You are here: / WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT...

Search Results

/ , , , , , ,

WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT IS NOT CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; HERE THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THEIR CASE IN DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant school’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiffs alleged the school retaliated against them after they complained about race-related issues by making a false child neglect report to Child Protective Services (CPS). The school argued the plaintiffs will not be able to learn the identity of the person who reported the alleged neglect because of the immunity provided by the Social Services Law. The 2nd Department explained that the immunity question is not relevant to whether the complaint states causes of action:

… [P]laintiffs assert causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and negligent hiring, training and supervision … .

Defendants moved to dismiss all of these causes of action on the basis that plaintiffs would be unable to prove any of these claims because they did not know the identity of the CPS reporter and would be unable to learn it in discovery. …

… [I]n the context of this motion to dismiss, the Court does not assess the relative merits of the complaint’s allegations against defendant’s contrary assertions or to determine whether or not plaintiffs can produce evidence to support their claims … . Whether plaintiffs “can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not a part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … . Thus, regardless of whether plaintiffs will be able to obtain disclosure concerning the identity of the CPS reporter (Social Services Law § 422[4][A] …), defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the well-pleaded complaint for failure to state a cause of action … . M.H.B. v E.C.F.S., 2019 NY Slip Op 08276, First Dept 11-14-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A HARNESS; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant’s expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative because it was not based upon record evidence. Defendant’s argument that further discovery might reveal defenses was rejected, in part, because defendant was not diligent in pursuing discovery:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his deposition testimony, photographic exhibits and expert’s opinion, which showed that he fell from a 10-foot high sidewalk bridge that he was helping to assemble on defendant’s property, when a pile of heavy wooden planks shifted and struck him on the legs, causing him to lose his balance. Plaintiff testified that the side barriers for the sidewalk bridge were not yet built, and he was not supplied with a safety harness to protect him from gravity-related harm … . …

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was premature where its expert opined that depositions of the contractor’s personnel yet to be taken might yield evidence that plaintiff was supplied with a fall-arrest safety harness, and that he was recalcitrant in not using it, lacks factual support in the record, and as such, the expert’s opinion in that regard is speculative and non-probative … . The mere hope that additional discovery may lead to sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion is insufficient to deny such a motion … . The record further shows that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery … , and defendant has not shown that it was diligent in pursuing discovery in this case … . Singh v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08272, First Dept 11-14-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENSE COUNSEL PROBABLY COULD HAVE WORKED OUT A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because there was a reasonable possibility a plea to something less than an aggravated felony could have been worked, with no mandatory deportation consequences:

At the hearing, defense counsel candidly admitted that he did not know, at the time of defendant’s plea, what an aggravated felony was, and that he mistakenly believed that defendant’s prior youthful offender adjudication, which resulted in a violation of probation charge that was disposed of at the same time as the instant plea, already rendered him deportable. However, New York YO adjudications are not considered criminal convictions for purposes of immigration law … . …

Accordingly, he did not attempt to obtain a sentence of less than one year on the third-degree conviction, which would have prevented it from being an aggravated felony, subjecting defendant, who is in removal proceedings, to mandatory deportation … . Counsel admitted that he had no strategic reason for not doing so; he simply did not know that defendant’s negotiated sentence of one to three years rendered robbery in the third degree an aggravated felony, or that defendant’s youthful offender adjudication did not render him deportable. People v Richards, 2019 NY Slip Op 08268, First Dept 11-14-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted, despite an affidavit from the plaintiff which, in part, contradicted his deposition testimony. Plaintiff was struck from above by the chain in a chain hoist system:

Supreme Court correctly concluded that plaintiff Jose Goncalves’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion should not be considered to the extent that it averred that he was struck by the entire chain hoist system, which contradicted his deposition testimony that he was struck only by the chain itself … . However, the affidavit was consistent with his prior testimony that he was struck by the chain from above, and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, plaintiffs demonstrated that the chain hoist system at issue failed, causing Goncalves to be struck by an object – either the chain hoist system or just the chain itself – from above, and thereby established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Goncalves v New 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08265, First Dept 11-14-19

 

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION AND PROPOSED PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judges should have, sua sponte, granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint in the absence of a motion and a proposed pleading. The leave to amend was vacated:

The motion court should not have sua sponte granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to assert an unpleaded negligent misrepresentation claim in the absence of a cross motion and an accompanying proposed pleading (CPLR 3025[b]). The lack of a proposed pleading precludes meaningful review of the sufficiency of the allegations, including defendant’s contention that such a claim is time barred … . Sutton Animal Hosp. PLLC v D&D Dev., Inc.. 2019 NY Slip Op 08263, First Dept 11-12-19

 

/ ,

A JUROR’S ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH A JAILED COOPERATING PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING DELIBERATIONS EXHIBITED ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined that a juror who attempted to develop a relationship with a jailed cooperating prosecution witness during deliberations exhibited actual and implied bias, thereby depriving defendant of a fair trial. Although the juror and the witness were not able to speak to each other during deliberations, there was a missed call. After the trial the juror developed a serious relationship with the witness through letters and phone calls and expressed a desire to marry the witness. The First Department noted that a harmless error analysis was not appropriate:

Juror misconduct includes both “actual bias” and “implied bias.” Despite its name, “actual” bias merely requires proof of “a state of mind” that is “likely” to preclude a juror from rendering an impartial verdict … . Under CPL 270.20(1)(b), “[a]ctual bias. . . is not limited . . . to situations where a prospective juror has formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt” … . It may be demonstrated where a prospective juror’s conduct indicates her inability to follow the court’s instructions.

“Implied bias” exists where a juror “bears some … relationship to any such person [defendant, witness, prosecution] of such nature that it is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20[1][c] … ). “[T]he frequency of contact and nature of the parties’ relationship are to be considered in determining whether disqualification is necessary” … .

Implied bias “requires automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial” … .

Here, there was both actual and implied bias. The misconduct by Juror No. 6 was willful and blatant – the juror was admittedly attracted to the witness, a cooperating witness testifying on behalf of the People, and sought to develop a relationship with him while jury deliberations were still underway – even though she knew this was not permitted. The juror knew during deliberations that the witness had tried to call her back, suggesting that the interest was mutual, and the juror is now in a very serious relationship with the witness and seeks to marry him. Although the juror denied that her feelings about the witness affected her thinking about defendant, she was at least arguably more likely to credit his testimony and could subconsciously have sought to aide the side with which the witness was aligned … . People v McGregor, 2019 NY Slip Op 08283, First Dept 11-14-19

 

/ , , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank (Aurora) did not provide sufficient proof of providing notice of default to defendants. The Second Department noted that the bank need not affirmatively prove compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 because the issue was not raised in defendant’s answer. The court also noted that evidence submitted in reply papers addressing matters raised for the first time in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment can be considered, but evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers addressing issues which were raised in the answer should not be considered:

In support of its motion, Aurora submitted two affidavits. The first affidavit was from Laura McCann, Vice President of Aurora, the loan servicer responsible for sending the notices of default. The second affidavit was from A.J. Loll, Vice President of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current plaintiff and loan servicer. While McCann attested that Aurora was responsible for “providing notices pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage evidencing the mortgage loan at issue, and specifically for providing notices such as the notice required under Section 22 of the mortgage,” nowhere in her affidavit did she attest to the actual mailing or delivery of those notices. As to the second affidavit, while Loll attested, inter alia, that “[t]he servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to [the] defendants . . . … , which letter advised Defendants of their default,” and attached a purportedly “true copy” of the 30-day letter as Exhibit I, the affidavit did not contain a statement that the 30-day notice was sent in a manner according with the terms of the mortgage, i.e., “mailed by first class mail or . . . actually delivered to [borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” Moreover, Loll’s affidavit “did not contain a statement that [Loll] was familiar with [Aurora’s] mailing practices and procedures,” so as to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . While Loll claimed that servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to the defendants, she did not identify what those records are and did not authenticate them as business records and attach them to her affidavit … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Tamargo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08197, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

/

MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER FINDING SHE HAD NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTHER DEMONSTRATED SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS HER MENTAL HEALTH AND PARENTING SKILLS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to vacate the order finding she had neglected the children should have been granted:

In May 2018, the mother moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the children. In support of the motion, the mother submitted, inter alia, (1) letters from her treating clinicians, which established that she had been in psychotherapy since March 2016, she was compliant, and no medication had been ordered, (2) a report from ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] indicating that the eldest child particularly enjoyed overnight weekend parental access with the mother, that the mother was compliant with the court-ordered services, and that ACS would not be seeking an extension of supervision for the mother, and (3) a certificate establishing that the mother had completed a parenting skills class. The Family Court denied the mother’s motion, and the mother appeals. …

Here, the mother demonstrated good cause to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as, upon her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding without admission pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(a), found that she neglected the children. The mother demonstrated that she had successfully completed the court-ordered services and programs and that the requested vacatur of the finding of neglect was in the best interests of the children … . Matter of Aaliyah T. (Sheena A. D.), 2019 NY Slip Op 08196, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

/

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE BEFORE COMPLETING THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have awarded sole custody of daughter to mother and granted mother’s petition to relocate without completing the hearing:

The mother commenced this proceeding against the father seeking to modify a prior order of custody so as to award her sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children and permit her to relocate with both children to the State of Washington. The Family Court commenced a hearing and, prior to the completion of the hearing … modified the prior order so as to award the father sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ son and so as to award the mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter and permit her to relocate with the daughter to the State of Washington. …

Here, where there were many controverted issues, the Family Court should not have awarded the mother sole custody of the parties’ daughter and permitted her to relocate with the daughter prior to completing the hearing. The father had not had the opportunity to present a case and was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness called by the mother. Moreover, the court failed to give proper consideration to the effect that the daughter’s relocation from New York to the State of Washington would have on the relationship between the siblings, especially given the mother’s stated willingness to remain in New York … . Matter of Pinto v Pinto, 2019 NY Slip Op 08195, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

/ , ,

THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the settlement agreement between that landlord and tenants providing that the landlord would take steps to obtain a certificate of occupancy and convert the property into rent stabilized residences should not have been annulled in its entirety; (2) the tenants’ attempt, based on the settlement, to withdraw their applications for coverage of he property under the Loft Law was properly denied. The property in question was commercial property which included residences for which no certificate of occupancy had been issued:

The Loft Law is designed to integrate “uncertain and unregulated residential units, converted from commercial use, into the rent stabilization system in a manner which ensures compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law and various building codes” … . The Loft Law was created to regulate the conversion of industrial, manufacturing, and commercial space into residential space. It enables an owner to rent space in a building while the structure is undergoing conversion pursuant to building department, fire department, and other regulatory requirements necessary to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a residential building. The work necessary to legalize a building for residential use is subject to specifically prescribed time periods (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), and the Loft Board is specifically charged with determining interim multiple dwelling status and other issues of coverage, including coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282).

Here, the Supreme Court should have confirmed the Loft Board’s determination rejecting the tenants’ proposed withdrawal of their coverage applications and remitting the coverage applications … for adjudication. Contrary to the tenants’ contentions, the Loft Board had jurisdiction over the coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282), and the coverage applications did not become moot upon the tenants’ proposed withdrawal with prejudice of the applications. Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York provides that the Loft Board may review settlement agreements and exercise discretion to reject a proposed settlement and remit matters for further investigation and adjudication (see NY City Loft Board Regulations [29 RCNY] § 1-06[j][5]). There is nothing in that rule that limits the Loft Board’s review of settlement agreements or its authority to re-open and remit a coverage application. Matter of Dom Ben Realty Corp. v New York City Loft Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08188, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

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