendants’ submissions in support of their motion, which included the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographs allegedly depicting the accident site, reveal that the crack in the surface of the subject tennis courts, which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s accident, was clearly visible … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the open and obvious crack concealed the depth and extent of the alleged hole … . Maharaj v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06841, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

THE COMPUTATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed because computations were based on business records which were not produced:

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the referee’s computations as to escrow disbursements and advancements and property inspection fees were premised upon unproduced business records … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bracco, 2021 NY Slip Op 06839, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Hudes) in this dispute over an easement should not have been sanctioned by ordering him to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for “frivolous conduct.” The facts were not described. The sanction was inappropriate because the behavior which triggered it did not occur within the proceeding before the court:

Courts have discretion to award costs or impose financial sanctions against a party or attorney in a civil action for engaging in frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [b]). Conduct may be deemed frivolous if it is “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another,” or “asserts material factual statements that are false”… . However, the scope of the rule is limited to frivolous conduct in the proceeding before the court, and does not extend to “tortious conduct in general” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees against Hudes personally, since Hudes’ misconduct did not occur within the proceeding before the court and, therefore, was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 … . Industry LIC Condominium v Hudes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06836, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S GARAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment finding an easement by implication for a driveway leading to a garage on plaintiff’s property. The lot with the driveway, Lot B, and plaintiff’s lot, Lot A, were previously owned by the same party who conveyed Lot A to plaintiff and Lot B to defendant, plaintiff’s sister-in-law:

“An easement may be implied from pre-existing use upon severance of title when three elements are shown: ‘(1) unity and subsequent separation of title, (2) the claimed easement must have, prior to separation, been so long continued and obvious or manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent, and (3) the use must be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land retained'” … . “Stated another way, an implied easement will arise upon severance of ownership when, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude at the time of severance is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate” … . An implied easement must be “a reasonable necessity, rather than a mere convenience” … .

… The plaintiff did not establish that the use of the driveway on Lot B was a reasonable necessity to the beneficial use of the land and not a mere convenience. It is undisputed that Lot A is not landlocked and that the plaintiff can access Lot A without using the driveway on Lot B. … [T]he home situated on Lot A is rented to one set of tenants, and the parking spaces in the garage are rented to another set of tenants. Since access to off-street parking is a mere convenience, the plaintiff cannot establish that the easement is a reasonable necessity. Bonadio v Bonadio, 2021 NY Slip Op 06830, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the infant defendant’s (A.M.’s) cross-motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted:

The defendant James McGown purchased the subject property on January 25, 2006. On March 15, 2007, he executed a mortgage encumbering the subject property in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (… MERS) … . MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. McGown failed to make a payment due under the terms of the mortgage … . … McGown executed a deed purportedly conveying the subject property to his daughter, the infant A.M., who at the time was less than one year old. * * *

… A.M. did not waive the defense of personal jurisdiction by cross-moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). “‘A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss'” … . However, certain types of limited involvement in an action by a defendant do not waive jurisdictional defenses, including “cross-moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as such a motion by a defendant ‘does not constitute an appearance in the action'” … . …

… [T]he process server attested that he served A.M. pursuant to CPLR 308(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the “housekeeper” at A.M.’s dwelling place and then completing the requisite mailing. … [A]lthough McGown was served individually, he was not served … as an individual and representative of A.M. … . Since neither of these methods of service complied with the requirements of CPLR 309, the present action was jurisdictionally defective as asserted against A.M. US Bank N.A. v McGown, 2021 NY Slip Op 06879, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

IN THIS SIDEWAIK ICE-AND-SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this sidewalk ice-and-snow slip and fall case, determined; (1) the municipality demonstrated it did not have written notice of the ice-and-snow condition and plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the municipality created the condition or benefitted from a special use; and (2), the abutting property-owner defendants did not demonstrate that they did not create the ice-and-snow condition. Summary judgment was properly granted to the municipality, but should not have been granted to the abutting property owners:

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property … . There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the landowner has affirmatively created the dangerous condition … . The [abutting property-owner defendants] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their snow removal efforts around the time of the injured plaintiff’s fall did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition on the roadway … . Thompson v Nassau County, 2021 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE EXCUSE FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF PAPERS OPPOSING DFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment, based upon law office failure, should have been granted:

… [T]he defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. That motion was initially returnable on October 20, 2016, but the return date was adjourned to December 8, 2016, with opposition papers to be served by November 21, 2016. The plaintiff served opposition to the motion on or about November 28, 2016 … . In an order entered February 2, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. …

… [G]iven the totality of all relevant factors, including the delay of only approximately seven days from the due date for opposition papers to the time the plaintiff served opposition papers, the lack of any evidence of willfulness by the plaintiff, or prejudice to the defendant from the delay, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in not accepting the plaintiff’s excuse of law office failure … . … [T]he plaintiff demonstrated that he had a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Stango v Byrnes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06877, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINIONS, THEREBY WARRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department determined plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit in this medical malpractice action was conclusory and did not address defendants’ expert’s opinions specifically. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

… [P]laintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. His expert, who is board certified in surgery and thoracic surgery, was qualified to render an opinion … . However, the opinion is conclusory and speculative and fails to address defendant’s expert’s opinions specifically … . In addition, in forming his opinion, plaintiff’s expert disregarded facts and medical evidence in the record, including a post-operative pathology report that indicated that plaintiff had a connective tissue disorder that put him at greater risk for developing serious complications if his aortic aneurysm were left untreated … . Akel v Gerardi, 2021 NY Slip Op 06792, First Dept 12-7-21​

 

/ , , ,

THE RESPONDENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS ENTITLED TO IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (CPL) 245.20 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the respondent-appellant in this juvenile delinquency proceeding was entitled to impeachment evidence concerning the arresting officers to the extent authorized by Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 245.20:

While not all provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law are applicable to proceedings under the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 303.1[1]) under the circumstances presented here, the denial of records available under CPL 245.10(1)(k)(iv), which broadly requires disclosure of all impeachment evidence deprived appellant of equal protection of the laws (US Const, 14th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 11 …).

A respondent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding has the same right to cross-examine witnesses as a criminal defendant … , and there is no reason to allow more limited access to impeachment materials in a juvenile suppression or fact-finding hearing than in a criminal suppression hearing or trial. The need for impeachment evidence is equally crucial in both delinquency and criminal proceedings. A similarly situated defendant in a criminal proceeding would be entitled to access to the impeachment materials requested by appellant. Matter of Jayson C., 2021 NY Slip Op 06794, First Dept 12-7-21

 

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