You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged oral modification of the real estate purchase contract was unenforceable pursuant to he statute of frauds. The original contract called for a $750,000 down payment by a specified date. The payment was not made. Plaintiff argued defendant had orally agreed to take installment payments toward the down payment and two partial payments had in fact been made and accepted. Plaintiff sued for specific performance of the contract. The defendant asserted the statute of frauds affirmative defense. The Second Department held that the two payments did not constitute part performance which would excuse the absence of a writing:

While the statute of frauds empowers courts of equity to compel specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[4]), “the claimed partial performance must be unequivocally referable to the agreement” … . Unequivocally referable conduct is conduct that is “inconsistent with any other explanation” … . It is insufficient “that the oral agreement gives significance to plaintiff’s actions” … . “Rather, the actions alone must be ‘unintelligible or at least extraordinary,’ explainable only with reference to the oral agreement” … . “Significantly, the doctrine of part performance is based on principles of equity, in particular, recognition of the fact that the purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent frauds, not to enable a party to perpetrate a fraud by using the statute as a sword rather than a shield” … . S&G Golden Estates, LLC v New York Golf Enters., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02548, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: In order to constitute part performance of a contract such that the statute of frauds does not apply, the part performance must be inconsistent with any other explanation. The actions must be explainable only with reference to the oral agreement (not the case here).

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that video surveillance of the plaintiff taken prior to the deposition in this traffic accident case, and after a discovery order requiring disclosure of video surveillance had been issued, could not be used in support of a summary judgment motion re: “serious injury” or at trial. However, video surveillance taken after the deposition need not be provided to the plaintiff by any specific deadline and was not precluded:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s noncompliance with the plaintiff’s discovery notice and two court orders, over an extended period of time, was willful and strategic with regard to the [pre-deposition] surveillance video. … [T]he defendant should have been precluded from using the … surveillance video of the plaintiff …, as it was not disclosed prior to the plaintiff’s deposition … . * * *

CPLR 3101(i) contains no language prohibiting the acquisition of surveillance video of a party after that party has testified at a deposition. Nor does any decisional authority. Indeed, CPLR 3101(h) recognizes that disclosure is a continuing obligation, requiring parties to amend or supplement discovery responses when later information is obtained that renders an earlier response inaccurate or incomplete when made or when the prior response, though correct and complete when made, is materially no longer so. And parties are not required to be more forthcoming with surveillance videos than they would with any ordinary discovery material under CPLR 3101(a) … .

That said, CPLR 3101(i) provides no fixed deadline for the disclosure of post-deposition surveillance video footage … . Rather, trial courts may regulate issues of timing through their preliminary and compliance conference orders … , subject to their authority and discretion to manage their calendars and determine whether to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126(2) for any noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines … . Pizzo v Lustig, 2023 NY Slip Op 02541, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here surveillance video of the plaintiff which was gathered before the deposition and after a disclosure order was precluded from both the summary judgment stage and the trial. There is no specific deadline for turning over video surveillance of the plaintiff gathered after deposition and that video evidence was not precluded.

 

,

​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition and did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the condition. A metal gate, which should have been secured, fell on plaintiff:

… [T]estimony, if credited, indicates that the gate was not secured to the track, thereby raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the manager created the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to properly secure the gate at the end of his shift that day … .

… [T]he service manager testified at his deposition that it was his regular practice to inspect the area of the gate “two [or] three times a day,” but the defendant offered no evidence as to when the gate was last inspected on the date of the plaintiff’s injuries. The service manager’s testimony, which “merely referenced his general inspection practices” and failed to indicate when the area where the accident occurred “was last inspected . . . relative to the accident,” was insufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice … . Pena v Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Del., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02530, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here a metal gate which should have been secured fell on plaintiff. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area where the accident occurred was last inspected. Therefore defendant failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the unsecured gate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in a slip and fall: Rolon v Arden 29, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02545, Second Dept 5-10-23

 

IN A JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION, IF THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE ASSETS THE ONLY OPTION IS LIQUIDATION AT A PUBLIC SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have the authority to order a sealed-bid auction of the corporate assents in this judicial dissolution case. Because the parties could not agree on the disposition of the assents, under the Business Corporation Law, the only option is liquidation at a public sale:

“‘Postdissolution procedures in a judicial dissolution proceeding are set forth in Business Corporation Law § 1005 through 1008′” … . Business Corporation Law § 1005(a)(2) states that after dissolution “[t]he corporation shall proceed to wind up its affairs, with power to fulfill or discharge its contracts, collect its assets, sell its assets for cash at public or private sale, discharge or pay its liabilities, and do all other acts appropriate to liquidate its business.” “When the parties cannot reach an agreement amongst themselves with respect to the sale of the corporation’s assets either to one another or to a third party, ‘the only authorized disposition of corporate assets is liquidation at a public sale'” … . Thus, since the parties were not able to reach a full agreement as to the terms of the private sale, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to authorize the sealed-bid auction … . Matter of ANO, Inc. v Goldberg, 2023 NY Slip Op 02508, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: In a judicial dissolution of a corporation, if the parties cannot agree on the disposition of the assets, liquidation at a public sale is the only option.

 

PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discontinuance of the action without prejudice, which plaintiff requested on the day of trial, did not entitle plaintiff to the six-month extension of the statute of limitations afforded by CPLR 205(a):

CPLR 205(a) “extends the time to commence an action after the termination of an earlier related action, where both actions involve the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences” … . The statute “provides a six-month grace period” where the previous action has been dismissed in “any ‘other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits'” … .

In this case, CPLR 205(a) was not available to extend the limitations period beyond the termination of the 2001 action, since that action was terminated by means of a voluntary discontinuance. The plaintiff affirmatively requested the discontinuance, and it was granted at his behest and over his adversary’s objection. An action may be voluntarily discontinued either by a stipulation or notice, pursuant to CPLR 3217(a), or by a court order, pursuant to CPLR 3217(b). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a discontinuance sought by a plaintiff and effectuated by a court order under CPLR 3217(b) is no less voluntary within the meaning of CPLR 205(a) than a discontinuance effectuated by a stipulation or notice under CPLR 3217(a) … . Islam v 495 McDonald Ave., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02501, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A discontinuance without prejudiced granted to plaintiff over objection is a voluntary discontinuance to which the six-month extension of the statute of limitations afforded by CPLR 205(a) does not apply.

 

THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE DURING COVID APPLIED HERE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the Executive Order suspending Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 (speedy trial) during the COVID pandemic was applicable and defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the speedy trial statute should not have been granted:

Executive Order 202.87, while it was in effect, constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity in each particular case. We find that the phrase “to the extent necessary” modifies “suspended” and not “toll,” as it “explains how sections 303.30 and 190.80 are suspended—not in their entirety but ‘to the extent necessary'” … . Therefore, “Executive Order 202.87 does not require a showing of necessity to toll time periods because it does not explicitly condition the tolling on necessity” … . Moreover, as the People contend, CPL 30.30(4)(g) permits the exclusion of “periods of delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances.” Finding that a showing of necessity is required for the exclusion of time under Executive Order 202.87 would render that Executive Order superfluous and unnecessary. People v Taback, 2023 NY Slip Op 02334, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: The People do not have to show “necessity” to take advantage of the order suspending the speedy trial statute during COVID.

 

,

THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 petition seeking court review of the denial of a FOIL request should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Here the county did not respond to the FOIL request within five days, which, under the controlling regulations, is a denial. Petitioner, after an additional 30 days, filed the Article 78 petition without pursuing an administrative appeal. The Second Department held that the county’s failure to notify petitioner of the availability of administrative review justified petitioner’s failure to seek it before going to court, even though petitioner was aware of the availability of the administrative review process:

“The statutory time to respond to a FOIL request for records is ‘within five business days of the receipt of a written request,’ and the agency should respond by ‘mak[ing] such record available to the person requesting it, deny[ing] such request in writing or furnish[ing] a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date . . . when such request will be granted or denied'” … . 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b) states, in relevant part, that “[d]enial of access shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the person denied access of his or her right to appeal to the person or body designated to determine appeals, and that person or body shall be identified by name, title, business address[,] and business telephone number” … . “21 NYCRR 1401.7(c) provides that a FOIL request is deemed denied if there is no response to the request within five business days” … . “[A]ny administrative appeal of a denial [must] be undertaken within 30 days of the denial” … . A petitioner who does not “appeal[ ] the denial in writing” will generally be deemed to have “failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, thus, [may] not resort to a judicial forum to gain relief” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly determined that dismissal was warranted based on the petitioner’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Where, as here, an agency fails to “inform the person [or entity] making the FOIL request that further administrative review of the determination is available, the requirement of exhaustion is excused” … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: If the agency which receives a FOIL request does not respond within five days, the request can be deemed denied. If the agency does not notify the party making the request of the availability of administrative review of the denial, failure to seek administrative review is excused, even where, as here, the petitioner was aware of the administrative review process.

 

ALTHOUGH MRNACAJ GESTURED THAT SALIAN COULD PULL OUT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO MRNACAJ’S LANE, MRNACAJ COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT SALIAN WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE OTHER LANE WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK, MRNACAJ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of Mrnacaj’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case, determined Mrnacaj, who allegedly motioned for Salian to pull out from a driveway, was not responsible for Salian’s failure to see what should have been seen. Salian pulled across the lane Mrnacaj was in into the other lane of traffic where she was struck:

“When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances” … . However, even where a party relies on a driver’s gesture, a superseding, intervening act may break the causal connection … . “Whether an intervening act is a superseding cause is generally a question of fact, but there are circumstances where it may be determined as a matter of law” … .

In this particular case, assuming without deciding that Mrmacaj negligently motioned to Salian before she proceeded from the driveway and attempted to turn left, Salian’s unforeseeable failure to see what was there to be seen and yield the right of way to the plaintiff constituted an intervening and superseding cause that established the moving defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Under the circumstances of this case, Salian not only pulled her vehicle out of the driveway into the lane occupied by Mrnacaj, but also crossed that lane into a farther lane intended for vehicles traveling in the opposite direction of Mrnacaj, which included the plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle that should have been seen … . Dyakiw v Salian, 2023 NY Slip Op 02298, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: Even if a driver negligently gestures to another driver to pull out of a driveway, the gesturing driver is not liable for the other driver’s unforeseen negligence (here pulling into the other lane where she was struck).

 

,

CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain causes of action against the municipality should have been dismissed because the notice of claim did not provide notice of them:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action arising from events allegedly transpiring after January 6, 2019, insofar as asserted against them, because the plaintiff failed to serve an adequate notice of claim with respect to those causes of action. “[C]auses of action or legal theories may not be raised in the complaint that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that change the nature of the claim or assert a new one” … . Here, the notice of claim was limited to the incident that allegedly transpired on January 6, 2019, and thus, the causes of action arising out of events allegedly occurring thereafter, insofar as asserted against the appellants, are foreclosed … . Curry v Town of Oyster Bay, 2023 NY Slip Op 02297, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: A complaint against a municipality cannot allege causes of action which are based on facts not included in the notice of claim.

 

AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined falling down an open manhole is not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . “Not every gravity-related injury is within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . “‘Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s injuries, though the result of a fall, did not result from an elevation-relation hazard encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Bonkoski v Condos Bros. Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02296, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: An open manhole is not an elevated-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1).

 

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