You are here: / AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS...

Search Results

/ ,

AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an accounting was required in this action for partition by joint tenants with the right of survivorship:

“Under New York law, joint tenancies may be severed by the court-ordered partition of the property that adjusts the rights of the parties and permits its sale if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners” … . ” [P]artition is an equitable remedy in nature and [the] Supreme Court has the authority to adjust the rights of the parties so each receives his or her proper share of the property and its benefits'” … . Further, “because a partition action is equitable in nature, an accounting is a necessary incident thereto” … . In light of the parties’ dispute as to their respective entitlements to the proceeds from the sale of the property, an accounting is necessary to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property … . Further, insofar as the defendant does not dispute that the court should direct a partition and sale of the property, and since “an accounting is a necessary incident thereto” … , the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing on his causes of action for an accounting and a partition and sale of the property … . Khotylev v Spektor, 2018 NY Slip Op 07112, Second Dept 10-24-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (PARTITION, AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (PARTITION, AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT))/PARTITION (AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT))/JOINT TENANTS (PARTITION, AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT))/ACCOUNTING (PARTITION, AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT))

/

TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a local town code provision (called a Holdback Provision) was not authorized by the Town Law and was therefore unenforceable. The town code provision authorized the town to hold back on issuing building permits in plaintiff builder’s subdivision until certain required infrastructure components (roads, lights, etc.) were completed:

Towns and municipal governments lack inherent power to enact zoning or land use regulations … . “They exercise such authority solely by legislative grant” … . Through the enactment of Town Law article 16, the New York State Legislature has conferred upon municipalities a wide variety of powers “to zone the town into districts to regulate its growth and development, to establish procedures for adoption and modification of local zoning regulations, to review and enforce zoning decisions and to establish an official map”… . Town Law § 277(9) is the enabling statute which authorizes the Town to obtain enumerated forms of security sufficient to cover the full cost of infrastructure and other required improvements in case a developer fails to finish work. …

Here, a plain reading of Town Law § 277 establishes that (1) it has no express provision authorizing the Lot Holdback Provision set forth Town Code § 254-18B, (2) pursuant to the rules of statutory construction, the express provisions of Town Law § 277 must be construed to exclude provisions such as those in Town Code § 254-18B which are not contained in § 277 … , and (3) it has no provision from which the Lot Holdback Provision of Town Code § 254-18B can be implied … . Thus, Town Code § 254-18B is inconsistent with the plain language of Town Law § 277(9), which expressly sets forth the manner in which a developer can be required to provide financial security to ensure the completion of the installation of required infrastructure and other mandatory improvements.

When a town or municipality acts without legislative delegation, its acts are ultra vires and void ab initio … . Joy Bldrs., Inc. v Town of Clarkstown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07110, Second Dept 10-24-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))/TOWN CODE  (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))/TOWN LAW  (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the negligent supervision cause of action against the school district was properly dismissed. Infant plaintiff, a student who had a one-on-one aide, was injured when she went to the bathroom unaccompanied. She caught her finger in a bathroom door:

While a school district is not an insurer of the safety of its students, since it cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of their movements and activities, it has a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . Where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the school defendant is warranted … . Here, the District made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that any alleged inadequacy in the level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Hinz v Wantagh Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 07105, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been damaged. Plaintiff fell when his A-frame ladder, which was in the closed position, slipped. There existed questions of fact whether using the A-frame ladder in the closed position was the sole proximate cause of the fall:

“A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident” … . Here, the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his accident. Specifically, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether the ladder could have been placed in a manner that would have allowed the plaintiff to safely perform the work… , nor did the defendants establish that the plaintiff used the ladder in such a manner without the tacit approval of his supervisor … . Gillett v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07102, Second Dept 10-24-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the negligence action against the landlord in this third party assault case was properly dismissed. The plaintiff tenant was assaulted in the vestibule of the building. The landlord demonstrated the attack was not foreseeable because there had been no similar assaults in the past:

The plaintiff was assaulted in the vestibule of a residential building in which she lived. The vestibule was accessed through an unlocked front door. A second door leading into the building’s lobby was locked, and there was an intercom buzzer system in the vestibule that permitted residents to control access to the building. The perpetrator of the assault was inside the vestibule when the plaintiff entered the building. …

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person”… . “To establish foreseeability, there is no requirement that the past experience of criminal activity be of the same type as that to which the plaintiff was subjected” … . However, “the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location”… .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it lacked notice of any prior occurrences of the same or similar criminal activity at or near the subject premises … . George v 855 Ocean Ave., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07100, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not submit admissible proof that defendant was in default. The evidence did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that a nonparty’s motion to intervene was properly denied as untimely and the Judiciary Law 489 affirmative defense was properly struck. Judiciary Law 489 prohibits buying another’s debt for the purpose of bringing a court action, but debts exceeding $500,000 are exempt. The debts purchased here exceeded $500,000:

The determination to deny Fulton Holdings’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was a provident exercise of discretion. “Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion” … . Here, Fulton Holdings’ motion was not timely, as it was not made until approximately 14 months after Fulton Holdings had notice that the foreclosure action was pending … . …

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence of default in admissible form. To evince the mortgagor’s default, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Igor Fleyshmakher, the plaintiff’s managing member, and Frank Quintana, the president of 179 Court Street Holding Corp. (hereinafter 179 Court), a prior holder of the mortgage. Fleyshmakher and Quintana both attested to the date of the last payment allegedly received on the mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, of any records relied upon by Fleyshmakher and Quintana (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana laid a foundation for, or even identified, the records upon which they relied. Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor 179 Court acquired its interest in the mortgage until after the alleged default date. Thus, neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana could have established the loan’s payment history up to and including the date of default by relying on their respective employers’ records. Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana asserted that they consulted or relied on the records of 179 Court’s predecessor-in-interest. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the mortgagor’s default … . Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 07096, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (JUDICIARY LAW 489, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY 489 FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Defendant was exempt from liability under the NYC Administrative Code and that defendant’s fence with a gate did not constitute a special use of the sidewalk:

In this trip and fall case involving an uneven sidewalk, defendant Ortiz’s testimony that she lived in a one-family home adjacent to the sidewalk was sufficient competent evidence to make a prima facie showing that she qualified for the exemption provided at Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210(b) … .

In opposition, plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary, and no authority for her proposition that a party seeking to demonstrate that their home is a one-, two- or three-family home exempt from § 7-210 must produce a deed.

Nor is defendant Ortiz liable based on a theory that her fence, containing a gate, constituted a special-use. “The principle of special use, a narrow exception to the general rule, imposes an obligation on the abutting landowner, where he puts part of a public way to a special use for his own benefit and the part used is subject to his control, to maintain the part so used in a reasonably safe condition to avoid injury to others. . . . Special use cases usually involve the installation of some object in the sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof” … . There is no evidence in the record that defendant’s fence is built on or in the sidewalk. That the gate, which defendant testified is “almost never” used, would permit herself and others to enter her property does not constitute a special use, as those using it would merely walk across the sidewalk, a use not “unrelated to the public use” … . Moreover, as the defect in the sidewalk is adjacent to defendant’s gate, not in front of it, it was plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that this alleged “special use” caused or contributed to the defect … . Plaintiff offered no such evidence. Hernandez v Ortiz, 2018 NY Slip Op 07075, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that defendant should be given the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds. Although deportation was mandatory, defendant was told only that he may be deported:

Defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to advise him that his guilty plea to an aggravated felony would result in mandatory deportation, and instead merely advised him that his plea would have “immigration consequences,” would “impact his ability to stay in the country” and “will probably very well end up with [defendant] being deported from this country” … .

Defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea … , and we hold this appeal in abeyance for that purpose. People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 07072, First Dept 10-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case was properly denied. Infant plaintiff was assaulted in an alleyway outside the building where tenants left their trash. There was a question of fact whether the assault was foreseeable. The alternative theory of liability, that defendant failed to maintain safety measures voluntarily undertaken in the alleyway, was rejected because plaintiff did not demonstrate reliance on those measures:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the alleyway, in which tenants of the building deposited their trash, was not a public area where defendant had no duty to maintain minimal security precautions … . Issues of fact as to the foreseeability of the assault are presented by the record evidence of previous criminal activity in or at the building, including drug dealing, multiple burglaries, including one at gunpoint, and gunshots and the discovery of empty shell casings outside the building . Issues of fact exist as to whether the gate to the alleyway was maintained in a closed and locked condition and whether there was sufficient lighting in the alleyway. Issues of fact also exist as to whether the open gate or any insufficiency in the lighting was a proximate cause of the assault … . Accordingly, considering the neighborhood’s susceptibility to incidents of violent crime, we are unable to hold as a matter of law that defendant upheld its common law duty to maintain the premises in a safe and secure manner.

However, we reject plaintiff’s alternative theory that defendant is liable to the extent that it voluntarily provided a locked gate, lighting, or video monitoring for the alleyway, and then negligently maintained those items. Even were we to conclude that defendant created a duty by introducing such security measures, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was lulled into a false sense of security such that she neglected to take precautions that she would have otherwise taken in the absence of those measure … . Sanchez v Morris Ave. Equities Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07071, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN AN ALLEYWAY WHERE TENANTS LEFT THEIR TRASH (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs (the Rothchilds) were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case:

The record shows that the accident occurred in heavy, stop-and-go traffic, and DeSouza [defendant] testified to driving three-to-five miles per hour for at least 10 minutes prior to the accident, that he observed cars immediately in front of the Rothchilds’ vehicle, and that he did not place his foot on his brake until his moving vehicle was two feet from the Rothchilds’ back bumper. A driver is supposed to make reasonable use of his or her senses … , and maintain a safe distance from other motor vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…), which was not done in this case. Miller v DeSouza, 2018 NY Slip Op 07065, First Dept 10-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

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