You are here: / CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH...

Search Results

/ ,

CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist's suit against the city stemming from injury after running over a pothole should have been dismissed. The defendants established the city did not have prior written notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendants established the City's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through, inter alia, DOT records, that the City did not have prior written notice of the condition alleged as required by the Administrative Code … and that the City did not affirmatively create the condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City received prior written notice of the alleged condition. Although the plaintiff relied upon a map submitted by the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation which had a straight line, indicating “[r]aised or uneven portion of sidewalk,” in the area where the plaintiff's accident occurred, the map did not give the City prior written notice of the pothole condition alleged by the plaintiff … . The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. Allen v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05811, Second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLISTS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/POTHOLES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM ‘STATUTORY RAPE’ TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's manslaughter conviction, determined the prosecutor's repeated use of the term “statutory rape” to describe the charge against the victim deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The defendant raised the justification defense. Defendant had been working with the police to capture the victim, who had confessed to the defendant he was wanted for rape. Defendant shot the victim when he was attempting to turn the victim over to the police. By using the term “statutory rape,” the jury was given the mistaken impression that the rape was not a violent offense:

The County Court correctly determined that the use of the term “statutory rape” when describing the victim's alleged criminal conduct was not proper as such a colloquial term may have been misinterpreted by some jurors to mean that the sexual contact between the victim and his alleged victim was consensual, but illegal solely because of the age difference between them. Indeed, the People had initially contended to the County Court that the crime for which the victim was charged, rape in the second degree… , was not a “violent” crime. Here, because the defendant's defense was based on justification, the County Court was properly concerned that use of the term “statutory rape” by the prosecutor may have been interpreted by jurors to imply that the victim was not violent, and thus properly instructed the potential jurors that the victim was a fugitive charged with rape in the second degree. However, the court's failure to issue curative instructions to the entire jury pool, including those already sworn and seated, was error and deprived the defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial … . People v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 05859, Second Dept 8-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING ‘A MAN WITH A GUN’ AND DESCRIBING THE MAN’S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined that defendant's motion to suppress the weapon, identification and statements should have been granted. The police stopped the defendant's car and approached with guns drawn on the basis of an anonymous phone call which described “a man with a gun” and described the car the man was driving, including the license plate number. The Second Department determined the anonymous call did not provide the officers with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stopping and frisking a suspect:

“It is fundamental that in order to stop a vehicle the police must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective evidence, that the occupants were involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . “Reasonable suspicion has been defined as that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand'”… .. “[W]here an anonymous phone tip giving a general description and location of a man with a gun' is the sole predicate, it will generate only a belief that criminal activity is afoot,” and “will not of itself constitute reasonable suspicion thereby warranting a stop and frisk of anyone who happens to fit that description”… . “Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her [or his] allegations turn out to be fabricated, an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity'” … . However, “there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop'” … . Further, reasonable suspicion “requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person” … .

Here, while the individual who reported a man with a gun ultimately disclosed his identity to Officer Travitt, his identity was unknown at the time the police stopped the vehicle and ordered the defendant out of the car at gunpoint … . The police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based only on an anonymous tip of “a man with a gun,” since the tip came from an individual ” who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about [the defendant],'” and the report ” [did] not show that the tipster ha[d] knowledge of concealed criminal activity'” … . People v Bailey, 2018 NY Slip Op 05856, Second Dept 8-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUPPRESSION, ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/REASONABLE SUSPICION (CRIMINAL LAW, ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

/

IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff, who owns shares in a closely held corporation and sued the corporation seeking common law dissolution, was entitled payment by the corporation of expenses associated with plaintiff's defense of counterclaims made by the corporation. In addition plaintiff's cross motion to restrain the defendants from using the corporation's funds for defense of the common law dissolution action should have been granted:

The counterclaims are asserted against plaintiff “by reason of the fact that he . . . was a director or officer of the [C]orporation,” and Business Corporation Law § 722 (a) provides that he may be indemnified by the Corporation for his “reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees actually and necessarily incurred as a result of such action or proceeding . . . if [he] acted, in good faith, for a purpose which he reasonably believed to be in . . . the best interests of the [C]orporation.” That is so even though the counterclaims are brought, in part, by the Corporation itself … . Pursuant to section 724 (c), where, as here, “indemnification is sought by judicial action, the court may allow a person such reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, during the pendency of the litigation as are necessary in connection with his [or her] defense therein, if the court shall find that the [person seeking indemnification] has by his [or her] pleadings or during the course of the litigation raised genuine issues of fact or law.” “With respect to the advancement of fees, courts have consistently observed that the governing standard is not a stringent one' “… . All plaintiff was required to do was raise a genuine issue of fact or law …, and we conclude that he has done so. We thus modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of reasonable attorneys ' fees and litigation expenses that should be reimbursed to plaintiff, subject to repayment in the event defendants are successful on their counterclaims … . …

Here, as in judicial dissolution proceedings, “the corporation appears as a nominal party and the proceeding amounts to a dispute between the shareholders”… . We thus conclude that “corporate funds may not be used in payment of counsel fees for the individual shareholders” regardless of the fact that this is a common-law dissolution proceeding … . Feldmeier v Feldmeier Equip., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05893, Fourth Dept 8-22-18

CORPORATION LAW (IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION'S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISSOLUTION, COMMON LAW (CORPORATION LAW, IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION'S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , , ,

REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action for specific performance and reformation of a real estate purchase contract should have been granted. However the motion to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action was properly denied. The Second Department determined the limitation of remedies in the real estate contract constituted documentary evidence justifying dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The requirements for sufficiently pleading a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation were explained as well:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “An unambiguous contract provision may qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Here, the parties' contract, which limited the plaintiff's remedies in the event that the defendants were unable to clear defects in title, established a complete defense as a matter of law to the first and third causes of action, seeking specific performance and reformation of the contract based upon mutual mistake, respectively … . …

Where a cause of action is based on a misrepresentation or fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]). Here, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging that the defendants misrepresented that they owned 42-55 27th Street and had the right to convey it, that they made this representation despite knowing that it was false, and that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representation to his detriment. Hiu Ian Cheng v Salguero, 2018 NY Slip Op 05831, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

A SHOWING THAT MOTHER WAS ABUSED AND THE CHILD WITNESSED THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not present legally sufficient evidence of mother's neglect. The basis of the neglect allegation was mother's allowing the children to be exposed to domestic violence at the hands of her paramour:

In order to establish a prima facie case of neglect, DCFS was required, insofar as relevant here, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject children's “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [their] parent or other person legally responsible for [their] care to exercise a minimum degree of care” … . In the petition, DCFS alleged that the mother neglected the subject children by exposing them to domestic violence, i.e., by allowing her paramour into her house on several occasions in the presence of the subject children despite his history of violent actions toward her, during which she was again subjected to domestic violence. It is well settled that, in certain situations, “[t]he exposure of the child to domestic violence between the parents may form the basis for a finding of neglect”… . To establish neglect, however, “there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child' . . . In order for danger to be imminent,' it must be near or impending, not merely possible' . . . Further, there must be a causal connection between the basis for the neglect petition and the circumstances that allegedly produce the . . . imminent danger of impairment' ” … . Thus, “[a] neglect determination may not be premised solely on a finding of domestic violence without any evidence that the physical, mental or emotional condition of the child was impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired”… . “When the sole allegation' is that the mother has been abused and the child has witnessed the abuse, such a showing has not been made” … . Matter of Nevin H. (Stephanie H.), 2018 NY Slip Op 05891, Fourth Dept 8-22-18

FAMILY LAW (A SHOWING THAT MOTHER WAS ABUSED AND THE CHILD WITNESSED THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, A SHOWING THAT MOTHER WAS ABUSED AND THE CHILD WITNESSED THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, A SHOWING THAT MOTHER WAS ABUSED AND THE CHILD WITNESSED THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants' motions for summary judgment in this swimming pool injury case was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when he dove into the pool allegedly unaware of a shallow area near the deep area. The builder of the pool and the installer of the pool liner (the Bertolino defendants), as well as the owners of the pool (the Olsen defendants), were sued.  The Bertolino defendants could be liable based upon their contracts with the owners because it was alleged the pool was negligently designed and constructed by them. There also was a question of fact whether the condition was readily observable (raising the duty to protect or warn on the part of the owners):

With respect to the Bertolino defendants, generally, a contractual obligation of a third party does not give rise to liability in tort to persons not a party to the contract… . An exception exists, however, where the contractor created a dangerous condition or increased the risk of harm to others in its undertaking … . Here, the plaintiff's allegation that the Bertolino defendants negligently designed and constructed the subject pool by incorporating the allegedly dangerous condition falls within this exception … . Moreover, the Bertolino defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was not dangerous or that it did not unreasonably increase the risk of harm to those diving off the side of the pool, even though, as their expert opined, it was located outside the “diving water envelope,” which the expert described as the “area without constructed intrusions” … . …

As to the Olsen defendants, “[t]he owner of a private residential swimming pool has a duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . “What accidents are reasonably foreseeable, and what preventive measures should reasonably be taken, are ordinarily questions of fact” … . However, there is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses … . Here, the Olsen defendants, who did not deny notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition at issue was not inherently dangerous and that it was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses … . Grosse v Olsen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05829. second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO NON-PARTY, SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))/SWIMMING POOLS (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACT LAW, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order to show cause was proper and the judge should not have refused to sign it. The defendants in this foreclosure action properly sought an order to show cause in their action to vacate the default judgment:

The defendants Jacob Hirsch and Blime Hirsch (hereinafter together the Hirsches) defaulted by failing to appear in this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property they owned. A judgment of foreclosure and sale dated December 12, 2014, was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against, among others, the Hirches. On December 3, 2015, the Hirsches presented a proposed order to show cause to the Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), (3), and (4), to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel based upon an alleged conflict of interest, and to cancel the notice of pendency. The proposed order to show cause also sought a temporary restraining order staying the foreclosure sale of the property scheduled for later that day, December 3, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., pending the hearing and determination of their proposed motion. After oral argument, the court declined to sign the proposed order to show cause, with a handwritten notation that the Hirsches failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action and that the Hirsches failed to submit proof of misconduct by the plaintiff's attorney. …

“The court in a proper case may grant an order to show cause, to be served in lieu of a notice of motion, at a time and in a manner specified therein” (CPLR 2214[d]). Whether the circumstances constitute a “proper case” for the use of an order to show cause instead of a notice of motion is a matter within the discretion of the court to which the proposed order is presented … . Here, under the particular circumstances of this case, this was a proper case for the use of an order to show cause, and the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to sign the proposed order to show cause … . Gluck v Hirsch, 2018 NY Slip Op 05828, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214  (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly deemed service complete despite the late filing of the affidavit of service, but further determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. Rather service should have been deemed complete when the court ruled on it and defendant should have been given 30 days from that point to file an answer:

Here, the affidavit of service was not filed within 20 days of either the mailing or affixing; thus, service was never completed … . Since service was never completed, the defendant's time to answer the complaint had not yet started to run and, therefore, she could not be in default … .

However, the “failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004″… . Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deem the affidavit of service timely filed, sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 2004.

In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001 …). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of the defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the order… , “nor may a court give effect to a default judgment that, prior to the curing of the irregularity, was a nullity requiring vacatur” … . Rather, the defendant must be afforded an additional 30 days to appear and answer after service upon her of a copy of the decision and order … . First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Charleston v Tezzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 05826, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant attorneys were not entitled to dismissal of the legal malpractice action based on documentary evidence:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary,' it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … .

Here, the emails and letters submitted in support of the defendant's motion were not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). To the extent that the other evidence submitted was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. First Choice Plumbing Corp. v Miller Law Offs., PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05825, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE  (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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