You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

DECEDENT’S WIFE’S CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER 9-11 IS SUBJECT TO THE TWO-YEAR DEADLINE FOR NOTICE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 28; BECAUSE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE DEATH BENEFITS CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the claim by decedent’s wife for death benefits pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law Article 8-a (re: disability due to work at the World Trade Center after 9-11) was properly denied because the two-year notice requirement in Worker’s Compensation Law 28 applies and was not complied with:

… [G]iven that decedent, not claimant, was a participant within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 161, it was decedent who was entitled to file a claim for benefits outside of the period allowed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. Claimant cannot piggyback upon that entitlement, as her claim for death benefits “accrue[d] at the time of [decedent’s] death and ‘is a separate and distinct legal proceeding’ from [decedent’s] original disability claim” … .The language of the … statutory provisions … clearly reflects that claimant cannot avail herself of the exception to the two-year filing requirement created by Workers’ Compensation Law § 168. Matter of Garcia v WTC Volunteer, 2022 NY Slip Op 07110 Third Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here decedent’s wife sough death benefits stemming from decedent’s work at the World Trade Center after 9-11. The claim was deemed subject to the two-year notice deadline in Workers’ Compensation Law 28 and properly denied.

 

HERE THE CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED DISABLED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (CANCER) CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS; THE EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPENSATION IS THE LAST EMPLOYER WHERE THE NATURE OF THE WORK EXPOSED CLAIMANT TO ASBESTOS, NOT NECESSARILY THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME THE CANCER WAS DIAGNOSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board and remitting the matter, determined the Board did not use the correct criteria for determining the employer or insurer responsible to pay for claimant’s disability due to occupational disease, i.e., lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure:

… [I]n determining that the carrier was on the risk for the claim, the Board premised its finding solely on the date of disablement, or October 15, 2019, instead of evidence concerning the timing of claimant’s contraction of lung cancer and the “employer who last employed the employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due and in which it was contracted” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 44). This reasoning resulted in a misapplication of Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. “Simply put, disability while employed by a previous employer is not a prerequisite to a finding that a claimant contracted an occupational disease while employed by that employer” … . As such, we reverse and remit for a determination in the first instance of the proper employer and/or carrier on the risk utilizing the correct standard set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 … . Matter of Candela v Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07113, Third Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the occupational disease which disabled claimant was cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The employer responsible for compensation is the last employer where the nature of the work exposed claimant to asbestos, not necessarily the employer at the time the cancer was diagnosed.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice case. determined the motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should not have been granted. but the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted, explaining the difference:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . …

… “[A] motion to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should be granted ‘[o]nly where the evidence so preponderates in favor of the unsuccessful litigant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . … “‘Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a factual question. In reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division has the power to determine whether a particular factual question was correctly resolved by the trier of facts. If the original fact determination was made by a jury, as in this case, and the Appellate Division concludes that the jury has made erroneous factual findings, the court is required to order a new trial, since it does not have the power to make new findings of fact in a jury case'” … . * * *

As to the weight of the evidence, based on the record, we find that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and must be set aside (see CPLR 4404[a] …). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the complaint, grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial…. . Osorio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07072, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: When an appellate court determines the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence in a jury trial it must order a new trial because an appellate court does not have the authority to make new findings of fact in a jury trial.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant homeowners were not entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Apparently the raised part of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property, but much of that same flag abutted defendants’ property. Because the village code placed responsibility on the homeowners to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition, in order to warrant summary judgment, the defendants were required to demonstrate they maintained the portion of the sidewalk in front of their property in a reasonable safe condition or that the failure to do so was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. Defendants offered no evidence on that issue:

While the homeowners demonstrated that the section of the sidewalk containing the defect on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped did not abut their property, their submissions in support of their motion also included evidence that the sidewalk flag on one side of the defect—which was not level with the adjacent flag, resulting in the height differential on which the plaintiff tripped—extended several feet onto their side of the property line. To meet their prima facie burden, the homeowners were “required to do more than simply demonstrate that the alleged defect was on another landowner’s property” … . They were required to make a prima facie showing that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk abutting their own property in a reasonably safe condition, or that any failure to do so was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Kuritsky v Meshenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 07066, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the village code placed responsibility for maintaining sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition on the abutting property owners. The raised portion of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property. But several feet of that same sidewalk flag extended in front of defendants’ property. To warrant summary the defendants were required to show either that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk which abutted their property in a reasonably safe condition, or that the failure to do so was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. The defendants presented no evidence on the issue.

 

, ,

RESETTLEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS PROPER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN THE JUDGMENT; RESETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judgment of divorce should have been resettled to the extent that the judgment conform with the stipulation. But the judgment should not have been modified to include a provision which was not in the stipulation. Resettlement cannot be used to amend the judgment, as opposed to correcting a mistake:

Resettlement of a judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) is an appropriate remedy when the judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation of settlement … . Here, although the judgment of divorce provided that the defendant was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children, that provision was inconsistent with the terms of the stipulation. Specifically, the stipulation contained a provision which set forth that the plaintiff was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children through her employer unless she became unemployed, and then the defendant would be responsible for providing health insurance for them through his employer. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to resettle the judgment of divorce to the extent it sought to replace the provision requiring the defendant to provide health insurance for the parties’ children with a provision requiring the plaintiff to be solely responsible to provide health insurance for the parties’ children … . The amendment proposed by the defendant failed to comport with the terms of the stipulation regarding the responsibility of the parties as to the health insurance for their children and was a substantive modification beyond the court’s inherent authority to correct a mistake, defect, or irregularity in the original judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019[a] …). Ferrigan v Ferrigan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07058, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here resettlement of the judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019 was appropriate only to the extent of correcting a mistake by conforming the judgment to the stipulation. Resettlement should not have been used to amend the judgment to include a provision which was not in the stipulation.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED ABOUT $275,000; THE JUDGE ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48; PLANTIFF DID NOT DO SO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF YEARS; THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION ON THE INQUEST WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order granting a default judgment and the decision awarding nearly $275,000 must be vacated because plaintiff did not submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), “[p]roposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted.” “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (id. § 202.48[b]). Here, it is undisputed that, on January 10, 2017, the plaintiff was directed to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), the plaintiff was required to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment within 60 days after January 10, 2017 … . It is also undisputed that the plaintiff failed to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment until July 2, 2019, nearly 2½ years after the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, the plaintiff failed to timely settle a judgment pursuant to the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a).

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show good cause for his lengthy delay in submitting a notice of settlement and proposed judgment in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive … . Thus, under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to vacate the order dated July 23, 2014. … [T]he decision rendered after the inquest must also be vacated. Cruz v Pierce, 2022 NY Slip Op 07054, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was granted a default judgment and, after an inquest of damages, was awarded nearly $275,000. The judge ordered plaintiff to submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48. Plaintiff failed to do so and the order granting the default judgment and the decision awarding damages were vacated.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Vertex’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring defendant was the sole owner of the real property should have been granted. Vertex purchased the property from the record owner. The fact that the record owner had entered into an unrecorded agreement acknowledging beneficial ownership by others who contributed to the purchase price, including plaintiff, who resided on the property, did not affect defendant’s status as a good-faith purchaser, despite plaintiff’s filing a notice of pendency prior to defendant’s recording of the deed:

… [T]o establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry” … .

… Vertex established … that it purchased the subject property for valuable consideration, without actual or constructive notice of the plaintiff’s alleged interest … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his filing of a notice of pendency against the property before Vertex filed its deed did not negate Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . “[H]aving failed to avail itself of the protection of either Real Property Law §§ 291 or 294, the plaintiff may not successfully contend that its filing of a notice of pendency serves as a substitute for the recording of a conveyance or a contract” … . Vertex also established … that the plaintiff’s occupancy at the property “was not inconsistent with the title of the apparent owner of record,” and thus, did not defeat Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . In addition, Vertex established … that the 2008 agreement did not negate its status as a good-faith purchaser, as that agreement was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). Bello v Ouellette, 2022 NY Slip Op 07043, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff had entered an unrecorded written agreement with the record owner of the real property indicating plaintiff, who resided on the property, had a one-fourth beneficial interest in the property. Defendant was unaware of the agreement. Defendant’s goof-faith-purchaser status was not affected by the fact that plaintiff filed a notice of pendency before defendant recorded the deed.

 

THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 94 absentee ballots suffered from a curable defect. Therefore the absentee ballots should not have been deemed invalid. Rather, the voters should have been notified of the defect and given an opportunity to correct it. The defect concerned unsealed envelopes which were inside sealed envelopes:

Here, each of the 94 absentee ballots was received by the Board with an unsealed ballot affirmation envelope inside a completely sealed outer mailing envelope. Therefore, the defects were curable under Election Law § 9-209(3)(b)-(e) (see 9 NYCRR 6210.21[g][2]). Matter of Amato v Sullivan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07039, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the absentee ballots were deemed invalid because envelopes were not sealed. However, pursuant to the Election Law, unsealed envelopes inside sealed envelopes constitute a curable defect. The voters should have been given the opportunity to cure the defect.

 

,

CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should have been granted. Claimant was injured working on the Tappan Zee Bridge and served a notice of intention to file a claim on the attorney general but not, as required, on the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The absence of a valid excuse (ignorance of the law) was not determinative. The action had merit and the NYSTA had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim:

Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors set forth therein, to allow a claimant to file a late claim … . “In determining whether to permit the filing of a [late] claim . . . the court shall consider, among other factors, [1] whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; [2] whether the state had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; [3] whether the state had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; [4] whether the claim appears to be meritorious; [5] whether the failure to file or serve upon the attorney general a timely claim . . . resulted in substantial prejudice to the state; and [6] whether the claimant has any other available remedy” … .. “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . Swart v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07088, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The Court of Claims, pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 10(6), has the discretion to allow a claimant to file a late claim. Here the excuse, ignorance of the law, was not valid. But the claim was deemed to have merit and the respondent had timely knowledge of the underlying facts. Therefore the Court of Claims should have granted claimant’s motion to file a late claim.

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