You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY INTERIM ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE NONMONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined interim attorney’s fees should have been awarded to the nonmonied spouse:

Supreme Court improperly referred to the trial court that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] …). “Because of the importance of such awards to the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, . . . an application for interim counsel fees by the nonmonied spouse in a divorce action should not be denied—or deferred until after the trial, which functions as a denial—without good cause, articulated by the court in a written decision” … . Here, the court erred in summarily referring that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees to the trial court, which functioned as a denial of that relief, and failed to articulate any reasons, much less good cause, for that determination. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrates that she is the nonmonied spouse, as the defendant earned five to seven times more income than the plaintiff in recent years … . While the defendant argues that the plaintiff has funds available to her, the plaintiff “cannot be expected to exhaust all, or a large portion, of the finite resources available to her in order to pay her attorneys, particularly when the [defendant] is able to pay his own legal fees without any substantial impact upon his lifestyle” … . Fugazy v Fugazy, 2022 NY Slip Op 06115, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce action it was deemed an abuse of discretion to, without explanation, deny interim attorney’s fees to the nonmonied spouse.

 

,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that allegation defendant did not see plaintiff’s brake lights in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact about whether brake lights were not functioning:

… [T]he defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his claim that he did not see brake lights on the plaintiffs’ vehicle prior to the collision, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether an alleged malfunction of the brake lights on the plaintiffs’ vehicle proximately caused the accident … . Quintanilla v Mark, 2022 NY Slip Op 06151, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In this rear-end collision case, the defendant’s allegation he did not see plaintiff’s brake lights did not raise a question of fact about whether the brake lights were functioning properly.

 

,

IN AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF REASONABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IS USUALLY A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement. Plaintiff radiologist alleged defendant induced him to open a radiology practice which, plaintiff said, already had a patient-referral system in place. Plaintiff alleged that, after expending funds to open the practice, he learned he would have to pay for the referrals and he shut the practice down. The appellate court held that whether plaintiff reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation usually is a question of fact for the jury:

Regarding reasonable reliance on a misrepresentation of a material fact, the “plaintiff is expected to exercise ordinary diligence and may not claim to have reasonably relied on a defendant’s representations [or silence] where he [or she] has means available to him [or her] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation” … .

The “question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is always nettlesome because it is so fact-intensive” …  The resolution of the issue of whether a plaintiff reasonably relied on a defendant’s misrepresentation in support of a cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement is ordinarily relegated to the finder of fact … . … [P]laintiffs adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement insofar as the determination of the reasonableness of [plaintiff-radiologist’s] reliance on [defendant’s] alleged misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the source of the … patient referrals itself entailed a question of fact not appropriate for summary disposition as a matter of law. Feldman v Byrne, 2022 NY Slip Op 06113, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In an action for fraudulent inducement, whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was reasonable is a difficult issue which usually raises a question of fact for the jury and therefore cannot be summarily resolved in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED FACTS SUPPORTING PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the complaint sufficiently alleged the corporate veil should be pierced, and (2) the unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action should not have been dismissed:

… [A] plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . “The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance depends on the particular facts and circumstances” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form include whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations … .

… [T]he plaintiffs adequately pleaded allegations that [the individual defendants] dominated [the corporations], and that they engaged in acts amounting to an abuse of the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiffs … . …

Where, as here, the existence of a contract, in this case, the alleged agreements [are] in dispute, a plaintiff may allege a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment as an alternative to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014 …). Consequently, the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action … . Furthermore, the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action since it alleged that the defendants engaged in additional conduct to realize gains from the plaintiffs, while depriving the plaintiffs of the benefits of the parties’ agreements … . F&R Goldfish Corp. v Furleiter, 2022 NY Slip Op 06112. Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: The facts alleged in the complaint supported piercing the corporate veil, criteria explained.

Practice Point: Because the existence of the agreements was in dispute, the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action.

Practice Point: The facts alleged supported a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A SUPPRESSION RULING GROUNDED ON A THEORY NOT RELIED UPON OR ARGUED BY THE PARTIES AS LONG AS THE RULING IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND IS FULLY LAID OUT AND EXPLAINED BY THE MOTION COURT; HERE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined: (1) the appellate court can consider an appeal of a suppression ruling which was not based on a theory argued by the parties below, but which was based upon the hearing evidence and fully laid out and explained by the motion court; and (2) the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and the evidence seized from defendant’s vehicle should have been suppressed:

The narrow reading of Tates [189 AD3d 1088] advocated by the People is consistent with the approach taken by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and the Appellate Division, First Department, in comparable cases involving the suppression court’s application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement …  The general rule articulated in these cases is that the suppression court is “entitled to consider legal justifications that were supported by the evidence, even if they were not raised explicitly by the People” … . * * *

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime … .

Here, “the circumstances known to the police at the time of the search did not rise to the level of probable cause” … . People v Marcial, 2022 NY Slip Op 06142, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: An appellate court may consider a suppression court’s ruling which is grounded upon a theory (here the automobile exception to the warrant requirement) not raised or argued by the parties, as long as the ruling is based upon the evidence and is fully laid out and explained by the motion court.

Practice Point: Here the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and the evidence seized from defendant’s vehicle should have been suppressed.

 

,

THE CONTENTION DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE INSTANT OFFENSE BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED ON THE PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY CONVICTION; SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the contention defendant was illegally sentenced as a second violent felony offender need not be preserved for appeal:

As the People properly concede, the defendant’s contention that he was illegally sentenced as a second violent felony offender is not subject to the preservation rule … . Here, the defendant was illegally sentenced as a second violent felony offender since he committed the instant offense before he was sentenced on the prior violent felony conviction … . Thus, the prior violent felony conviction cannot serve as a predicate violent felony offense for sentencing purposes (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][ii]). People v Lynch, 2022 NY Slip Op 06141, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant committed the instant offense before he was sentenced on the prior violent felony. Therefore he should not have been adjudicated a second violent felony offender. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) a motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order; and (2) the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint:

A motion to vacate an order “shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it” (CPLR 2221[a]). “A motion made to other than a proper judge . . . shall be transferred to the proper judge” (CPLR 2221[c]). Here, instead of denying the first motion with leave to renew before Justice Schulman, the Supreme Court should have transferred the first motion to Justice Schulman … . …

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directives of the order … was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint in the first action … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Dedalto, 2022 NY Slip Op 06105, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order.

Practice Point: A judge’s power to, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint is limited and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances (not present in this case).

 

, ,

THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from testifying on the ground the expert disclosure did not provide notice of topic the expert was prepared to testify about. The notice, in combination, with the pleadings was deemed to have provided sufficient notice. The essence of the complaint was defendant doctor’s (Ascencio’s) alleged failure to diagnose and treat a surgery-related infection. Plaintiff’s expert was going to testify the infection originated internally:

… [T]he Supreme Court precluded the plaintiff’s expert from testifying regarding his opinion that the plaintiff’s infection originated internally during the surgery on the ground that the expert disclosure referenced only the alleged failure to timely diagnose and appropriately treat a postoperative wound infection. However, in light of the other allegations in the expert disclosure and the incorporated bills of particulars, including those that addressed the alleged failure to discover a “festering infection” and/or a “surgical site infection” prior to the plaintiff’s discharge, “‘the expert witness [disclosure] statement was not so inadequate or inconsistent with the expert’s [proposed] testimony as to have been misleading, or to have resulted in prejudice or surprise'” … . Moreover, in this “prototypical battle of the experts” … , the preclusion of expert testimony concerning the origin of the plaintiff’s infection, and its effect on Ascencio’s alleged ability to discover the infection prior to the plaintiff’s discharge, prejudiced the plaintiff in presenting her case, such that the error cannot be deemed harmless … . Owens v Ascencio, 2022 NY Slip Op 06133, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff’s expert’s disclosure notice, in combination with the bill of particulars, sufficiently alerted defendants to the nature of the expert’s opinion. The preclusion of the expert’s testimony was reversible error.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition directly contradicted his testimony at the General Municipal Law 50-h examination:

“[A] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing, inter alia, that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition” … . Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not engage in any snow removal activity within the subject triangular area, and therefore was not responsible for creating the icy condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that, in the afternoon of the day before his accident, he “observed City personnel shoveling the snow from the [subject triangular area] and making piles of snow upon the perimeters.” Yet, at his examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff had been asked “At any point between the snowfall and the morning before the accident happened, had you seen anyone clearing snow from that [triangular area],” and he had responded “No, no.” Since the assertion made for the first time in the plaintiff’s affidavit directly contradicted the testimony he had given at his General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, and he has not provided a plausible explanation for the inconsistency between the two statements, the assertion made in his affidavit must be viewed as presenting a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier testimony, and it is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Nass v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06132, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s 50-h examination testimony directly contradicted his affidavit opposing defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The “feigned issue of fact” did not raise a question of fact.

 

,

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERED THE RECORD ON APPEAL INADEQUATE IN THIS CHILD CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that changed circumstances brought to the court’s attention by the attorney for the child in this child custody matter rendered the record on appeal in sufficient. The matter was sent back for a hearing:

… [N]ew developments have arisen since the orders appealed from were issued, which have been brought to this Court’s attention by the attorney for the child and acknowledged by the father. These developments include the father’s incarceration, allegations of neglect against the father, and the Family Court’s issuance of an order temporarily placing the child in the custody of the child’s paternal grandmother. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, changed circumstances may have particular significance in child custody matters and may render a record on appeal insufficient to review whether the Family Court’s determination is still in the best interests of the child … . In light of the new developments brought to this Court’s attention, the record is no longer sufficient to review whether the Family Court’s determination regarding custody and parental access is in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Baker v James, 2022 NY Slip Op 06125, Second Dept 11-2-22​

Practice Point: Where changed circumstance in a child custody case render the record on appeal inadequate, the appellate court will sent the case back to Family Court for a hearing.

 

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