You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE REFEREE’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been accepted because the business records upon which the calculations were based were not attached to the affidavit:

 … [A] referee’s computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Here, the referee based his calculations upon documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the note and mortgage, as well as an affidavit of amount due and owing, submitted in support of the motion to confirm the referee’s report. However, the affidavit of amount due and owing does not identify the business records upon which the affiant relied in order to compute the total amount due on the mortgage, and there are no such records annexed thereto. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that regard were not substantially supported by the record … . M&T Bank v Bonilla, 2023 NY Slip Op 01989, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: To the extent an affidavit refers to business records which are not attached the affidavit is hearsay.

 

, , ,

IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined the employees were restricted to worker’s compensation benefits in this construction-accident action against their employers and the other defendants were precluded from seeking contribution and indemnification from the employers:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11(1) precludes recovery by “any third person” against “[a]n employer” for contribution or indemnity “for injuries sustained by an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment” unless the employee “has sustained a ‘grave injury'” or there is a “written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the claimant.” Despite this clear directive, the Supreme Court, relying on this Court’s decision in Baten v Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. (85 AD3d 697), permitted cross-claims sounding in contribution and indemnity to survive against an entity on the ground that triable issues of fact existed with respect to whether that entity was an employer, regardless of a Workers’ Compensation Board determination on this issue. Here, we clarify that, notwithstanding our prior decision in Baten, no claim for indemnity or contribution may be maintained against an entity determined to be an employer by the Workers’ Compensation Board except in the limited circumstances specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.* * *

… [W]e hold that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 precludes recovery by any third party for contribution and indemnity against an entity determined by the WCB [Workers’ Compensation Board] to be the plaintiff’s employer except where the injured employee has suffered a grave injury or where the employer has expressly agreed in writing to contribute or indemnify.  Velazquez-Guadalupe v Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02025, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: If the Workers’ Compensation Board determined a defendant in a construction-accident action was plaintiff’s employer, absent a “grave” injury or the employer’s agreement to contribute or indemnify, the plaintiff’s recovery is restricted to Workers’ Compensation benefits and there can be no recovery for contribution or indemnification against the employer by other defendants.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION MISSED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED HAD THEY BEEN TIMELY BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because the complaint did not contain the “but for” allegations. It is not enough to allege defendants missed the statute of limitations, the complaint must also allege facts demonstrating the underlying lawsuits would have succeeded had they been timely brought:

… [T]he plaintiffs alleged that the decedent died after a brief admission to a drug and behavioral treatment facility, that the defendants agreed to represent the plaintiffs in an underlying action against the treatment facility and the medical providers who treated the decedent, that the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to timely complete service of process in an action commenced in state court and by failing to commence a wrongful death cause of action in federal court before the applicable statute of limitations expired, and that the defendants’ failures resulted in the plaintiffs being unable to recover on their wrongful death causes of action. Absent from the complaint are any factual allegations relating to the basis for the plaintiffs’ purported wrongful death causes of action against the treatment facility or medical providers.

Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint failed to set forth facts sufficient to allege that [defendants’] purported negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . Even when considered with the documents submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion, the complaint failed to allege any facts tending to show that, but for [defendants’] alleged negligence in failing to timely serve process in the state court action and in failing to timely commence an action in federal court, the plaintiffs would have achieved a more favorable outcome on their wrongful death causes of action … . Buchanan v Law Offs. of Sheldon E. Green, P.C., 2023 NY Slip Op 01979, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: To sufficiently allege legal malpractice, the complaint must not only allege the attorneys’ negligence, here missing the statute of limitations, but sufficient facts must be alleged to demonstrate the lawsuit would have succeeded had it been timely brought.

See the companion decision: Buchanan v Law Offs. of Sheldon E. Green, P.C., 2023 NY Slip Op 01980, Second Dept 4-19-23

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a directive to apply for an order of reference was not an appropriate ground for dismissing the complaint sua sponte:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate order … and to restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Turner, 2023 NY Slip Op 02023, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints should be rare. Here the failure to file an application for an order of reference in a foreclosure action was not an adequate justification for a sua sponte dismissal.

 

, ,

A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a sex offender can petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification, notwithstanding prior petitions within a year seeking other relief:

… [T]he petition … sought a downward modification of the defendant’s risk level classification. Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2), any sex offender required to register or verify under SORA may petition annually for modification of his or her risk level classification … . As the defendant had not petitioned for a modification of his risk level classification within the prior year, he was not procedurally barred from seeking such relief in the instant petition. Therefore, upon receipt of the petition, the court should have followed the procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4) and conducted a hearing on the petition. People v Ghose, 2023 NY Slip Op 02021, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A sex offender may petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification. Such a petition is not precluded by prior petitions within a year seeking other relief under the Correction Law.

 

, , , ,

THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10 THAT ALLOWS A COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE PETITIONER, WHO HAD BEEN RELEASED TO A STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATEMENT (SIST) REGIMEN, IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this habeas corpus proceeding, determined the “provision of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11(d)(4) that directs the court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement based upon a review of the allegations in a petition for confinement and any accompanying papers does not violate that respondent’s federal or state rights to due process.” The court further determined the issue raised here might recur so the appeal was not rendered moot by the petitioner’s release “to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (… SIST):

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 permits the court to revoke a regimen of SIST upon a violation of SIST conditions and sets forth the required procedures for such a revocation … . The statute provides, as relevant here, that if a parole officer has “reasonable cause to believe” that a sex offender requiring SIST has violated a condition thereof, the offender can be taken into custody for five days for an evaluation by a psychiatric examiner, and the attorney general and the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (hereinafter MHLS) are to be promptly notified … . The attorney general may then file a petition for confinement within five days after the offender is taken into custody, which petition must be served promptly on MHLS, and counsel must be appointed for the offender … . If a petition for confinement is filed, “the court shall promptly review the petition and, based on the allegations in the petition and any accompanying papers, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the [offender] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” … . There is no provision permitting the offender an opportunity to be heard prior to the probable cause determination. Once the probable cause determination is made, the offender may be retained pending the conclusion of the proceeding … . “Within thirty days after a petition for confinement is filed . . . , the court shall conduct a hearing” to make a final determination, but the failure to commence the hearing within that time period does not result in dismissal of the petition or “affect the validity of the hearing or the determination” … . People ex rel. Neville v Toulon, 2023 NY Slip Op 02015, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point; The provision of Mental Hygiene Law section 10 that allows a court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe petitioner, who had been released to a SIST regimen, is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is not unconstitutional.

Practice Point: Although at the time of this appeal in this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner had been released to a SIST regimen, the issue is likely to recur so the “exception to the mootness doctrine” doctrine was invoked.

 

,

THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD COMPLIED WITH THE “HARD LOOK” REQUIREMENTS OF SEQRA AND PROPERLY GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town planning board complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and properly considered the criteria for a special use permit when it approved a project:

… [T]he Planning Board identified groundwater resources, noise, and scenic resources as relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its negative determination of significance. * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that the Planning Board complied with Zoning Code § 143-117(A)(6) and (9), which required it to assess the “[a]dequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities,” and to provide the protection of “neighboring properties against noise, glare, unsightliness or other objectionable features.”

Lastly, “[a] use permitted by a special use permit is a use that has been found by the local legislative body to be appropriate for the zoning district and ‘in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . Although the Planning Board “‘does not have the authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'” … , “[t]he permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law” … . Matter of Tampone v Town of Red Hook Planning Bd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02011, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: The Second Department explained the judicial-review criteria for a town planning board’s negative declaration under SEQRA and a town planning board’s compliance with the zoning code and special-use-permit requirements.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION; THEREFORE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner should not have been granted leave to serve a late notice of claim in this false imprisonment/malicious prosecution action because petitioner did not demonstrate the municipality had timely notice of the potential lawsuit:

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claims within 90 day after the claims arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . Moreover, the petitioner’s ignorance of the law was not a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Finally, the petitioner failed to come forward with “some evidence or plausible argument” that the respondents will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense … . The conclusory assertion of the petitioner’s counsel in an affirmation in support of the petition that the respondents were “not prejudiced in any manner by this delay” was inadequate to satisfy the petitioner’s minimal initial burden with respect to this factor … . Matter of Pil-Yong Yoo v County of Suffolk, 2023 NY Slip Op 02008, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the petitioner did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution causes of action. Therefore petitioner should not have been granted leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

, ,

THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer, GEICO, should not have been granted a stay of arbitration in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute with its insured, Eser. GEICO did not explain its failure to timely request a physical exam and an examination under oath (EUO):

GEICO had ample time after being notified of Eser’s claim to seek a medical examination and an examination under oath, but failed to do so. Moreover, it denied the claim, apparently concluding that the medical records were sufficient to determine that Eser did not sustain a serious injury. GEICO offered no excuse for its failure to request a physical examination and an examination under oath. Instead, GEICO represented to the Supreme Court that it had requested the examinations, pointing to [three letters]. Contrary to GEICO’s assertion, however, it did not request examinations in those letters, but, rather, merely advised Eser that if it ultimately determined that the other vehicle was uninsured, it “may require [her] to submit to physical examinations and/or Examination(s) Under Oath” … . Since GEICO had ample time to seek this discovery of Eser, but unjustifiably failed to do so, it was not entitled to a stay of arbitration in order to conduct the examinations … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Eser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01999, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the insurer in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute had ample time to request that the insured undergo a physical exam and an examination under oath and did not explain its failure to do so. The stay of arbitration should not have been granted.

 

,

FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s access to the child should not have been conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment:

“A court deciding a custody proceeding may direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] or custody order” … . However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights … . Here, the Family Court erred in conditioning the filing of any future parental access petitions by the father upon his completion of a parenting class, and we modify the order … , so as to eliminate that condition … . Matter of Coley v Steiz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01995, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: In a custody proceeding, father’s parental access should not be conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment.

 

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