You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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).

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE POLICE REPORT, PHOTOS AND DASHBOARD VIDEO WERE INADMISSIBLE AND DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS FREE FROM FAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Wen Xu) in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted summary judgment. The defendant was apparently proceeding through the intersection when the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger was attempting to make a left turn. The uncertified police report, photos and dashboard video submitted by the defendant were inadmissible and his affidavit did not demonstrate he was free from fault:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn . . . left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close [to it] as to constitute an immediate hazard.” “The operator of a vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield” …  “However, a driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle that allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way” … .

Here, Wen Xu failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as he failed to establish that he was free from fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion, Wen Xu submitted, inter alia, an uncertified police accident report, photographs, a dashboard video camera recording, and his own affidavit. However, the uncertified police accident report constitutes inadmissible hearsay evidence …  The photographs and dashboard video camera recording are similarly inadmissible, as they were not properly authenticated … . Moreover, Wen Xu’s affidavit was insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact with regard to whether he was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . Wen Xu failed to establish that he “took reasonable care to avoid the collision” with the other vehicle … . Rosa v Gordils, 2022 NY Slip Op 07466, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Even the driver of the car with the right-of-way in an intersection accident can be liable if reasonable care to avoid the collision is not taken.

Practice Point: The police report, photos and dashboard video submitted by defendant in support of summary judgment were not in admissible form (the police report was uncertified and the photos and video were not authenticated) and defendant’s affidavit did not demonstrate he was free from fault. Therefore, even though defendant apparently had the right-of-way when the other driver attempted a left turn, defendant’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing and suppression of the seized evidence and statements should have been granted. Defendant was accused of a knifepoint robbery of a gas station and was identified in a showup procedure. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the initial stop of the defendant and therefore did not establish the legality of the police conduct:

“On a motion to suppress, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” … . “Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion” … . Here, at the suppression hearing, the People failed to present any evidence establishing the basis for the police to have made the initial stop of the defendant. Thus, the People failed to carry their burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance, and all evidence recovered as a result of the unlawful stop must be suppressed … . People v Vazquez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07461, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: If, at the suppression hearing, the People do not present any evidence of the initial contact between the police and the defendant, they do not meet their burden to show the legality of the police conduct and suppression is required.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS WERE TIME-BARRED, THE RELATED WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION, BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEATH, WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, the related wrongful death action, brought within two years of death, was not:

Although the plaintiff denominated the second cause of action as one for “loss of services,” she alleged all the elements necessary to plead a cause of action for wrongful death, including “(1) the death of a human being, (2) the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant by which the decedent’s death was caused, (3) the survival of distributees who suffered pecuniary loss by reason of the death of decedent, and (4) the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent” … . … [T]he wrongful death cause of action was timely. EPTL 5-4.1 provides that an action for wrongful death “must be commenced within two years after the decedent’s death.” Here, the decedent died on November 9, 2013, and this action was commenced on November 9, 2015. Thus, “the cause of action alleging wrongful death was timely commenced within two years of the decedent’s death, since, at the time of [his] death, [the] cause of action sounding in medical malpractice was not time-barred” … .Proano v Gutman, 2022 NY Slip Op 07253, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, but the related wrongful death actions, brought within two years of death, were not.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a non-jury trial awarding plaintiff over $2,000,000, determined plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant Traina, the sole member of defendant limited liability company (LLC), personally liable. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the bar owned and operated by the LLC and was awarded a default judgment:

Generally, a member of a limited liability company cannot personally be held liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the limited liability company, “whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise” (Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on members for the obligations of the limited liability company … . ” … [G]enerally . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation [or LLC] in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the [party seeking to pierce the corporate veil] which resulted in [the party’s] injury” … . * * *

… [A]lthough Traina did not observe all corporate formalities, the evidence established that he ran a real business, with employees, customers, and vendors, and the petitioner presented no evidence that the LLC was undercapitalized or that Traina commingled the assets of the LLC with his own or used corporate funds for personal use … . … w[W]ile the petitioner demonstrated that Traina exercised complete domination and control over the LLC, he failed to show that Traina’s actions, including abandoning certain fixtures and equipment to his landlord, were for the purpose of leaving the LLC judgment proof or to perpetrate a wrong against the petitioner … .  … [P]etitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil … . Matter of DePetris v Traina, 2022 NY Slip Op 07232, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: The criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this personal injury action against a bar owned and operated by a limited liability company were not met. The over $2,000,000 judgment against the sole member was reversed.

 

,

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s default admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore damages should have been awarded for breach of contract:

A defaulting defendant is “deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . “The sole issue to be determined at an inquest is the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff” … . Here, the inquest court erred in considering the question of whether the defendants caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff … .

… [W]hile there is some uncertainty with respect to the plaintiff’s claim of lost profits, “when it is certain that damages have been caused by a breach of contract, and the only uncertainty is as to their amount, there can rarely be good reason for refusing, on account of such uncertainty, any damages whatever for the breach. A [party] violating [a] contract should not be permitted entirely to escape liability because the amount of the damages which [the party] has caused is uncertain” … . LD Acquisition Co. 9, LLC v TSH Trade Group, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07227, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore whether the defendant caused the damages alleged in the complaint should not be considered in the inquest. Here the failure to award any damages for breach of contract was not appropriate.

 

, ,

THE SO-ORDERED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RENDERED THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT MOOT; THE OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION RELIED ON SPECULATION ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined; (1) the stipulation between the two parties rendered the related cause of action in the complaint moot’ and (2) the other cause of action in the complaint was based on speculation about future events and therefore was not ripe for judicial review:

… [P]ursuant to the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” … . By contrast, if an “anticipated harm is insignificant, remote or contingent the controversy is not ripe” for judicial review … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

… [T]he first cause of action was resolved by the parties’ so-ordered stipulation. … [T]hat cause of action was rendered academic pursuant to the mootness doctrine … . … [T]he second cause of action relied on speculation about what the County and its various departments might do in response to future audits, and therefore the contemplated harm was both remote and contingent and the controversy was not ripe for judicial review … . Kennedy v Suffolk County, 2022 NY Slip Op 07226, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: If a cause of action has already been addressed by a so-ordered stipulation, the cause of action is precluded by the mootness doctrine. If a cause of action is based on speculation about future events, it is not ripe for judicial review.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to a hearing on whether plaintiff bank engaged in settlement negotiations in good faith:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). CPLR 3408 requires the parties in a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution” … . … [T]he circumstances surrounding its servicer’s handling of the first two loan modification applications are “relevant in the overall context of the parties’ relationship and the negotiations between them,” and thus, are relevant to the good faith inquiry … . …[D]efendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff “engaged in dilatory conduct by making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided”… . Investors Bank v Brooks, 2022 NY Slip Op 07224, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Defendants submitted evidence the bank in this foreclosure action did not engage in settlement negotiations pursuant to CPLR 3408 in good faith. Supreme Court should have held 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