You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PURSUE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE POLICY LIMITS AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed. It was alleged the defendant attorney, in this traffic accident case, failed to pursue damages in excess of the insurance-policy limits against the tortfeasor personally. Defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff would not have prevailed in an action against the tortfeasor personally:

“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “The plaintiff is required to plead actual, ascertainable damages that resulted from the attorneys’ negligence” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff had no actual or ascertainable damages. “The defendant must affirmatively demonstrate the absence of one of the elements of legal malpractice” … . The complaint alleged that the damages included the failure to pursue SUM benefits, as well as the failure to pursue recovery against the alleged tortfeasor. Since it was alleged … that the defendants’ legal malpractice prevented the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment against the alleged tortfeasor, the defendants had the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the plaintiff would not have prevailed against the alleged tortfeasor or that the alleged tortfeasor did not have personal assets such that his motorist insurance policy limit that was recovered in the amount of $50,000, was the maximum judgment that could have been obtained from him … . The defendants failed to do so. Chicas v Cassar, 2023 NY Slip Op 00202, Second Dept 1-18-23

Practice Point: Defendant attorney in this legal malpractice case did not demonstrate plaintiff would not have prevailed in an action against the tortfeasor personally in the underlying traffic accident case. Plaintiff alleged defendant attorney negligently failed to seek damages over and above the policy limits from the tortfeasor. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the terms of the lease raised a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord was required to repair nonstructural floor defects:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a ‘duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “Where the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court” … . Here, according to the lease agreement, the landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” Contrary to the defendant’s contention, pursuant to the lease agreement, its duty to repair the floor was not limited to floor conditions which were structural in nature, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to repair the alleged nonstructural condition at issue … . Weidner v Basser-Kaufman 228, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00126, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: The lease provided the out-of-possession landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” The landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case on the ground the lease did not create a duty to make nonstructural floor repairs.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S GOOD-FAITH AFFIRMATION DID NOT INCLUDE DETAILS OF ANY EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND WAS THEREFORE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT TO A DEPOSITION UNDER THREAT OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion compelling defendant to appear for a deposition under threat of preclusion should not have been granted because plaintiffs’ counsel’s good-faith affirmation was inadequate:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place, and nature of the consultation as well as the issues discussed. Here, the affirmation of good faith submitted by the plaintiffs’ counsel in support of their motion to compel disclosure and for other related relief failed to provide any detail of their efforts to resolve the issues. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion should have been denied … . Muchnik v Mendez Trucking, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00100, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Pont: Here the affidavit plaintiffs’ counsel submitted did not detail the efforts made to resolve the discovery issue and was therefore inadequate. Therefore Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant’s deposition under threat of preclusion.

 

,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this road-defect slip and fall case should not have been granted:

… [T]he petitioner’s initial delay in serving a notice of claim upon the City was reasonable, as she provided evidence that she was incapacitated until April 2019 … . However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the additional nine-month delay between the time she was released from the hospital and the time she commenced this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . The police accident report, the NYPD investigative documents, and the FOIL requests to the NYPD and the DOT did not contain facts from which it can be “readily inferred that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed” by the City … .

In addition, the petitioner failed to satisfy her initial burden of demonstrating that the City would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay … . Matter of Salazar v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00095, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: Here the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. The nine-month delay was not explained; the city did not have timely notice of the potential lawsuit, and petitioner did not show the city would not be prejudiced by the delay.

 

, ,

​HERE THERE IS AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the matter should have been referred to the Workers’ Compensation Board and therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell at certain property owned by the defendants (hereinafter the property). Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment as a housekeeper/household employee at the property and that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy for the damages alleged in the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, as premature, without prejudice to renew.

Primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter the Board) and it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the Board … . “Where the issue of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law is in dispute, and a plaintiff fails to litigate that issue before the Board, a court should not express an opinion as to the availability of compensation, but should refer the matter to the Board because the Board’s disposition of the plaintiff’s compensation claim is a jurisdictional predicate to the civil action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Board for a hearing and determination as to whether the plaintiff is relegated to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Lall v Harnick, 2023 NY Slip Op 00080, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: Any question about whether plaintiff is entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits must be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Here in this slip and fall case Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The employer argued the defendant-employee was driving his own car and was not operating the car in the course of his employment. The evidence submitted by the employer was not “documentary evidence” which would support a motion to dismiss:

“A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “[T]o be considered ‘documentary,’ evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Davis v Henry, 2023 NY Slip Op 00076, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: “Documentary evidence” which will support a motion to dismiss include mortgages, deeds, contracts, etc., not affidavits, deposition testimony or letters.

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER, WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL, DESCRIBED THE ALLEGED STABBING WAS INADMISSBILE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault conviction, over a dissent, determined the police officer’s (Costello’s) testimony about the defendant’s daughter’s explanation of the alleged stabbing, which included a reinactment, was testimonial hearsay and should not have been admitted. The defendant’s daughter did not testify at the trial. In addition, the defendant’s son’s statement to the defendant at the scene (Why, why, why? Why did you stab my mom?”) should not have been admitted as an excited utterance because the son did not witness the alleged stabbing:

“Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution” … . To determine which of these categories an out-of-court statement falls into, a court should focus on “the purpose that the statement was intended to serve” … , and to ascertain “the ‘primary purpose’ of an interrogation,” a court should “objectively evaluate the circumstances in which the encounter occurs and the statements and actions of the parties” … .

… [T]he daughter’s statements to Costello regarding the circumstances under which the defendant had stabbed the victim were testimonial in nature. Viewing the record objectively, at the time the statements were made, there was no ongoing emergency. The victim had been removed from the scene and taken to a hospital. The defendant had been taken into custody and transported to a police station. Indeed, Costello testified that a detective was never even assigned to the case, precisely because the police already “had the alleged perpetrator in custody.” Although the daughter was still deeply upset as a result of the stabbing, she was not in need of police assistance, and it is clear that Costello’s questions were not asked for the purpose of facilitating such assistance. Rather, the primary purpose of Costello’s questioning of the daughter “was to investigate a possible crime” … . Costello “was not seeking to determine . . . what is happening, but rather what happened” … . Indeed, Costello expressly asked the daughter to “indicate to [him] what happened.” Moreover, Costello went beyond simply asking what happened and requested that the daughter describe and illustrate exactly how it happened using simple words and gestures. While the People argue that Costello requested the use of gestures merely to overcome a language barrier, the fact remains that he asked the daughter to convey information about past events. The daughter’s detailed account of those events, complete with a physical re-enactment of the crime, did “precisely what a witness does on direct examination,” and thus was “inherently testimonial” … . People v Vargas, 2022 NY Slip Op 07460, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Here a police officer was allowed to testify about how defendant’s daughter described the alleged stabbing. The daughter did not testify at the trial. Because the officer was trying to ascertain what happened in the past (the defendant was already in custody), as opposed to “what is happening” during an emergency, what the daughter told the officer was testimonial hearsay which should not have been admitted. The decision includes a good explanation of the difference between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT-WIFE’S ATTORNEY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION MISSED A COUPLE OF THE 60-DAY BILLING PERIODS, THE ATTORNEY WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) AND THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; $135,315.90 AWARDED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-wife’s attorney was in substantial compliance with the billing requirements of 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) and the wife’s request for attorney’s fess in this divorce action should not have been denied:

… [T]he defendant’s attorney was in substantial compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) … . Although the attorney for the defendant was dilatory in sending an initial invoice approximately 154 days after he was retained, the billable hours during that interval were itemized and accounted for, and the remainder of the invoices he sent all complied with the 60-day rule. Under the circumstances, the court should not have precluded the defendant from recovering an award of attorneys’ fees for failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9), and we conclude that the plaintiff should be responsible for the balance of the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and expenses, net of his prior payments, less $3,487.50 related to a duplicative motion for expenses, which amounts to $135,315.90. Spataro v Spataro, 2022 NY Slip Op 07470, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) requires attorneys in divorce proceeding to bill every 60 days. Here the attorney missed a couple of the 60-day billing periods but the client’s request for attorney’s fees should not have been denied on that ground. The appellate division awarded $135,315.90.

 

,

​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the area where plaintiff slipped and fell, In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease, was responsible for the snow and ice removal:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not contractually obligated to remove snow and ice from the subject driveway, that they did not assume such a duty through a course of conduct, and that they did not violate any relevant statute or regulation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a duty to remove snow or ice under statute or regulation, the terms of the lease, or a course of conduct … . Sweeney v Hoey, 2022 NY Slip Op 07471, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the are where plaintiff-tenant fell. In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease was himself responsible for the snow and ice removal.

 

INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from an A-frame ladder while attempting to install a television on a wall in a doctor’s office:

Labor Law § 240(1) states that all contractors, owners, and their agents must supply protective equipment to laborers who are engaged in the “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building” … . As such, “[t]o successfully assert a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that he or she was injured during ‘the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure'” … . “[T]he term ‘altering’ in section 240(1) ‘requires making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure'” … . This definition excludes “‘routine maintenance'” and “‘decorative modifications'” … ,

The defendants established that the plaintiff was not engaged in any of the enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, affixing a bracket to a wall so that a television might be mounted on it did not make a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure”  … . Saitta v Marsah Props., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07467, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Installing a TV on a wall is not one of the activities 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