You are here: / THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY...

Search Results

/ ,

THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this defective ladder products liability case. Defendant Garberg, the owner of the ladder, alleged he purchased the ladder at a specific Home Depot store between 1994 and 1995. Home Depot demonstrate the store in question did not open until 2001. Garberg then submitted an affidavit alleging he either bought ladder after the store opened or he bought the ladder at another Home Depot store (which was identified):

” [L]iability may not be imposed for . . . strict products liability upon a party that is [*2]outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain'”… . Here, Home Depot established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this issue. Garberg’s 2016 affidavit contained assertions made for the first time in opposition to the motion and merely raised feigned issues designed to avoid the consequences of Garberg’s earlier affidavit. Garberg swore to the 2016 affidavit after he settled with the plaintiff, after the close of discovery, and after Home Depot submitted its conclusive proof establishing that he could not have purchased the defective ladder when and where he claimed he had. The 2016 affidavit speculated about a possible purchase at a different Home Depot location that, unlike the Cropsey Avenue location, the parties did not have the opportunity to explore during discovery. Garberg also contradicted his prior unambiguous assertion about the timing of his purchase. His 2016 opposition affidavit was, therefore, insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Rooney v Garberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 08521, Second Dept 11-12-18

 

/ , , , ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence that defendant exercised dominion of control of the vehicle would rebut the presumption of ownership created by a certificate of title. Here the tile was in defendant’s wife’s name and she was driving at the time of the traffic accident. Plaintiff sought to discover the insurer’s file pursuant to CPLR 3124. Supreme Court should have granted the motion:

“A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 128, 2101[g]; 2108[c]…) . However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that another individual owns the subject vehicle… . This may include evidence that a person other than the title holder exercised “dominion and control” over the vehicle …  .

Here, documents from the insurer concerning the vehicle and the accident are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide an executed authorization for documents in the insurer’s possession concerning the vehicle and the accident … . ​Portillo v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08520, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ ,

EVEN PHYSICALLY SMALL DEFECTS, IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, CAN CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the expert opinion submitted by both sides raised questions of fact whether “beveled edge between the dance floor and the adjoining rug” created a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The court noted that even physically small defects can become dangerous in combination with other factors, including lighting:

The Court of Appeals has recognized that even a physically small defect may be actionable, such as where there is a jagged edge, a rough, irregular surface, the presence of other defects in the vicinity, or poor lighting, or if the defect is located where people are naturally distracted from looking down at their feet … . Attention to the specific circumstances is always required, and undue or exclusive focus on whether a defect is a trap or snare is not appropriate … . …

The plaintiffs submitted the expert affidavit of a professional engineer who inspected the dance floor and carpet area. He measured the static coefficient of friction of the beveled edges of the dance floor, and found that they did not provide proper slip resistance for an individual stepping on it while dancing. Additionally, he found that inadequate lighting contributed to the accident by “not providing visual clues to recognize that the dance floor had terminated with the subject metal edging.” … .

Given the conflicting expert affidavits, and the circumstances of the accident, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the beveled edges of the dance floor constituted a dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall … . Poliziani v Culinary Inst. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 08519, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ ,

MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AFTER FATHER SCREAMED AT COURT PERSONNEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have granted mother’s petition to relocate in this custody modification proceeding without holding a hearing. Family Court granted the petitioner after father appeared and screamed at court personnel:

Where a custodial parent seeks to relocate over the objection of the non-custodial parent, the court must consider each relocation request “on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” … . “In the end, it is for the court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child’s best interests” … .

Although “[a] parent seeking a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing” … , “custody determinations should [g]enerally’ be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “When the allegations of fact in a petition to change custody are controverted, the court must, as a general rule, hold a full hearing” … . Matter of Williams v Jenkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 08491, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

 

/ , , ,

FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations applied to the planning board’s decision that an environmental impact statement was not necessary and the petition to annul that decision was untimely:

To the extent that the petition alleges the Planning Board’s noncompliance with SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act], the four-month statute of limitations applies (see CPLR 217[1]…). An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decision-maker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … . Here, the statute of limitations began to run with the issuance of the negative declaration for the project on February 19, 2015, as this constituted the Planning Board’s final act under SEQRA and, accordingly, any challenge to the negative declaration had to be commenced within four months of that date … . Matter of Stengel v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08488, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/

ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PERSONS COHABITING TOGETHER ARE NOT PER SE REQUIRED TO BE IN WRITING, SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that certain causes of action based upon oral agreements between plaintiff and defendant, who lived together for thirteen years, should not have been dismissed pursuant to the statute of frauds:

We disagree with the Supreme Court as to the applicability of the statute of frauds to the plaintiff’s allegations as to … express oral agreements between the parties, namely those related to her provision of domestic and legal services in exchange for support and sharing of business profits. Agreements between persons cohabiting together are not per se required to be in writing … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s allegations as to the terms of the oral agreements do not otherwise fall within the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). …

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s third cause of action pursuant to the statute of frauds. The third cause of action seeks the return of certain personal items that allegedly were owned by the plaintiff separately prior to her relationship with the defendant. Thus, the property that was the subject of that cause of action was not within the statute of frauds. Baron v Suissa, 2018 NY Slip Op 08453, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ ,

ABSENCE OF A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE IN AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER A PARTY IS A MEMBER OF A HOUSEHOLD FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OVER A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE A FINDING RESPONDENT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that Family Court should not have found that respondent and petitioner did not have an intimate relationship without holding a hearing. Petitioner sought an order of protection against respondent. Under the Family Court Act the court has jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding only if the parties are deemed to have an intimate relationship. Family Court found that, because the relationship was not sexual, it did not constitute an intimate relationship. The Second Department noted that the existence of a sexual relationship is not necessarily determinative and sent the matter back for a hearing:

The Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” … .

Effective July 21, 2008 … , the Legislature expanded the definition of “members of the same family or household” to include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” (Family Ct Act § 812[1][e] …). The Legislature also expressly excluded from the definition of “intimate relationship” a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts”… . Beyond those delineated exclusions, the Legislature left it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular relationship constitutes an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). The Legislature provided that “[f]actors the court may consider in determining whether a relationship is an intimate relationship’ include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship”… . The determination of whether persons are or have been in an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of the statute may require a hearing … . Matter of Raigosa v Zafirakopoulos, 2018 NY Slip Op 08485, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ , ,

PETITION TO AMEND A NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PARENTS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF TOWN PERSONNEL, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for leave to amend the notice of claim against the town in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case should not have been granted. The infant petitioner was struck by a car crossing a road. The proposed amendment would have alleged a town park ranger waved the family across just before the child was struck. Because the request to amend was made more than a year and 90 days after the accident, the request was untimely for the derivative action by the parents, but the statute of limitations was tolled for the infant petitioner. The Second Department went on to find that petitioners did not demonstrate the town had timely knowledge of the the allegation the family was waved across the street by a town employee, even though the allegation was memorialized in a Suffolk County police report:

… [T]he petitioners failed to establish that the Town acquired actual knowledge, within 90 days of the collision or a reasonable time thereafter, of the essential facts constituting the claim that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. It is not alleged that the child was struck by a Town vehicle or a Town employee. In addition, Magwood’s [mother’s] testimony at her hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h did not indicate that a Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. Although several witnesses to the collision gave a statement to the effect that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway, these statements were made to Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter SCPD) personnel and memorialized in SCPD reports… . Further, while the Town park ranger prepared a Town Division of Enforcement and Security Public Safety report on the date of the collision, that report did not indicate that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. ” [F]or a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation'” … . The Town park ranger’s report did not support a ready inference that the Town committed a potentially actionable wrong … .

Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim asserting the theory that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway and for the subsequent delay in filing this petition… . Although the petitioners satisfied their initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the Town as a result of the late notice, and the Town failed to make a “particularized showing” of substantial prejudice … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted … . Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 08482, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

/ , ,

AUDIOTAPES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND THE CHILD WERE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING UNDER CPLR 4506 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly suppressed audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child in this custody dispute between the maternal and paternal grandmothers. The audiotapes constituted illegal wiretapping pursuant to CPLR 4506:

Contrary to the maternal grandmother’s contention, the Family Court properly granted the paternal grandmother’s motion to suppress audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child pursuant to CPLR 4506, which provides for the suppression of evidence obtained by illegal wiretapping. The maternal grandmother and her son (the child’s uncle) were not parties to the conversation, were not present during the conversation, and the maternal grandmother does not assert that, under the circumstances, any vicarious consent was given… . Moreover, there is no merit to the maternal grandmother’s contention that the motion was untimely because it was not made before the hearing, since the paternal grandmother only learned of the existence of the tapes during the hearing (see CPLR 4506[4]). Matter of Dennis v Davis-Schloemer, 2018 NY Slip Op 08480, Second Dept 12-12-18

MOTION TO SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

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