The Second Department held that a shortened statute of limitations agreed to in an employment contract was enforceable: “The parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” (…see CPLR 201…). “ […]
In finding the action against a construction manager should have been dismissed because the construction manager had not been delegated the responsibilities of a general contractor, the Second Department wrote: “Although a construction manager is generally not considered a contractor responsible for the safety of the workers at a construction site . . . it […]
In reversing Family Court’s determination the best interests of the child did not permit the mother’s relocation, the Second Department wrote: After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea …, we find that the mother established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children’s best interests would be served […]
In finding Family Court did not have a sufficient basis to determine the mother failed to substantiate her income in a child support proceeding, the Second Department wrote: The Support Magistrate improperly awarded child support based on the needs of the child rather than the mother’s income, upon concluding that the mother failed to substantiate […]
The Second Department, in the interest of justice, determined the sentencing court should not have imposed restitution because restitution was not addressed in the plea agreement. The matter was remitted for re-sentencing without restitution. People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 02770, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13
In reversing a conviction because the trial court committed a “mode of proceedings” error (not requiring preservation) by not following the procedure mandated in Criminal Procedure Law 310.30 (re: notes sent out by the jury during deliberations), the Second Department explained: “Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that whenever a substantive written jury communication […]
Rockland County sought bids for public bus transportation. The respondent, Brega Transportation Corporation [hereinafter “Brega”], protested the county’s bid specifications as exclusionary and discriminatory and Supreme Court agreed. The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that Rockland County’s Invitation to Bid for Transit Operations and Maintenance [hereinafter “RFB”] violated Municipal Law 103. After explaining the […]
In determining that a material misrepresentation (i.e., no roofing work would be done) allowed the rescission of an insurance policy, rendering the policy void ab initio, the Second Department wrote: “To establish the right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must show that its insured made a material misrepresentation of fact when he or […]
The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether the respondent was an “insured” within the meaning of an automobile insurance policy. Noting that a person can have more than one residence for insurance purposes, the Second Department wrote: The endorsement defines an insured as, inter alia, any relative […]
In affirming the dismissal of a personal injury complaint the Second Department noted that defendant store-owners were “not required to cover all of [their] floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … . Valentin v Shoprite of Chester, 2013 NY Slip Op 02739, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13 SLIP AND FALL
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy