You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The initial breach of contract complaint was dismissed because it was not alleged the parties to the oral joint venture agreed to share the losses (therefore the statute of frauds applied to the agreement). The amendment sought to include the allegation the parties agreed to share the losses:

… Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the breach of contract causes of action in the amended complaint had previously been dismissed … . Moreover, under the circumstances here, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion. The defendants cannot be prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendments, which were premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences alleged in the amended complaint and “simply sought to cure the deficiencies cited by the Supreme Court in its earlier order which resulted in the dismissal” … . Further, the plaintiff explained that the omission of a loss-sharing allegation from the amended complaint was inadvertent, and he diligently sought to amend the pleading to correct the defect … . Benjamin v 270 Malcolm X Dev., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01275, Second Dept 3-15-23

Practice Point: In the absence of prejudice amendment of a complaint should be allowed. Here the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff did not allege the parties agreed to share the losses in an oral joint venture agreement which triggered the statute of frauds. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to allege the parties agreed to share the losses should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE AT A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED THE TIME PERIOD WHEN THE ABUSE ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act action, determined that the notice of claim sufficiently described when the alleged sexual abuse took place at the state’s psychiatric center:

The claimant commenced this claim against the State of New York to recover damages resulting from alleged acts of sexual assault committed against her, beginning when she was 15 years old, by an employee of Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center (hereinafter Sagamore). * * *

… [T]he claim was sufficiently specific to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The claim alleged negligent hiring, training, and supervision of an employee who had subjected the claimant to multiple sexual assaults at Sagamore between June 5, 2013, and September 16, 2013—a period of approximately three months—while the claimant was a patient at Sagamore. This was sufficiently specific to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability … . D. G. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01183, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here the notice of claim sufficiently described the three-month time-frame when the alleged sexual abuse of the plaintiff took place at a state psychiatric hospital, The Child Victims Act lawsuit should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN (THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO A PRIEST NOT EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL FOR DISCIPLINE AND WAS MOLESTED BY THE PRIEST (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision and negligent failure to warn causes of action against defendant Catholic school should not have been dismissed in this Child Victims Act case. Plaintiff alleged he was sent by the school to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for discipline. Plaintiff alleged he was molested by the priest and the school knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity:

The complaint alleges … the defendant knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity to molest children, that the defendant had a duty to exercise the same duty of care of supervision over its minor students as a reasonably prudent parent would, and that the defendant breached its duty to adequately supervise the plaintiff which caused him to be sexually abused by the priest. …  … [T]he fact that the sexual abuse occurred off school premises does not require dismissal of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision since, here, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant released the plaintiff into a potentially hazardous situation and directed him to see a certain priest for discipline knowing that the priest had a propensity to sexually abuse children … . … [T]he criminal intervention of a third party may be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of circumstances created by the defendant, for example where, as here, the plaintiff was permitted to meet with the priest, a person who allegedly had a propensity to abuse children, alone and behind closed doors … .

… Supreme Court erred in determining that the cause of action alleging negligent failure to warn was subject to dismissal because it was duplicative of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision. … [T]hese causes of action are based on distinctive facts, one based on failing to warn the plaintiff about the priest and the other based on the defendant’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff … . Sullivan v St. Ephrem R.C. Parish Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 01207, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged the Catholic school sent him to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for school-related discipline and the priest molested him. The causes of action for negligent supervision of the plaintiff-student and failure to warn the plaintiff-student should not have been dismissed. The fact that the priest was not employed by the school did not require dismissal because the school allegedly released the plaintiff into a dangerous situation. Nor did the fact that the priest allegedly committed criminal acts relieve the school of potential liability.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure proceeding should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint when plaintiff did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by the deadline set in a status conference order:

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a status conference order … directing the plaintiff to “file an application for a [j]udgment of [f]oreclosure [and] sale” by June 7, 2017. The plaintiff failed to do so. In an order entered June 15, 2017 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency.

A court’s power to dismiss an action, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the … status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Martinez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints are disfavored. Here the failure to meet a deadline set in a status conference did not justify a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION TO SUSPEND CHILD SUPPORT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAS CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER SUPPORT MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined that although father’s petition to suspend child support was properly dismissed, it should not have been dismissed “with prejudice:”

Family Court properly dismissed that branch of the father’s petition which was to suspend his basic child support obligation on the ground of parental alienation without a hearing … .

However, the Family Court should not have provided that the dismissal was “with prejudice.” The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify, set aside, or vacate a prior order of child support pursuant to Family Court Act § 451 … . Matter of Lew v Lew, 2023 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Family Court has continuing jurisdiction over support matters. Therefore father’s petition to suspend child support, although properly dismissed, should not have been dismissed “with prejudice.”

 

,

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TWO PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL: (1) HER KNEE BUCKLED; AND (2) WHEN SHE TRIED TO STOP HER FALL BY GRABBING THE VANITY, THE VANITY MOVED FIVE INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was evidence of two proximate causes of the slip and fall: (1) plaintiff/s knee buckled when she stepped out of the shower; and (2) when plaintiff tried to stop her fall by grabbing onto the vanity, the vanity moved five inches and she fell. The building superintendent testified that a properly installed vanity would not move away from the wall:

“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and a defendant moving for summary judgment must show that it is free from fault” … . “‘Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff losing her balance due to her knee buckling was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that the defendant was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, at which she testified that, after she lost her balance due to her knee buckling and she grabbed the vanity with one hand, the vanity moved about five inches away from the wall, “and when it moved I lost my balance even more and that’s when I fell.” Moreover, the plaintiff testified that the vanity had been installed around “a couple of weeks” prior to the accident. The defendant also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the superintendent for the apartment building, who testified that a vanity which had been properly installed should not move away from the bathroom wall through “normal use.” Moe-Salley v Highbridge House Ogden, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01187, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall. Here plaintiff’s knee buckled as she stepped out of the shower. When she tried to stop her fall by grabbing the vanity, the vanity moved and she fell. There was testimony that a properly installed vanity would not move away from the wall.

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this icy-steps slip and fall case did not demonstrate they had transferred possession and control of the property such that they were not responsible for removal of ice and snow. The lease was not submitted in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords. The defendants did not submit a copy of any lease, and the deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendants had transferred possession and control of the premises … . Moreover, the deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion included testimony that the defendants were responsible for maintaining the property, including snow removal, and had engaged in snow removal on the premises. The defendants thus also failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no duty, by contract or course of conduct, to remove snow and ice from the premises … . Maharaj v Kreidenweis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01185, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant landlords did not submit the lease in support of their motion for summary judgment in this icy-step slip and fall case. Therefore the defendants did not demonstrate they were out-of-possession landlords not responsible for ice and snow removal.

 

, ,

THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR; IT WAS ALLEGED THE INJURY WAS ACCIDENTAL; THE INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT FELL OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY (NO DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) OR WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A POLICY EXCLUSION (TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the disclaimer by the insurer, Mapfre, was required and/or timely in this personal injury case. In the midst of some sort of altercation outside a bar, Groskopf was struck with a baton by Edward Ferrall. Edward Ferrall claimed he did not intend to strike Groskopf. The two questions before the court in this declaratory judgment action were (1) whether the injury was the result of an “occurrence” (accident) within the coverage terms of the policy, and (2) whether the injury was intended and therefore subject to a policy exclusion. If the claim falls outside the coverage terms no disclaimer is required. If the claim is subject to an exclusion from coverage, a timely disclaimer is required:

… Groskopf and the Ferrall defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their respective entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on whether an “occurrence” was involved giving rise to policy coverage and, if so, whether such occurrence fell within the “expected or intended” injury policy exclusion. * * *

… [D]efendants also failed to demonstrate their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon Mapfre’s alleged untimely disclaimer. * * * [G]iven that there are triable issues of fact regarding whether the claim falls within the coverage, [the] defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that a timely disclaimer was required. Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Ferrall, 2023 NY Slip Op 01082, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was an altercation outside a bar and the injured party was struck with a baton. It was alleged the injury was accidental and the insurer sought a declaratory judgment on its obligation to defend and indemnify. There were questions of fact whether the incident fell within the coverage terms (if so, no disclaimer was required) and whether the incident was subject to an exclusion from coverage (if so, a timely disclaimer was required).

 

,

DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on the emergency doctrine, should have have been granted. A car traveling in the opposite direction crossed a double yellow line into the path of defendant’s car:

Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, “those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency” … . “Under appropriate circumstances, the existence of an emergency, as well as the reasonableness of the actor’s response to it, may be determined as a matter of law” … . “A driver is not obligated to anticipate that a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic, and such an event constitutes a classic emergency situation, thus implicating the emergency doctrine” … . Lizares v Conklin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01081, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: A driver is not obligated to anticipate that an oncoming car will cross a double yellow line into the driver’s lane. In such a situation, the emergency doctrine applies to insulate the driver from liability.

 

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