You are here: / MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED,...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department determined that defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 was properly granted:

CPLR 317 provides that a defendant who is not served by personal delivery in an action may vacate its default as long as it demonstrates that it did not personally receive notice of the lawsuit in time to defend against the action and shows that it possesses a potentially meritorious defense … . The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 317 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, “the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor”… .

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of 510's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale on the condition that it pay all amounts owed within 30 days of the date of the order. Service of the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action was made upon 510 by delivering the pleadings to the Secretary of State (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303), which did not constitute personal delivery … , and 510's submissions in support of the motion established that it did not receive actual notice of the foreclosure action in time to defend… . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, 510 succeeded in setting forth a potentially meritorious defense to the foreclosure action. Finally, the evidence does not suggest that 510's failure to update its service address with the Secretary of State while its principal offices were undergoing renovations constituted a deliberate attempt to evade notice; hence, that failure did not preclude the granting of relief to it under CPLR 317 … . Acqua Capital, LLC v 510 W. Boston Post Rd, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05991, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))

/

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's cross-motion to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer, in response to plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, was properly granted:

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on snow and ice on an exterior walkway located on property owned and operated by the defendants. She subsequently commenced this action and served the defendants with process via the Secretary of State on October 11, 2016, pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 303. On November 25, 2016, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment. On December 22, 2016, 42 days after the defendants' time to answer had expired, the defendants cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer. Annexed to the defendants' cross motion was their proposed answer. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.

In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the defendants' short delay in answering the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendants, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants and in granting the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer … . Marcelli v Lorraine Arms Apts., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06006, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215  (MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3012(d)  (MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the failure to submit an order for signature within 60 days constituted abandonment of the action:

The Supreme Court declined to sign the plaintiff's proposed order granting it summary judgment and, in the order appealed from, the court vacated the decision entered September 16, 2009, in effect, granted that branch of the motion … which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 to dismiss the complaint insofar … as abandoned, and, thereupon, directed dismissal of the complaint in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 1003.

“Proposed orders . . . , with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]). “Failure to submit the order . . . timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). These provisions are not applicable where the decision does not explicitly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364). However, the direction to “settle order” “ordinarily entails more complicated relief,” and therefore “contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d at 367). Here, the decision entered September 16, 2009, directed the plaintiff to “settle order.” Lasalle Bank N.A. v Benjamin, 2018 NY Slip Op 06005, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1003  (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE  (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/

INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action because injury caused by stepping in an opening that is not big enough for a person to fall through is not covered:

The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendants submitted evidence that, although the plaintiff's foot slipped through openings in the rebar grid, the openings were too small for a person's body to fall through. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that his foot could fit through the openings, but not his entire body. The defendants, therefore, established that the openings of the grid did ” not present an elevation-related hazard to which the protective devices enumerated [in Labor Law § 240(1)] are designed to apply'” … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

The defendants also established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, which was premised upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) and (d), (e), and (f). The provision pertaining to “hazardous openings” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b][1]) does not apply to openings that are too small for a worker to completely fall through … . Johnson v Lend Lease Constr. LMB, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06004, Second Dept 9-12-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION NOT WARRANTED IN THIS LEASE-TERMINATION CASE, PLAINTIFF NIGHTCLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO CURE AN ALLEGED NOISE-LEVEL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a Yellowstone injunction should not have issued to plaintiff nightclub. The defendant landlord started proceedings to terminate the lease based upon an alleged violation of the noise-level provision in the lease:

” A Yellowstone injunction maintains the status quo so that a commercial tenant, when confronted by a threat of termination of its lease, may protect its investment in the leasehold by obtaining a stay tolling the cure period so that upon an adverse determination on the merits the tenant may cure the default and avoid a forfeiture' of the lease”… . ” To obtain a Yellowstone injunction, the tenant must demonstrate that (1) it holds a commercial lease, (2) it received from the landlord either a notice of default, a notice to cure, or a threat of termination of the lease, (3) it requested injunctive relief prior to both the termination of the lease and the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord's notice to cure, and (4) it is prepared and maintains the ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises'” … . A plaintiff demonstrates that it has the desire and ability to cure its alleged default by indicating in its motion papers that it is willing to repair any defective condition found by the court and by providing proof of the substantial effort it has already made in addressing the default listed on the notice to cure … .

In this case, the plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of adducing evidence that it is willing and able to cure its default. 146 Broadway Assoc., LLC v Bridgeview at Broadway, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05990, Second Dept 9-12-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION NOT WARRANTED IN THIS LEASE-TERMINATION CASE, PLAINTIFF NIGHTCLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO CURE AN ALLEGED NOISE-LEVEL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION NOT WARRANTED IN THIS LEASE-TERMINATION CASE, PLAINTIFF NIGHTCLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO CURE AN ALLEGED NOISE-LEVEL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LANDLORD-TENANT, YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION NOT WARRANTED IN THIS LEASE-TERMINATION CASE, PLAINTIFF NIGHTCLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO CURE AN ALLEGED NOISE-LEVEL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant failed to meet the proof requirements for adverse possession and ouster against a cotenant:

In order to establish his counterclaim for adverse possession, the defendant was required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that his possession of the property was (1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required statutory period… . The defendant could not establish that his possession of Lot 176 was under a claim of right, as he did not have a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belonged to him alone (see RPAPL 501[3]). Even assuming that the defendant had exclusive possession of Lot 176 and that he paid maintenance expenses on that property, these actions are insufficient to establish a claim of right for purposes of adverse possession as against a cotenant … . RPAPL 541 creates a statutory presumption that a tenant in common in possession holds the property for the benefit of the cotenant … . The presumption ceases only after the expiration of 10 years of exclusive occupancy of such tenant or upon ouster (see RPAPL 541…).

Actual ouster usually requires a possessing cotenant to expressly communicate an intention to exclude or to deny the rights of cotenants. Ouster may be implied in cases where the acts of the possessing cotenant are so openly hostile that the nonpossessing cotenants can be presumed to know that the property is being adversely possessed against them … . Here, the defendant did not commit acts constituting either an actual or implied ouster. Absent ouster, the period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may acquire full title by adverse possession … . Even assuming that the defendant had exclusive possession of the property after the plaintiff went on disability in 1994, the required 20-year statutory period had not elapsed when the defendant asserted his counterclaim for adverse possession in his answer … . Fini v Marini, 2018 NY Slip Op 06003, Second Dept 9-12-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT))/COTENANTS (REAL PROPERTY LAW, REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION (CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT))/OUSTER (CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (SECOND DEPT))

/

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015(a) was properly denied because the defendant did not demonstrate it was not personally served with the summons and complaint. The court explained the criteria under each statute:

CPLR 317 provides that a person served with a summons, other than by personal delivery to him or her, who does not appear, may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he or she obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment upon a finding of the court that he or she did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense … . However, the “mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action. The affidavit of the defendant's “representative,” who appears to be its attorney, stated that the complaint was not delivered “personally” to the defendant, but rather, “to an inaccurate address through the Secretary of State,” which address had not been valid “for several years.” This representative's affidavit does not appear to be based on personal knowledge. Furthermore, there is no allegation contained in this affidavit that the defendant, in fact, never received the summons and complaint, nor is there any detail as to where the defendant moved to and when, nor whether the defendant made any efforts to update its address on file with the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, the defendant did not demonstrate lack of actual notice of the action … .

In contrast to a motion pursuant to CPLR 317, on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the movant is required to establish a reasonable excuse for his or her default. In general, a defendant's failure to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . However, there is no per se rule that a corporation served through the Secretary of State, and which failed to update its address on file there, cannot demonstrate an “excusable default.” Rather, a court should consider, among other factors, the length of time for which the address had not been kept current … . Here, no evidence was presented as to how long the address was not updated. Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default. Dwyer Agency of Mahopac, LLC v Dring Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06001, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015(a) (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the hospital's motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. The hospital did not demonstrate that the two physicians alleged to have committed malpractice were not employees of the hospital and did not demonstrate the two physicians did not deviate from the acceptable standards of medical care:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . Therefore, when hospital employees, such as resident physicians and nurses, have participated in the treatment of a patient, the hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries where the hospital employees have merely carried out the private attending physician's orders … . These rules shielding a hospital from liability do not apply when: (1) “the staff follows orders despite knowing that the doctor's orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders'”… ; (2) the hospital's employees have committed independent acts of negligence … ; or (3) the words or conduct of the hospital give rise to the appearance and belief that the physician possesses the authority to act on behalf of the hospital … . “Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee'” … . …

The hospital defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that both physicians alleged to have committed malpractice, the two attending nephrologists, were independent contractors [not emplyees]. Dupree v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06000, Second Dept 9-12-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITALS, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have searched the record to award summary judgment on a ground not raised by the parties in this car accident case. However, the Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the umbrella insurer (RLI) on the ground that the owner of the leased car (CFC) did not timely notify RLI of the claim:

The Supreme Court erred in essentially searching the record and granting relief based upon arguments that were not raised … . “A motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense'” … . …

RLI established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based upon CFC's failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence and suit. “The insured's failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract'” … . This rule applies to excess carriers as well as primary carriers … . “[A] justifiable lack of knowledge of insurance coverage may excuse a delay in reporting an occurrence”… . To establish a valid excuse due to the insured's alleged ignorance of insurance coverage, the insured has the burden of proving “a justifiable lack of knowledge of insurance coverage” and “reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain whether coverage existed” upon receiving information “which would have prompted any person of ordinary prudence to consult either an attorney or an insurance broker” … . Here, in support of its motion, RLI submitted evidence that counsel for … CFC in the underlying action performed an investigation and learned the detailed information regarding the umbrella policy in March 2005. Such knowledge is imputed to CFC … . As such, RLI established that RLI was given no notice of the accident or lawsuit until August 2006, and CFC did not provide notice until … June 2010. Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v Keller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05999, Second Dept 9-12-18

INSURANCE LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/

EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owners of property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff fell did not present sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendant-owners (Millers) argued the defect was trivial:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

The Millers failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law … . In support of their motion, the Millers submitted conflicting evidence as to the dimensions of the alleged defective condition, including the plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and measurements taken by the Millers' investigator. Further, “it is impossible to ascertain from the photographs submitted in support of the motion whether the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law” … . Coriat v Miller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05998, Second Dept 9-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND 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