You are here: / LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT...

Search Results

/ ,

LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW, THEREFORE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landlord did not submit a copy of the (expired) lease:

“Generally, when a tenant remains in possession [of the leased premises] after the expiration of a lease, pursuant to common law, there is implied a continua[tion] of the tenancy on the same terms and subject to the same covenants as those contained in the original instrument”‘… . By failing to submit a copy of the expired lease in support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual obligation to remove snow and ice from the property … . Even assuming that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have a copy of the expired lease in their possession, the defendants inexplicably failed to submit a copy of a lease entered into between them and other tenants of the property, notwithstanding the deposition testimony of the defendant … that he has rented the property since he purchased it in 1996, that he entered into a lease with each tenant, and that the leases specifically provided that it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove snow and ice. Miske v Selvaggi, 2019 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury did not involve the type of elevation hazard covered by Labor Law 240 (1) and defendants  did not exercise the level of supervisory control necessary for liability under Labor Law 200:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a metal plate, which was used to cover an excavated trench located on the roadway, struck the plaintiff as it was being removed from the roadway surface. * * *

… [T]he defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action by their submissions, which demonstrated that they only had general supervisory authority over the plaintiff’s work … . …

“The contemplated hazards [of Labor Law § 240(1)] are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured” … . The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injury did not result from the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Lombardi v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06763, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/ , ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There was insufficient evidence the note was endorsed in blank and there was insufficient evident of defendant’s default:

… [I]t is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion in its appellate brief that “[t]he note, as attached to the complaint, was indorsed in blank on the reverse side of the signature page (and not a separate allonge),” it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note annexed to the complaint whether the separate page that bears the endorsement in blank was stamped on the back of the note, as alleged by the plaintiff, or on an allonge, in which case the plaintiff would have to prove that the endorsement was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2).

… [W]hile Panganiban’s [plaintiff bank’s vice president’s] affidavit was sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the business records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a writing or record’ (CPLR 4518[a]) . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence , … a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/ ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s proof that defendant (Bazigos) defaulted on the loan was inadmissible hearsay:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . “A plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit (see CPLR 3212[b]; 3123), by an affidavit from a person having [personal] knowledge of the facts’ (CPLR 3212[b]), or by other evidence in admissible form'” … .

Here, Bluford (a bank vice-president), whose knowledge was based on business records, did not actually attach or otherwise incorporate into her affidavit any business records showing that Bazigos had defaulted on the note. Thus, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on the issue of Bazigos’s default … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Bazigos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06757, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/ ,

THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ARGUED HE WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF RAN INTO THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AS IT WAS BEING OPENED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, because plaintiff in this bicycle-vehicle traffic accident case affirmatively argued he was not comparatively negligent, the issue of comparative negligence was properly considered on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff ran into the door of defendant’s car as it was being opened. The plaintiff did not eliminate all triable issue of fact concerning his comparative negligence:

“Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability”… , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided where, as here, “the plaintiff specifically argued the absence of comparative fault in support of his [or her] motion” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … . “A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care while riding his bicycle. Further, although the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate his freedom from comparative fault to establish his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Flores v Rubenstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06747, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant’s answer in this slip and fall case had been struck, the defendant should not have been precluded from presenting evidence on damages:

… Supreme Court … struck the answer and scheduled an inquest on the issue of damages. At the inquest, following direct testimony by the plaintiff, the court denied defense counsel’s request to cross-examine the plaintiff, since the defendant’s answer had been stricken. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $267,221.77. …

“[A] defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages” … . “Accordingly, where a judgment against a defaulting defendant is sought by motion to the court, the defendant is entitled, at an inquest to determine damages, to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony, and offer proof in mitigation of damages” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not provide such an opportunity to the defendant, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages … . Dejesus v H.E. Broadway, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

/ ,

AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER, AS OPPOSED TO THE CORPORATION, CAN NOT BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW UNLESS THE OFFICER ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR APPROVED THE SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT; COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CORPORATE OFFICER DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an individual corporate officer cannot be held strictly liable under the New York City Human Rights Law (HRL) for sexual discrimination unless the officer encouraged, condoned or approved the conduct. Here the plaintiff did not demonstrate the officer, Michael Bloomberg, was aware of the conduct by plaintiff’s supervisor (Ferris). The complaint against the officer was dismissed:

With respect to Mr. Bloomberg, the allegations in the complaint are as follows. Following Mr. Bloomberg’s example and leadership, Bloomberg L.P. bred a hostile work environment that led to the type of discrimination plaintiff experienced. Mr. Bloomberg was sued in a class action brought by female employees who alleged sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment while he was CEO of Bloomberg L.P. Mr. Bloomberg was also accused of condoning systemic top-down discrimination against female employees in a sexual harassment suit brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of 58 female employees, not including the plaintiff. The complaint also cites various magazine articles and statements by public figures describing unsavory conduct and comments made by Mr. Bloomberg, directed at or regarding women other than plaintiff. * * *

… [W]we find that plaintiff’s City HRL claims must be dismissed as against Mr. Bloomberg because plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that Mr. Bloomberg is her employer for purposes of the City HRL. She has failed to allege that Mr. Bloomberg encouraged, condoned or approved the specific discriminatory conduct allegedly committed by Mr. Ferris. Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06728, First Dept 9-24-19

 

/ ,

OHIO TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON NEW YORK, DESPITE A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Ohio trustee’s request for payment under a 1986 royalty agreement with the New York plaintiff  did not confer jurisdiction upon New York, even though the contract included a New York choice of law provision:

The trustee’s requests from Ohio, by letter, telephone, and/or email, to plaintiff in New York to send him monies due under the royalty agreement that plaintiff had entered into in 1986 with nonparty Denise Somerville …— which would merely continue plaintiff’s previous practice of sending royalties to Somerville in Ohio — do not constitute the transaction of business under CPLR 302(a)(1) … .

… [N]egotiating a contract from outside New York “is insufficient to constitute the transaction of business in New York” … . …

The fact that the contract chooses New York law does not “constitute a voluntary submission to personal jurisdiction in New York” … . ABKCO Music, Inc. v McMahon, 2019 NY Slip Op 06721, First Dept 9-24-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY IN NEVADA AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK, HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant had requested an attorney in Nevada and, upon being returned to New York, was questioned without waiving his right to counsel in the presence of counsel. Therefore the statements should have been suppressed:

Defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating written and videotaped statements should have been granted. Several days before defendant made the contested statements, he was taken into custody by the Las Vegas Police Department. While in custody, defendant requested to speak with the detective from the Regional Fugitive Task Force who had located defendant in Las Vegas and was about to bring him back to New York. The detective met defendant in a conference room and asked him if he wanted to talk. Defendant responded, “I would like to tell you what happened, but I think I want to talk to an attorney.” The detective, who responded by saying “okay,” and did not ask defendant any questions about the homicide, testified that he understood that defendant “wanted an attorney.”

Upon returning to New York, defendant met with the investigating detective and made incriminating written and video statements. Defendant moved to suppress his statements, which was denied, and the statements were admitted at trial.

“When a defendant in custody unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel, any purported waiver of that right obtained in the absence of counsel is ineffective … . People v Roman, 2019 NY Slip Op 06719, First Dept 9-24-19

 

/ ,

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO WITNESSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering new hearing, determined petitioner’s request to call witnesses should not have been denied:

… [T]he Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call as witnesses the two inmates who were housed on each side of his cell, as their potential testimony was highly relevant to petitioner’s defense that he was in his cell during the time of the underlying incident … . However, inasmuch as the Hearing Officer acted in good faith in denying the request on the ground of relevancy, petitioner’s regulatory right to call witnesses was violated and a new hearing on these charges, rather than expungement, is the appropriate remedy … . Matter of Parker v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 06658, Third Dept 9-19-19

 

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