You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the claimant’s failure to set forth the correct date of the alleged dental malpractice in the notice of intention to file a claim was a jurisdictional defect, notwithstanding the correct date set forth in the subsequently filed claim: Because the notice of intention was jurisdictionally defective it did not extend the 90-day period for filing a claim rendering the claim filed more than a year and a half later untimely:

The claimant served the defendant with a notice of intention to file a claim dated January 9, 2017, which alleged that the claimant was injured when her mouth and lips were burned during the course of her treatment as a patient at a particular address where the defendant operated a school of dental medicine. The notice of intention to file a claim stated that “[t]he claim arose on or about October 15, 2016, the last date of continuous treatment and prior to said date.”

In the subsequent claim, dated October 16, 2018, the claimant stated that she was injured on October 20, 2016, when hot wax was negligently spilled on her face and mouth while an employee of the defendant was attempting to make a wax mold for dentures. * * *

Section 10(3) of the Court of Claims Act sets forth time limitations for asserting “[a] claim to recover damages . . . for personal injuries caused by . . . negligence.” Such a claim “shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within [90] days after the accrual of such claim” (id.). However, if the claimant serves “a written notice of intention to file a claim” within 90 days after the accrual of the claim, “the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim” … . * * * Since the claimant’s notice of intention to file a claim was substantively deficient (see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]), it did not extend the claimant’s time to file and serve a claim beyond the 90-day statutory period … . Under the circumstances, the claim was untimely (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] …). “The claimant’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Court of Claims Act deprived the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction” … . Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sacher v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07087, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Including the wrong date for the allegedly negligent act in the notice of intention to file a claim renders the notice jurisdictionally defective pursuant to the Court of Claims Act.

Practice Point: Ordinarily filing a notice of intention to file a claim extends the period for filing a claim from 90 days to two years. However, the extension is not triggered by a jurisdictionally defective notice of claim. The claim here, filed more than a year and a half after the notice of intention, was therefore untimely.

 

, ,

THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “unsafe intersection design” cause of action against the city in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed. The city was not entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence any studies of the intersection had been undertaken or any highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made. The court noted the fact that the city had no notice the intersection was unsafe and no accidents had been reported did not warrant summary judgment on whether the city had created a dangerous condition:

… [W]here the initial traffic design is challenged, the municipality must show that there was a reasonable basis for the traffic plan in the first instance … . As the City defendants failed to establish that the original design of the subject intersection was based on a deliberative decision-making process which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury, the City defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity … .

… [T]he lack of prior similar accidents or notice did not establish the City defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under ordinary negligence principles. Since the City defendants created the alleged dangerous condition with their design of the intersection, “the ‘usual questions of notice of the condition are irrelevant'” … . … [T]he lack of prior similar accidents within the five years preceding the plaintiff’s accident did not establish, by itself, that the intersection was reasonably safe. Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . A lack of prior accidents “is some evidence that a condition is not dangerous or unsafe” … . However, it is only a factor to be considered and does not negate the possibility of negligence … . Petronic v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: In an “unsafe intersection design” case, the municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a study of the intersection had been undertaken and a highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made.

Practice Point: Because it was alleged the city created the dangerous intersection, the lack of notice and prior accidents did not warrant summary judgment dismissing the negligent-design cause of action.

 

,

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction stemming from a transparent plastic bag of pills seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop. determined the seizure of the pills was not justified by the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The court noted that the Penal Law statute prohibiting a probable-cause finding based solely on the odor of marijuana is not applied retroactively and therefore the marijuana odor and the observation of the marijuana provided probable cause for a search pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement here:

The plain view doctrine is not applicable where the object must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined … . The movement or manipulation of an object from its original state in a manner that goes beyond the objectives of the original search constitutes an independent search or seizure … . Such a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated … .

Here, Cruz [the officer] testified that he did not know what the pills in the ziploc bag were when he seized them. * * *

Since it was obvious that the transparent ziploc bag seized by Cruz did not contain marihuana, and since it was not immediately apparent that the ziploc bag contained any other type of contraband, there was no justification for seizing the bag … . People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07080, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The Penal Law statute prohibiting a probable-cause finding based solely on the odor of marijuana is not applied retroactively.

Practice Point: If an object, i.e., a transparent plastic bag of pills, must be manipulated before it can be determined to be contraband, seizure under the plain view exception is not justified. Here the odor and observation of marijuana provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle, and containers within the vehicle, for marijuana. Because the transparent bag of pills did not contain marijuana, the plain view exception did not apply.

 

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 4 1/2 inch riser at the entrance to a shower, over which plaintiff tripped and fell, was open and obvious as a matter of law:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a tiled single-step riser while entering a shower stall in the locker room at the defendant’s fitness club. The single-step riser was approximately 4½ inches high and was tiled in the same color and pattern as the floor tiles which bordered the top and bottom of the step. * * *

“[T]he issue of ‘[w]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances'” … . In addition, “whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the single-step riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the surrounding circumstances, including the lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Lore v Fitness Intl., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06922, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case, defendant did not demonstrate a 4 1/2 riser at the entrance to a shower was open and obvious as a matter of law.

 

,

PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION TO DETERMINE A RESIDENT’S MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY THE RESIDENT’S FAILURE TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OR THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held plaintiff nursing home can bring a plenary action in its own right to determined the Medicaid eligibility of a resident. The nursing home is not bound by the resident’s failure to request an administrative appeal and is not constrained the the four-month statute of limitations in CPLR 217:

The plaintiff, an operator of a nursing home facility, commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring that one of its residents was entitled to Medicaid coverage for the period February 7, 2013, through August 31, 2014, with an appropriate transfer penalty. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the statute of limitations had expired, and the plaintiff failed to join a necessary party. In an order dated November 26, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. “It is well established that a nursing home may, as here, bring a plenary action in its own right against the agency designated to determine Medicaid eligibility” … . In such a plenary action, the nursing home is “not bound by the patient’s failure to request an administrative appeal of the local agency’s denial of medical assistance” or “by the four-month Statute of Limitations contained in CPLR 217” … . Moreover, authorizations executed by the resident allowing designated employees of the plaintiff to represent him “during the Medicaid eligibility process” and during “any Fair Hearings” did not impair the plaintiff’s right to commence its own plenary action … . Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr. v Pierre, 2022 NY Slip Op 06920, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: A nursing home can bring a plenary action in its own right to determine the Medicaid eligibility of its resident without regard for whether the resident pursued an administrative appeal and is not constrained by the four-month statute of limitations in CPLR 217.

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice (mailing) requirements of RPAPL 1304 or the notice requirements of RPAPL 1303:

… [T]he letter log submitted by the plaintiff and relied upon by the employee of the plaintiff’s alleged loan servicer in his affidavit failed to establish that the 90-day notice was actually mailed to the defendant by both certified mail and first-class mail … . “‘[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . None of the other documents submitted by the plaintiff, considered individually or together, including the copies of the 90-day notice letters themselves, provided any information as to whether the notice was sent to the defendant by regular first-class mail … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions did not demonstrate that the notice served upon the defendant complied with the type-size requirements in RPAPL 1303 … .Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Raja, 2022 NY Slip Op 06912, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Once again, the bank in this foreclosure action did not submit sufficient proof of strict compliance with the notice and mailing requirements of RPAPL 1303 or 1304.

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The affidavit attesting to defendant’s default did not identify or attach the business records relied upon:

… [A] plaintiff can establish a default by submission of an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or other evidence in admissible form” … . Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from Elizabeth A. Ostermann, a vice president of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who attested to the borrower’s default in payment. However, Ostermann’s knowledge was based upon her review of unidentified business records, which she failed to attach to her affidavit, and therefore, her assertions regarding the borrower’s alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Unlimited Assets, 2022 NY Slip Op 06907, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in this foreclosure action to prove defendant’s default did not identify or attach the relevant business records. Therefore the affidavit had no probative value.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. The evidence, including video evidence, demonstrated defendant’s bus had a green left-turn arrow when the bus collided with plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle as the bus was turning. The court also found the damages for future pain and suffering excessive:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a “valid line of reasoning” that could lead a rational person to the liability verdict in this case … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law.

However, the jury verdict on the issue of liability was contrary to the weight of the evidence, as “the evidence preponderate[d] so heavily in the [defendants’] favor that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . * * * … [W]e remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new trial on the issue of liability.  Blair v Coleman, 2022 NY Slip Op 06902, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: In this traffic accident case, defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law was properly denied. But the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. The appellate court ordered a new trial on liability.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; A HOSPITAL WILL NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR SURGERY COMPETENTLY PERFORMED BY HOSPITAL STAFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRIVATE PHYSICIANS WHO DID THE PRIMARY SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the defendant surgeons should not have been dismissed on the ground plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was conclusory. The affidavit raised questions of fact about whether defendant surgeon deviated from the requisite standard of care. The court noted that the plaintiff’s expert did not review the pleadings and all the evidence was irrelevant. The court also noted that the action against the hospital based upon the surgical procedures performed by hospital staff was properly dismissed. A hospital will not be vicariously liable where hospital staff competently carry out the orders of the private physicians who did the primary surgery:

… [T]he plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion did not consist of merely general and conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The plaintiffs’ expert made specific allegations based upon the operative reports and CT scan which were part of the medical records, and addressed specific assertions made [defendants’] expert. …

Although the plaintiffs’ expert did not review the pleadings, and all the evidence, that failure went to the weight, not the admissibility of his opinion . The operative report regarding the hysterectomy was part of the injured plaintiff’s hospital records, was electronically signed by Germain [defendant surgeon], and was relied upon by [defendants’] expert … . Therefore, the plaintiffs’ expert properly relied upon that report in reaching his conclusions. * * *

At the conclusion of the surgery, the physician assisting Germain was replaced by an employee of the hospital. However, by that time, the surgery was over, and the doctors were closing up the injured plaintiff. There is no allegation or evidence that the hospital physician committed malpractice or could have had any influence on the course of the surgery at that juncture.

“Where hospital staff, such as resident physicians and nurses, have participated in the treatment of the patient, the hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries where the hospital employees merely carried out the private attending physician’s orders,” except when the hospital staff follows orders knowing that the doctor’s orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders, the hospital’s employees have committed independent acts of negligence, or the words or conduct of the hospital give rise to the appearance and belief that the physician possesses the authority to act on behalf of the hospital … . Bhuiyan v Germain, 2022 NY Slip Op 06901, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here, in this medical malpractice case, the fact that plaintiff’s expert did not review the pleadings and all the evidence was not a legitimate reason for rejecting the expert’s affidavit. The expert relied on relevant evidence and the affidavit was not conclusory.

Practice Point: A hospital will not be vicariously liable for surgery competently done by hospital staff at the direction of the private physicians who did the primary surgery.

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment did not meet the criteria of either CPLR 5015(a)(1) or CPLR 317:

“A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action” … . * * *

Here, the defendant failed to provide a “detailed and credible explanation” for the default … . Rather, the defendant submitted only an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer averring that the defendant’s agent for process had emailed the summons and complaint to the servicer, and the complaint had been “routed in error to the incorrect email address within” the servicer, which prevented the servicer from “timely notify[ing] its counsel of the [instant] action.” That conclusory and nondetailed allegation does not constitute a reasonable excuse warranting vacatur of the default … . * * *

Although the defendant expressly moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) only, the Supreme Court properly considered whether the defendant set forth grounds to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 317 … . CPLR 317 provides, in relevant part, that a party served with a summons other than by personal delivery and who does not appear “may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he [or she] obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment . . . upon a finding of the court that he [or she] did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense.” A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 is not required to set forth a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering the complaint … . However, “‘to support a determination granting relief under CPLR 317, a party must still demonstrate, and the Court must find, that the party did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action'” … .

… [T]he defendant did not even deny receipt of the summons and complaint. 259 Milford, LLC v FV-1, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06898, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: The criteria for vacation of a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 317 are different and are explained in this decision. The defendant did not meet the criteria for either statute.

 

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