You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, who obtained a New Jersey default judgment against three defendants, need only serve one of the defendants in this action to enforce the foreign judgment:

In October 2013, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant Tirepool, LLC … for the purchase of a used car. The contract was negotiated by the defendants Jeff Massicott and Vivian Wallace, the owners/managers of Tirepool. The defendants breached the contract and retained the plaintiffs’ down payment. … [T]he plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey action). The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $26,548.32. …

CPLR 1501 provides: “Where less than all of the named defendants in an action based upon a joint obligation, contract or liability are served with the summons, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise directs, and if the judgment is for the plaintiff it may be taken against all the defendants.” Here, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in the New Jersey action and, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Wallace without effectuating service on the other defendants.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint insofar as asserted against Wallace. Obed v Tirepool, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here there was a foreign default judgment against three defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiffs only served one of the defendants with a summons in lieu of complaint to enforce the foreign judgment. Plaintiffs did not need to serve the other two defendants and could proceed against the defendant who was served.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. The village code requires that the board of trustees be given written notice of the defect in order to hold the village liable. Here there was a letter from the town engineer to the abutting homeowners notifying them of the sidewalk defect and requiring repair within 30 days. The majority held that letter did not meet the written notice requirements in the code, which must be strictly construed. the dissent disagreed:

Where … a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, neither actual nor constructive notice of a condition satisfies the prior written notice requirement … . Records generated by other agencies of the Village, outside of the strict construction of Code of the Village of Garden City § 132-2, fail to satisfy the requirements of the relevant prior written notice law … .. On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior written notice under the terms of the Village Code.

Our learned dissenting colleague concludes that the plaintiffs, through the submission of a letter on the Village’s letterhead dated May 11, 2015, from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village Board of Trustees had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defects. … The letter … states … that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and/or driveway apron adjacent to the defendant homeowners’ property indicated that concrete was in need of repair or replacement. The letter continues, stating that it was necessary to repair or replace a defective sidewalk and/or driveway apron for safety reasons and to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits against the property owners and the Village. For these reasons … the Village Board of Trustees had adopted a resolution … providing that property owners are required to repair or replace defective or damaged sidewalks and/or driveway aprons fronting their property within 30 days of receiving notice of such defects. Strictly construing the terms of the Village’s prior written notice law, as we must … that letter from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners does not constitute the giving of prior written notice to the Village Board of Trustees. … . Kolenda v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2023 NY Slip Op 01783, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village code required that written notice of a sidewalk defect be provided to the board of trustees. A letter from the village engineer to the abutting homeowners requiring repair of the defect did not meet the code’s written-notice requirements, which must be strictly construed. Therefore the village cannot be held liable for the slip and fall.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff did not know what the wet substance on the step was:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she slipped and fell on a wet step … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify the “precise nature of the wet substance upon which she allegedly slipped and fell cannot be equated with a failure to identify the cause of her fall” … . Diaz v SCG 502, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet step. Her inability to identify the wet substance was not an inability to identify the cause of her fall.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant restaurant (ABB) did not demonstrated when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had been last inspected prior to the fall. Therefore ABB did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition:

ABB … failed to demonstrate … that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Although ABB’s witness testified that the accident occurred five minutes after the witness had entered the restaurant and observed the floor to be dry, the plaintiff testified that the accident occurred at least one hour later, and ABB did not submit any evidence as to when it last inspected the area prior to the time when the plaintiff asserted the accident occurred … . Carey v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01773, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the defendants must show where the area of the fall was last inspected prior to the fall to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

 

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment declaring plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over a driveway located on both parties’ properties (10 feet on defendants’ side and seven feet on plaintiffs’ side) should have been granted. Supreme Court should have considered the state of the property when the two lots were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s, not the driving habits of plaintiffs and defendants since they purchased the properties in the 1990’s:

“The party asserting an easement by necessity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there was a unity and subsequent separation of title, . . . and that at the time of severance an easement over [the servient estate’s] property was absolutely necessary. Significantly, the necessity must exist in fact and not as a mere convenience and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property” … . The court determined that the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden because, in the court’s view, the record reflects that the plaintiffs could not drive their vehicles into and out of their garage without traversing the defendants’ property. … [T]he court erroneously focused on the claimed necessity as it is alleged to exist now. … [T]he relevant inquiry is whether the necessity existed at the time of severance … . … [T]he parties’ respective properties were created from one parcel of land in 1925 and 1926. Hence, the plaintiffs’ testimony as to their driving habits from when they first acquired the property in 1991 is irrelevant. In any event, in contrast to situations where severance of title renders a claimant’s property landlocked, courts have repeatedly rejected claims to an easement by necessity over a driveway where the “sole claimed ‘necessity’ for the easement is the ‘need’ to access off-street parking,” as “[t]hat purported need is nothing more than a mere convenience” … . Bolognese v Bantis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01771, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ properties were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s. To determine whether a party has a prescriptive easement, one parcel has to be landlocked at the time of severance. Here the parties’ shared a driveway leading to their garages, part of the driveway was on plaintiffs’ property and part on defendants’ property. Plaintiffs regularly drove over a portion of defendants’ driveway to access their garage. Supreme Court should have considered only the state of the property in the 1920’s when the single parcel was divided into two. The parties’ driving habits were irrelevant. Therefore defendants were entitled to a declaration that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over the driveway.

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend a reply to a counterclaim to add the statute-of-limitations affirmative defense should have been granted, noting that mere lateness is not an adequate ground for denial of a motion to amend. The court also noted that defendant’s failure to oppose the motion demonstrated a lack of prejudice:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading ‘are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” (… see CPLR 3025[b]). “The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion” … . “The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” … .

Here, the record reflects that the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit. Moreover, while the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) was made more than eight months after its original verified reply, “‘[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . In this case, having failed to oppose the motion, [defendant] failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating any prejudice or surprise. Toiny, LLC v Rahim, 2023 NY Slip Op 01702, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Motions to amend pleadings should rarely be denied. Mere lateness in moving to amend is not an adequate reason for denial.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was struck in the head by falling debris. The Industrial Code regulation requiring a hard hat was not demonstrated to be inapplicable by the defendant:

… Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants’ motions which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action as was predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1). “In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a ‘hard hat’ job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the demolition work associated with the house renovation was not a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection did not play a role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck in the head by a piece of wood … .Reyes v Sligo Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01699, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Failure to provide a worker with hard hat may support a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this pedestrian-car accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff pedestrian violated the Vehicle and Traffic law by crossing the street where there was no crosswalk, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant-driver failed to see what she should have seen:

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s own conduct in crossing the roadway outside of a crosswalk was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to exercise due care to avoid striking the plaintiff with her vehicle by failing to see that which, through the proper use of her senses, she should have seen (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a] …). Davis v Khalil, 2023 NY Slip Op 01659, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff pedestrian was struck by defendant driver crossing a road where there was no crosswalk in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. However, there was a question of fact whether defendant driver failed to see what she should have seen.

 

THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID executive orders tolling the statute of limitations applied to the time to oppose a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint:

In Brash v Richards, this Court determined that Executive Order 202.8 and the subsequent executive orders acted to toll those specific time limits contained in the CPLR and listed in the executive orders … . Executive Order 202.8 and the subsequent executive orders “appear to apply to the service of the notice of appearance” … , but “do[ ] not expressly apply to toll the defendant’s time to serve an answer” … . However, given the hybrid nature of the “motion-action” under CPLR 3213, in which the filing of answering papers is akin to the service of a notice of appearance or an answer … , combined with the desire to preserve the status quo for litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic … , under Executive Order 202.8 and the subsequent executive orders, neither defendant was required to appear and file answering papers … . Blue Lagoon, LLC v Reisman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01657, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: COVID executive orders tolling statutes of limitations apply to the time to answer a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

 

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