You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

IF A TRIAL JUDGE DECIDES THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE EXCESSIVE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATES TO THE REDUCED AWARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with the trial judge’s reduction of damages awarded by the jury in this wrongful death case but noted that the judge should have ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to the lower damages amount:

… [W]hile the 21-year-old Bohdan [plaintiff’s decedent], who worked in the family business, lived with his parents, and cared for his younger sibling, was described as a wonderful, loving son who was especially helpful around the home, based on the record, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the jury awards for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss were excessive. … . … [I]t was procedurally improper for the court to reduce the awards of damages for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Vitenko v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: If the trial judge decides the damages awarded by the jury are excessive, the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced amount.

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision worth consulting, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his DWI conviction should not have been granted: Defendant pled guilty and Supreme Court revoked his driving license for one year. When defendant applied to reinstate his drivers license he was notified by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that, based on his prior DWI-related convictions or incidents, his application had been denied. Defendant brought a  motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the plea was based on his understanding he would lose his license for one year. Supreme Court granted the motion and the People appealed:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The subject regulation that led to the denial of the defendant’s application for relicensing did not exist at the time he entered his plea of guilty, and it would have been impossible for the court to inform the defendant of consequences flowing therefrom … . “‘The defendant’s grievance lies with the enactment and enforcement of the new regulation, not the manner of his conviction'” … .

To the extent that the potentially permanent license revocation authorized under the subject regulation is a consequence of the defendant’s instant plea of guilty at all (see People v Avital, 64 Misc 3d 483, 485 [Town of East Fishkill Just Ct, Dutchess County] [denial of relicensing under 15 NYCRR 136.5 results not from any particular conviction, but from the applicant’s “complete driving history”]), it is, as the defendant acknowledges, a collateral consequence of his plea … . * * *

… [A] consequence of a conviction must represent an exceptionally severe liberty deprivation [i.e., deportation] in order to fall within the narrow category of collateral consequences of which a defendant must be advised at the time of entering the plea. … [W]e cannot conclude that the permanent loss of a driver license fits into that category. People v Maggio, 2022 NY Slip Op 06262, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Defendant pled guilty to DWI knowing his license would be revoked by the court for one year. His application to reinstate his license was subsequently denied by the DMV. The fact that defendant’s license could be revoked permanently by the DMV was a collateral consequence of the plea which did not affect the voluntariness of the plea. A defendant need not be aware of a collateral consequence to render a plea voluntary. The rare exception is a collateral consequence which affects a liberty interest, deportation for example.

 

,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT AND THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED THE “CREATION OF THE DEFECT” EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFECT WAS THE RESULT OF DETERIORATION OF THE REPAIRED AREA OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town demonstrated it did not create the sidewalk condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Rather the sidewalk repair was done by the town 10 years ago and the current deteriorated condition had developed over time:

The Court of Appeals “has recognized only two exceptions to the statutory rule requiring prior written notice, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality” Only the affirmative negligence exception is implicated in this case, and it “‘is limited to work [done] by [a municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition'” … . The defendant was not required to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice rule in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … . Nevertheless, the defendant did eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to that exception. In particular, the defendant submitted an affidavit of its employee, John Carroll, who averred that the asphalt patch would have been “rolled smooth and level to remove any existing tripping hazard between the two existing concrete slabs,” but now, “the tar was eroded from the patch” and “[p]ortions of the asphalt patch . . . appear to be missing.” Based on Carroll’s “observation of the asphalt repair as it exist[ed] in 2019,” he believed that the repair was “[more than] 10 years old” and that its separation from the concrete slabs “would be caused by natural erosion, wear and tear over time, and/or in this case tree roots causing the concrete slabs to uplift, not by the method of its installation.” Parthesius v Town of Huntington, 2022 NY Slip Op 06254, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: A municipality will be responsible for a sidewalk slip and fall only when the town was notified of the defect in writing. There are two exceptions. Plaintiff argued the negligent-repair exception applied here. But that exception only applies to defects immediately resulting from a repair. Here the town demonstrated the repair was not properly 10 years ago and the defect developed over time.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED MOTHER FROM BRINGING FURTHER PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have precluded mother from filing petitions for custody of a family offense without the court’s permission:

… [T]he provisions of the order … directing the mother to seek permission from the court before filing any additional petitions, whether for custody or alleging a family offense, constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Here, the mother filed one family offense petition, ultimately determined to be unfounded, and filed one related petition to modify the parties’ custody arrangement. On this record, it cannot be said that the mother engaged in vexatious litigation or that her petitions were filed in bad faith … . Matter of McDowell v Marshall, 2022 NY Slip Op 06248, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Mother should not have been precluded from bringing further custody of family offense petitions without court permission. She had not filed petitions in bad faith.

 

,

PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner in this slip and fall case should not have been allowed file a late notice of claim. The fact that county personnel responded to the scene of her injuries did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit. The late notice was served 50 days after the expiration of the 90 time-limit and therefore did not provide notice within a reasonable time. The petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an adequate excuse. And the petitioner did not provide any evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the late notice:

… [T]he fact that members of the Nassau County Police Department and a County ambulance responded to the scene and tended to her injuries, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim against the County … . The petitioner failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that the County had knowledge of the circumstances of the accident from which it could “readily infer” that a “potentially actionable wrong had been committed” by it … .  Moreover, the late notice of claim, served upon the County without leave of court 50 days after the 90-day statutory period had expired, was served too late to provide the County with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the 90-day statutory period expired … .

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s conclusory assertion that her injuries prevented her from making timely service, without any supporting medical documentation or evidence, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … .

… [T]he petitioner failed to come forward with “some evidence or plausible argument” that the County will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay in commencing this proceeding and the lack of timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Lang v County of Nassau, 2022 NY Slip Op 06245, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case: (1) the fact that county personnel responded to the scene when petitioner slipped and fall did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit; (2) the late notice served 50 days after the 90-day time-limit did not provide notice within a reasonable time; (3) the petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an excuse; and (4) the petitioner did not present evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the delay.

 

FAILURE TO INCLUDE ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LIEN LAW 201 IN THE NOTICE OF SALE DID NOT WARRANT CANCELLATION OF THE LIENS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the deficiencies in the notice of sale did not warrant cancellation of the liens:

Pursuant to Lien Law § 201-a, within 10 days after service of a notice of sale, the owner or any person entitled to notice may commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of a lien. Here, while service upon the petitioners of the notices of sale was in accordance with the proprietary lease and the cooperative by-laws, the notices of sale did not contain a statement setting forth “[t]he nature of the debt or the agreement under which the lien arose, with an itemized statement of the claim and the time when due,” as required under Lien Law § 201. Nevertheless, the deficiencies in the notices of sale did not provide a basis for cancellation of the liens … . Matter of Ger v Saxony Towers Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06243, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Lien law 201 requires the notice sale to state “[t]he nature of the debt or the agreement under which the lien arose, with an itemized statement of the claim and the time when due.” The failure to include that information, however, does not warrant cancellation of the lien.

, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (Merrill Lynch) in this foreclosure action failed to prove defendant’s default and failed to notify a tenant on the property of the foreclosure. The bank’s attempt to prove the default in reply papers was rejected:

Merrill Lynch failed to submit admissible evidence establishing the defendant’s default. In support of its motion, Merrill Lynch submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Theresia Ang, the vice president of its loan servicer and attorney-in-fact. However, Ang failed to attach the business records on which she relied, and thus, her averment to the defendant’s default was hearsay lacking in probative value … . Although Merrill Lynch attempted to submit evidence of the defendant’s default in reply, a moving party “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … .

… RPAPL 1303 requires, inter alia, the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property to provide the notice prescribed by the statute to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party (see id. § 1303[1][b]; [4]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the “‘foreclosing party has the burden of showing compliance therewith'” … .

Here, Merrill Lynch failed to submit any evidence that it served any tenant of the subject property with the notices required by RPAPL 1303 by certified mail, or that it was not aware of any tenant’s identity. In contrast, the defendant’s affidavit and the affidavit of Richard Nicholson, submitted in opposition to Merrill Lynch’s motion, established that Richard Nicholson resided at the subject property, that he paid rent, and that the mortgage loan servicer was aware that he resided at the subject property. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v Nicholson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06239, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action failed to submit sufficient evidence of defendant’s default and was not allowed to cure the defect in reply papers.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate it notified a tenant of the foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1303.

 

,

REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ failure to comply with discovery orders justified striking the answer:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer. The defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, over an extended period of time, to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders without an adequate excuse … . L.K. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Here the defendants offered no excuse for their failure to comply with discovery orders and the appellate court struck their answer.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action based on its annexation of the note to the summons and complaint, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Hudson City Sav. Bank v Ellia, 2022 NY Slip Op 06235, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: When a defendant contests the bank’s standing to bring a foreclosure action, the bank must prove the allonge (a separate paper) was “firmly attached” to the note as required by UCC 3-202(2).

 

,

THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank included other notice with the notice of default, a violation of RPAPL 1304 (the separate envelope rule):

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a residential foreclosure action” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304, since additional notices were sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, and a single notice was jointly addressed to both of the defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneps, 2022 NY Slip Op 06234, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The separate envelope rule (RPAPL 1304) which requires that nothing else be included with the notice of default is a condition precedent to a foreclosure action.

 

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