You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

IN THIS SCAFFOLD-FALL CASE, EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD BUT DID NOT REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this scaffold-fall case. Defendants raised a question of fact with evidence plaintiff was instructed to use guard rails on the scaffold but did not: … [T]hrough the testimony that plaintiff declined to use guardrails even though he was instructed to do […]

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS INJURED WHEN DEFENDANT’S TREADMILL SUDDENLY ACCELERATED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE TREADMILL-ACCELERATION DAYS BEFORE SHE WAS INJURED, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant fitness center’s motion for summary judgment in this treadmill-injury case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the treadmill accelerated suddenly. Plaintiff’s deposition was submitted by the defendant in support of its motion. Plaintiff testified she had complained about the treadmill-acceleration several days prior to her […]

, ,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE WAS THE NOTE SHE SIGNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the bank had standing to foreclosure by producing a note that was different from the note submitted by the bank to demonstrate standing: … [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had produced the […]

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate defendant’s default and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304: … [I]n attempting to establish the defendant’s default in payment, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jessica Fernandez, an assistant vice president of Bayview, […]

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY EXCEEDED THE CPLR 3101 (D) DISCLOSURE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The trial judge should not have precluded plaintiff’s expert’s testimony on the ground the scope of the testimony exceeded the CPLR 3101 (d) disclosure: Because portions of the expert’s testimony purportedly fell outside the […]

, ,

THE TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A RENTAL PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BECAUSE THE PROVISION ALLOWS THE LANDLORD TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE BY A STATE-LICENSED ENGINEER, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town code provision which required a property inspection before issuance of a rental permit is not unconstitutional. Although the provision would be unconstitutional if an inspection by the town building inspector was required (a mandatory warrantless search), the provision also allows the landlord to have the property […]

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304: … [T]he record does not reflect that a copy of the endorsed note was attached to the summons and complaint when the […]

, ,

STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof surrounding the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice was insufficient: … “[T]he plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, ‘or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge […]

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted: No evidence that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed by certified mail to the defendant at the subject property […]

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE CIGARETTE MARKETING STANDARDS ACT (CMSA) BY OFFERING REBATES WHICH EFFECTIVELY LOWERED THE PRICE OF CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for the violation of the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (CMSA) by offering rebates which effectively lowered the price of cigarettes: … [T]he CMSA and its regulations make clear that rebates which directly or indirectly serve to reduce prices below legal minimums […]

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