You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

AFTER COMPLAINING THAT A JUROR APPEARED TO BE SLEEPING AT TIMES, DEFENSE COUNSEL MADE A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HIM; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY BEFORE DENYING THE MOTION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge did not make a sufficient inquiry of juror number 2 after complaints from defense counsel and the prosecutor that he appeared to be sleeping at times. The judge’s denial of the defense motion to disqualify the juror was therefore based on speculation:

The court never asked juror number two during any of the inquiries if he had fallen asleep or was sleepy. During the third inquiry, the court did not ask juror number two about defense counsel’s specific observations, including that juror number two had allegedly put his head back with his eyes closed and his mouth dropped. The court also failed to ask juror number two what he meant by his equivocal statement that he “[m]ore or less” understood the jury charge, or to ask if there were any specific portions of the jury charge that juror number two did not understand. Although the court did state at one point that “[w]e have not seen [juror number two] sleeping,” the statement, in context, indicates that the court was correcting defense counsel’s misstatement, rather than making its own observation. Likewise, a statement by a court officer that he had not observed juror number two sleeping was not determinative in this case because defense counsel’s assertion that the officer was seated behind juror number two was uncontradicted … . Since the court failed to ask during the third inquiry whether juror number two had fallen asleep during the jury charge, whether he had difficulty staying awake, or about any of defense counsel’s specific observations, its determination that juror number two was not grossly unqualified to serve was based on speculation … . People v Mentor, 2023 NY Slip Op 00677, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: When it appears a juror has been sleeping at times and a motion to disqualify the juror is made, the judge must make a sufficient inquiry before ruling on the motion. Here the denial of the motion to disqualify was not preceded by a sufficient inquiry and defendant’s conviction was reversed.

 

THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO PROBATE AS A LOST WILL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the will should have admitted an instrument to probate as a lost will. It was shown the will was never in decedent’s possession which negated the presumption the will had been revoked:

A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate if (1) it is shown that the will has not been revoked, (2) execution of the will is proved in the manner required for probate of an existing will, and (3) “[a]ll of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete” … . “When a will, although once possessed by a testator, cannot be found after the death of the testator, a strong presumption arises that the testator revoked the will by destruction” … . “The presumption may be overcome, and the lost will admitted to probate, if the proponent establishes that the will was not revoked by the testator during his or her lifetime” … .

Here, in support of the petition, the petitioners submitted, among other things, the affirmation of the attorney-draftsperson, the affidavit of an attesting witness, and the unsigned copy of the decedent’s lost will. The petitioners’ submissions established that the will was never in the decedent’s possession, that the will had not been revoked, and that the will was duly executed … . Matter of McKenna, 2023 NY Slip Op 00664, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: Here there was unsigned, undated copy of the will, proof the will was never in the decedent’s possession and that it had been duly executed. The instrument should have been admitted to probate as a lost will.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGATION THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE IN 1982 – 1983 WAS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO MEET THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act proceeding, determined the claim sufficiently described when the sexual abuse occurred. The claimant alleged she was abused by a state employee in 1982 and 1983 when she was 17. The Court of Claims had dismissed the claim finding that the allegations when the abuse took place were not specific enough. The Second Department found the 1982 – 1983 time frame adequate:

Court of Claims Act § 11(b) “places five specific substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring the claim to specify (1) the nature of [the claim]; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … .  ***

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the date ranges provided in the claim stating that the sexual abuse commenced in approximately 1982 and occurred “repeatedly” and “multiple times” from approximately 1982 to 1983, during periods when the claimant was directed to the Workshop to receive counseling, along with other information contained in the claim including, inter alia, that there was a criminal investigation, prosecution, and conviction of West based upon the claimant’s complaints of sexual abuse, were sufficient to satisfy the “time when” requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) … . Fenton v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act case against a state employee, the allegation the sexual abuse took place in 1982 – 1983 was deemed specific enough to satisfy the pleading requirements in the Court of Claims Act.

Similar issues and result in Meyer v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00658, Second Dept 2-8-23

 

IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT REJECT AN UNTIMELY ANSWER SUBMITTED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT OR STIPULATION, OBJECTION TO THE ANSWER AS UNTIMELY IS WAIVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the amended answer should not have been struck because it was untimely. The plaintiff did not reject the amended answer:

Although Saldarriaga [defendant] filed her amended answer approximately 20 months after filing her original answer, well beyond the period within which an amended pleading could have been served as of right (see CPLR 3025[a]), without obtaining leave of court or the stipulation of all parties to the amendment … , the plaintiff did not reject the amended answer. By “retaining the amended pleading without objection” , the plaintiff waived any “objection as to untimeliness” … . Thus, Saldarriaga’s amended answer should not have been stricken as untimely.  Citibank, N.A. v Saldarriaga, 2023 NY Slip Op 00647, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: If a plaintiff accepts an untimely answer submitted without leave of court or a stipulation, objection to the answer as untimely is waived.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the relation-back doctrine applied such that two physician’s assistants (PA’s) could be added as defendants after the statute of limitations had expired. There was no evidence the PA’s and the doctors were united in interest and no evidence the PA’s had timely notice of the suit:

In a negligence or malpractice action “the defenses available to two defendants will be identical, and thus their interests will be united, only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other” … . … As the PA defendants were employed by the practice, not the individual doctor defendants, there is no vicarious liability based on respondeat superior … . …  [T]he plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that the PA defendants were directly supervised or controlled by the doctor defendants in their care and treatment of the decedent.

… The record is devoid of evidence that the PA defendants had notice that an action had been commenced against the doctor defendants prior to the expiration in 2014 of the statute of limitations for the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action. Sanders v Guida, 2023 NY Slip Op 00455, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here two of the three prongs of the relation-back doctrine should not have been applied to allow adding two physician’s assistants (PA’s) as defendants in this med mal case after the statute of limitations had run. The defendant doctors were not the PA’s employers or supervisors (the doctors and PA’s were not united in interest) and the plaintiff did not show the PA”s had timely knowledge of the suit.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE; THE PRIOR RAPE (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COUNTY COURT’S LEVEL THREE DESIGNATION) STEMMED FROM AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM WHO WAS UNABLE TO CONSENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER AGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender designation. County Court had designated defendant a lever three offender because of a prior rape-third conviction. The rape-third conviction was based solely on the victim’s inability to consent due to her age. The defendant and the victim had been in a long-term relationship:

… [T]he unusual circumstances established by the defendant … are not accounted for by the Guidelines and tend to demonstrate a lower likelihood of reoffense and danger to the community. With respect to the first felony conviction serving as a predicate for the override, rape in the third degree, the People acknowledged that the victim’s lack of consent was solely by reason of inability to consent because of her age. Further, the record reflects that conduct underlying this crime was an ongoing relationship between the defendant and the victim. During this relationship, a video depicting sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim was taken. This video, depicting the same conduct for which the defendant was convicted of rape in the third degree and designated a level one sex offender, was discovered by a probation officer approximately a year later, and served as the basis for the defendant’s second sex-related felony conviction, possessing a sexual performance by a child. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 00451, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender designation. The rape which County Court relied on for a level three designation stemmed from an ongoing relationship with the victim who was unable to consent solely because of her age.

 

,

A PRESENTENCE REPORT MUST BE CREATED FOR EACH OFFENSE; HERE THE JUDGE USED A PRESENTENCE REPORT PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT UNRELATED OFFENSE; THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing court should not have used a presentence report created for an earlier, unrelated offense. A unique presentence report for each offense is mandatory:

CPL 390.20 provides that “[i]n any case where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must order a pre-sentence investigation of the defendant and it may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such investigation” (CPL 390.20[1]). This statutory language is mandatory … and a sentencing court’s failure to obtain a presentence report renders the sentence imposed invalid as a matter of law … .

Here, the County Court sentenced the defendant on the murder conviction without ordering or receiving a presentence report relating to the murder conviction. Instead, the court relied on a presentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the facts and circumstances of which were not related to the facts and circumstances of the murder conviction. … [T]his did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 390.20, and therefore the sentence was illegally imposed. People v Shearer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00445, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: A judge cannot use a presentence report prepared for one offense in a sentencing for a different, unrelated offense.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing or compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … . Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and a chain of purported allonges ending with an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were on pieces of paper completely separate from the note, were “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

Johnson’s [the foreclosure specialist’s] affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …  Further, Johnson’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Fay’s [plaintiff’s loan servicer’s] relationship with LenderLive [third-party vendor which sent the RPAPL 1304 notice] and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Fay’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Johnson’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 …) . US Bank N.A. v Okoye-Oyibo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note; therefore the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action was not demonstrated.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SCHOOL PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM AND PETITIONER DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school board should not have been granted. Petitioner alleged her child was not properly supervised at recess. The child apparently ran into a piece of equipment when being chased by classmates. There was an accident report and the three recess supervisors indicated they did not see the incident. The Second Department held that the school did not have timely notice of the potential claim and petitioner did not have an adequate excuse for failing to timely file:

… [T]he accident claim form states that three school employees were supervising recess but did not see the infant petitioner become injured. This, standing alone, is insufficient to establish actual knowledge of a potential negligent supervision claim because it is well established that schools “‘cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students'” …  The petitioners also failed to establish that the School Board had actual knowledge of the facts constituting their other two claims … . The petitioners identify no factual connection between the recess supervisors not seeing the infant petitioner’s injury and either the allegedly defective nature of the playground equipment or the instruction given or not given to students at recess. It is not even clear from the description of the incident on the accident claim form whether the school was aware that the infant petitioner injured himself on a “metal joint” as alleged in the petition and the notice of claim. Thus, the petitioners failed to establish that the School Board had actual knowledge of the facts constituting their claims … . Matter of R. M. v Board of Educ. of the Long Beach City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 00320, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted in this school-playground accident case. There was an accident report but the report did not demonstrate the school had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit. in addition, petitioner did not offer a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file.

 

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff, who was replacing damaged ceiling tiles when he fell, was doing repair work covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6), or routine cleaning, which is not covered:

“In determining whether a particular activity constitutes ‘repairing,’ courts are careful to distinguish between repairs and routine maintenance” … , since “routine maintenance” work performed “in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context” is not a covered activity … .

… [T]he City failed to establish … that the tasks [plaintiff] was performing at the time of the accident were associated with routine maintenance, which is not a covered activity under the Labor Law, rather than repair work, which may be covered, even if it was not part of a larger renovation project … . Nooney v Queensborough Pub. Lib., 2023 NY Slip Op 00327, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Routine maintenance is not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) but repair is. Here there was a question of fact whether replacing damaged ceiling tiles was repair or routine maintenance.

 

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