You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a statement in an email written by an attorney in a divorce action, referring to plaintiff as a wife beater, was pertinent to the divorce action and was absolutely privileged:

The defendant Dina S. Kaplan is an attorney who represented the defendant Eric Dorfman in a divorce action (hereinafter the divorce action). Kaplan allegedly represented to the court in the divorce action, including court personnel, that the plaintiff, an attorney and a nonparty to the divorce action, was the boyfriend of Dorfman’s wife. In an email exchange between Kaplan and Herbert Adler, an attorney representing Dorfman’s wife in the divorce action, Kaplan allegedly made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, referring to him as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution.” In addition to Adler, the email was sent to court personnel and other attorneys. * * *

… [U]nder the extremely liberal test of pertinency, Kaplan’s statement allegedly referring to the plaintiff as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was pertinent to the divorce action and, thus, is absolutely privileged. The email exchange between Kaplan and Adler was initially focused on a dispute over Dorfman’s financial ability to pay his wife maintenance and child support. The conversation turned, however, to the behavior of the parties to the divorce action while caring for their children, and Kaplan’s statement that the plaintiff is a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was responsive and therefore relevant to the issue of the parties’ behavior … . Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement was “so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame” the plaintiff, who was not among the participants in the conversation, was not otherwise mentioned in the email exchange, and was not even directly identified in the statement … . Davidoff v Kaplan, 2023 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: If a defamatory statement made by a divorce attorney is pertinent to the divorce action, the statement is absolutely privileged.

 

,

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. The note of issue had been vacated but the action had not been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404. Therefore the criteria for restoring an action that had been marked off for more than a year did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, “[a] case . . . marked ‘off’ or struck from the calendar . . . and not restored within one year thereafter, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute.” “A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked ‘off,’ and after the case has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a [potentially] meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant” … .

Here, the order … vacating the note of issue was not equivalent to an order marking “off” or striking the case from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, CPLR 3404 did not apply “because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated” … As it is undisputed that there was neither a 90-day demand served upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and that discovery is complete, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar … . Carrero v Pena, 2023 NY Slip Op 03448, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Restoring an action to the calendar after it has been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than a year is subject to the stringent requirements of CPLR 3404. But vacating a note of issue, as opposed to marking off the case, restores the action to pre-note of issue status and the action can be restored without meeting the CPLR 3404 requirements because CPLR 3404 is not applicable.

 

​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s task of removing equipment (scaffolds, ladders, poles, etc.) from the worksite and loading them onto the top of a van was ancillary to the renovation work and therefore encompassed by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff fell from the roof of the van:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s activity in removing equipment from the worksite and loading it onto the van was not performed as part of the larger renovation project that CDI had been hired to complete on the premises, including roofing and shingling work. The plaintiff’s role in removing the equipment after it had been used by the plaintiff and his CDI colleagues was an act “ancillary” to the alteration of the structure at the property, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The defendants also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that climbing on the roof of the van was not necessary to the task of securing the equipment on the roof, nor did they demonstrate that no safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) would have prevented the plaintiff’s fall. Ramones v 425 County Rd., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03489, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Removing scaffolding, ladders, etc. after use on the worksite was “ancillary” to the renovation work and therefore protected by Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Falling from the top of a van where equipment removed from the worksite was being loaded may be compensable under Labor Law 240(1) (there was a question of fact on that issue).

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution when questioning witnesses. The issue was not preserved but the Second Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,” so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged in its own lines of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the surveillance equipment tracking the defendant, elicited a detailed description of the perpetrator and the bags he was carrying, and what the perpetrator was observed doing on the video surveillance camera, asked leading questions as to what the guard saw and heard as the perpetrator left the store and triggered the store alarm, and noted that when the guard approached the perpetrator and asked for the merchandise back, the guard even said, “please,” but the perpetrator still refused to return the items.

The Supreme Court also repeated the perpetrator’s allegedly threatening language, “[K]eep going or watch what’s going to happen to you,” and noted that it looked like the perpetrator was reaching for something and the guard did not want to find out what it was. During the direct examination of the arresting officer, the court elicited the fact that the officer observed a duffel bag containing the stolen property on the subway platform next to the defendant.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in a running commentary on the testimony against the defendant. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … . People v Pulliam, 2023 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A trial judge can ask questions of witnesses but cannot take on the appearance of an advocate for the prosecution.

 

,

THE WASHINGTON DC ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONVICTION COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a Washington DC offense could not be the basis of a second felony offender adjudication. Although the issue was not preserved, the court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C., cannot be used as a predicate felony in New York (see People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 614-615; see also Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][i]; 160.00, 110.00; DC Code §§ 22-2801, 22-2802). Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter … for resentencing. People v Blaker, 2023 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: The Washington DC attempt to commit robbery conviction could not be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication in New York.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEYS’ ALLEGEDLY UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN PROSECUTING AN ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN THE INABILITY TO COLLECT THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging legal malpractice should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys’ delays in prosecuting the action against a contractor resulted in plaintiff’s inability to collect a judgment against the contractor. By the time the judgment was acquired, the contractor had sold its assets and moved out of the country:

… [A]ccepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession by engaging in a pattern of undue delay in their prosecution of the underlying action, including by allowing the underlying action to be marked off the active calendar on two occasions and by failing to comply with certain court-ordered deadlines. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in that their delays in prosecuting the underlying action prevented him from being able to collect on the judgment that was eventually entered against the contractor … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s allegations relating to proximate cause, including the nature and value of the contractor’s alleged assets and when they were disposed of, were not impermissibly speculative or conclusory … . Ofman v Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers, LLP, 2023 NY Slip Op 03471, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a legal malpractice claim based upon the attorneys’ alleged unreasonable delays in prosecuting an action against a contractor, resulting in the inability to collect the judgment. The contractor sold its assets and moved out of the country.

 

,

A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was not entitled to sue the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) for injuries suffered in a hit and run accident because the electric bike petitioner was operating was deemed to be an uninsured motor vehicle:

… [T]he petitioner testified, among other things, that the “electric bike” he was operating at the time of the accident was not equipped with pedals, was powered by an electric battery that must be charged in order for the vehicle to operate, and was “probably” capable of reaching a speed of approximately 30 miles per hour. …

A court may make an order permitting a person injured in a hit-and-run collision to commence an action against MVAIC to recover damages if the court is satisfied that, among other things, “the injured . . . person was not at the time of the accident operating an uninsured motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5218[b][3] …). “Uninsured motor vehicle” for purposes of the MVAIC Act is defined by reference to the definition of “motor vehicle” set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 (see Insurance Law § 5202[a], [c], [d]). “Motor vehicle” is defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,” with certain enumerated exceptions.

… MVAIC established as a matter of law that the electric-powered vehicle operated by the petitioner at the time of the accident was an uninsured motor vehicle … . Matter of Jackson v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03464, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A driver injured in a hit and run accident is not entitled to recover from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation  (MVAIC) if the driver was operating an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the accident. Here the electric bike the injured driver was operating was deemed an uninsured motor vehicle.

 

, ,

BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this personal injury action should have been granted. The injured plaintiff sued the tortfeasor’s insurer before obtaining a judgment against the tortfeasor (the insured):

Insurance Law § 3420 “grants an injured party a right to sue the tortfeasor’s insurer, but only under limited circumstances—the injured party must first obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, serve the insurance company with a copy of the judgment and await payment for 30 days” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action by submitting the complaint, which alleged that the underlying action against [the tortfeasor] “is currently pending.” The complaint is evidence that the plaintiff has not established the condition precedent to maintain a direct action against the defendants (see Insurance Law § 3420[a][2] …). Sizova v Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 03502, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff must obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor before the tortfeasor’s insurer can be sued.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AT THE TIME THE ACTION AGAINST THEM WAS COMMENCED; THAT ACTION WAS A NULLITY; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXECUTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sidewalk slip and fall action brought against defendant property owners was a nullity because the property owners had died before the suit was commenced. Because the action was a nullity, the motion to amend the complaint to substitute the executor as a party should not have been granted:

“A party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person” … . The deaths of Leon Chain and Hanka Chain (hereinafter together the decedents) prior to the commencement of this action rendered the action, insofar as asserted against them, a legal nullity from its inception. The plaintiff was instead required to commence an action against the personal representative of the decedents’ estates … . Moreover, even assuming that Ziv was the duly appointed executor of each of the decedents’ estates, the decedents were never a party to the action since they died before the commencement of the action, and the decedents’ estates could not be brought into the action by substitution or by amendment of the caption (see CPLR 1015[a]; 1021 …). The plaintiff’s attempt to amend the complaint to designate the purported executor of the decedents’ estates as a defendant in the place of the decedents was invalid and ineffective to retroactively render the action properly commenced against the decedents’ estates … . Hussain v Chain, 2023 NY Slip Op 03455, Second Dept 6-28-23

Similar issues and result in a foreclosure action: Waterfall Victoria Master Fund, Ltd. v Estate of Dennis F. Creese, 2023 NY Slip Op 03497, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the defendants had died at the time the action was commenced. That action was therefore a nullity. The complaint could not be amended to substitute the executor as a party.

 

, , ,

SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined plaintiff’s surgery, even after a defense request for a pre-surgical physical exam, is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions. In this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after a defense demand for a pre-surgery medical exam:

… [T]he First Department has recently rejected the proposition that a spoliation analysis can apply in such a situation. In Gilliam v Uni Holdings, LLC (201 AD3d 83), the First Department held “that the condition of one’s body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis” … . After noting that “[s]poliation analysis has long been applied to a party’s destruction of inanimate evidence,” the First Department concluded that the “state of one’s body is fundamentally different from inanimate evidence, and medical treatment, including surgery, is entirely distinct from the destruction of documents or tangible evidence which spoliation sanctions attempt to ameliorate. To find that a person has an ‘obligation,’ to preserve his or her body in an injured state so that a defendant may conduct [a medical examination], is antithetical to our belief in personal liberty and control over our own bodies” … . * * *

We agree with the First Department’s conclusion in this regard, for the reasons stated in its opinion. It is not reasonable to require a plaintiff to delay medical treatment, and potentially prolong his or her suffering, solely to allow a defendant to examine the plaintiff’s body in a presurgical state. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not “refuse[d] to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fail[ed] to disclose information which . . . ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126). Fadeau v Corona Indus. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03453, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after the defense demand for a pre-surgery physical exam. Joining the First Department, the Second Department held that surgery is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions.

 

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