You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

ALTHOUGH TRADER JOE’S APPARENTLY DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT OCCUPY, CONTROL OR MAKE SPECIAL USE OF THE PARKING LOT; TRADER JOE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Trader Joe’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the parking lot was apparently owned by the town, Trader Joe’s did not demonstrate it did not occupy, control, or make special use of the parking lot:

“‘Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property'” … . “‘In the absence of ownership, occupancy, control, or special use, a party generally cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the dangerous or defective condition of the property'” … . * * *

Trader Joe’s failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it did not occupy, control, or make special use of the parking lot where the accident occurred, and that it cannot be held liable for Toner’s alleged injuries … . Toner v Trader Joe’s E., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05555, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Even though the defendant did not own the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell, to be entitled the summary judgment the defendant must show it did not occupy, control or make special use of the parking lot. The failure to do so here required denial of defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

A DECISION TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ACCESS SCHEDULE OF PARENTING TIME AFTER A PERIOD OF SUPERVISED PARENTAL VISITS MUST BE BASED UPON ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; WHERE FACTS REMAIN IN DISPUTE, A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a hearing should have been held before granting defendant’s motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time because some facts were still in dispute:

… Supreme Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to directing that the regular access schedule as set forth in the parties’ stipulation of settlement be implemented immediately. Although the court based its determination on information contained in the parties’ applications, reports from Kids in Common, and statements from counsel for the parties and the attorney for the child during multiple conferences, Kids in Common had not yet advised that the child was ready for a fully normalized access schedule, and a decision regarding child custody and/or parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Where, as here, facts material to a determination of what parental access is in the best interests of the child remain in dispute, a hearing is required … . Stolzenberg v Stolzenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 05554, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: At the time defendant made a motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time after a period of supervised visitation facts remained in dispute. The motion should not have been granted without first holding a hearing where only admissible evidence is considered.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION IS PART OF THE SENTENCE AND MUST BE PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judge’s failure to pronounce the amount of restitution at sentencing required vacating the imposition of restitution and remitting the matter for further proceedings. The issue does not need to be preserved for appeal and is not precluded by a waiver of appeal:

“CPL 380.20 and 380.40(1) collectively require that courts ‘must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered’ and that—subject to limited exceptions not relevant here—'[t]he defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced'” … . “Restitution is a component of the sentence to which CPL 380.20 and 380.40(1) apply” … . A violation of CPL 380.20 or 380.40(1) “may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding a valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the precise dollar amount of restitution was not pronounced by the County Court at the time of sentencing, or at any other point on the record. “The County Court should have, but failed to, fix the amount and terms of restitution at the time it pronounced the sentence[s] of which restitution was to be a part” … . People v Long, 2022 NY Slip Op 05545, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Restitution is part of the sentence and must be pronounced at sentencing. The issue need not be preserved for appeal and survives a waiver of appeal.

 

,

DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS DRIVER LICENSE BASED ON THE PLEA; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POST-REVOCATION RELICENSING IS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTS’ CONTROL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been granted. Defendant argued he would not have pled guilty had he realized he could permanently lose his driver license. The regulation which allowed permanent revocation of defendant’s license did not exist at the time of the plea:

The subject regulations that led to the denial of the defendant’s application to restore his driver license did not exist at the time he pleaded guilty, and the defendant failed to identify any conduct that occurred during the plea proceedings that constituted a violation of his due process rights … . “The defendant’s grievance lies with the enactment and enforcement of the new regulation, not the manner of his conviction” … .

… [T]he loss of a driver license is a collateral consequence of a plea of guilty and is not a consequence within the control of the court system … . The Supreme Court had no duty to inform the defendant of this consequence during the plea colloquy … . As the Court of Appeals stated in Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. (29 NY3d at 220), “the Commissioner [of the DMV] will have exclusive authority over post-revocation relicensing, and . . . those relicensing determinations will be discretionary.” People v DiTore, 2022 NY Slip Op 05541, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Courts have no control over post-revocation relicensing. The Department of Motor Vehicles has exclusive jurisdiction over relicensing. Here defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea on the ground he was not aware he could permanently lose his driver license should not have been granted.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the judge properly exercised discretion in awarding counsel fees to petitioner based upon appellant’s (Gorish’s) violation of an order of protection. However, the amount of counsel fees should have been determined by a hearing:

Under Family Court Act § 846-a, the court “may order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s reasonable and necessary counsel fees in connection with the violation petition where the court finds that the violation of its order was willful.” “The award of counsel fees is committed to the discretion of the Family Court” … . “[T]he reasonable amount and nature of the claimed services must be established at an adversarial hearing” … . Here, while the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the petitioner, the court erred in determining the amount of the counsel fees without a hearing. Matter of Sicina v Gorish, 2022 NY Slip Op 05535, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: The violation of an order of protection is a proper ground for awarding counsel fees to the petitioner, but the amount must be determined by a hearing.

 

,

EVEN THOUGH FATHER REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN INVESTIGATION RELATED TO HIS PETITION FOR CUSTODY, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CUSTODY TO MOTHER WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have awarded mother sole custody of the child without first holding a hearing:

Supreme Court directed that the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) conduct an investigation and directed supervised visits between the father and the child. The father failed to comply with the investigation, including refusing to provide his address to ACS, and he failed to complete the intake process for arranging the supervised visits. * * *

“[C]ustody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “[A] court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in making a final custody determination without a hearing and without inquiring into the best interests of the child … . Matter of Jones v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 05529, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Despite father’s failure to cooperate with an investigation stemming from his petition for custody, the judge should have held a hearing before awarding custody to mother.

 

, , , ,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mother’s (but not father’s) petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted in this medical malpractice action stemming from a stillbirth. Supreme Court had dismissed the petition because it was brought in the wrong county. But, because the respondents did not object to the venue, the judge did not have the authority to dismiss the petition on that ground. Even though mother did not demonstrate the respondents had timely knowledge of the potential malpractice action, her petition should have been granted because she had an adequate excuse (mental health issues triggered by the stillbirth) and demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. Father’s petition must be considered separately from mother’s and was denied (mother’s excuse did not apply to father):

… Supreme Court … erred when it raised the issue of improper venue sua sponte and dismissed this proceeding on that ground. The court should have instead decided the merits of the petition. * * *

Where leave is sought in one proceeding to pursue both a direct claim by an injured person and a derivative claim by his or her spouse, the spouse’s request for leave to serve a late notice of claim will not automatically be granted even if leave is granted to the injured person. Instead, the spouse’s request must be analyzed separately … . .* * *

While the actual knowledge factor [i.e., knowledge of the potential lawsuit] generally should be given “great weight” in the analysis … , the petitioners’ failure to satisfy that factor is not fatal to their petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . * * *

… [T]he petitioners met their initial minimal burden of providing a plausible argument supporting a finding of no substantial prejudice based on their contention that the respondents could defend themselves by reviewing the relevant medical records, interviewing witnesses, and consulting with experts. * * *

… [Mother] demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her delay due to her emotional and psychological injuries and the accompanying preoccupation with her well-being, as well as her attorney’s prompt investigation into the claim … . Matter of Balbuenas v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05526, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: The petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been dismissed based on improper venue because respondents didn’t object to the venue.

Practice Point: The fact that petitioners did not demonstrate the respondents in this medical malpractice case had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit was not fatal to the petition.

Practice Point: Here the potential medical malpractice action was based upon a stillbirth. Mother’s and father’s petitions must be considered separately.

Practice Point: Mother’s mental health issues stemming from the stillbirth constituted an adequate excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim.

Practice Point: Petitioners demonstrated the respondents were not prejudiced by the delay because of the medical records and the ability to interview witnesses.

Practice Point: Mother’s petition was granted, but father’s was denied because the only factor available to father was the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY PULLED OUT OF A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this traffic accident case, even though defendant driver had the right-of-way and plaintiff pulled out of a driveway in front of defendant. The facts are not described:

The defendants’ evidence established, prima facie, that the defendant driver had the right-of-way, that the plaintiff was at fault in the happening of the accident, and that the defendant driver was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 …). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, his own affidavit, in which he gave a completely different version of the events preceding the accident. The plaintiff’s evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver, who was obligated to keep a proper lookout, see what was there to be seen through the reasonable use of his senses, and avoid colliding with other vehicles … , was indeed at fault in the happening of the accident. Hassan v Brauns Express, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05520, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Defendant driver had the right-of-way and plaintiff apparently pulled out of a driveway in front of defendant. However, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant kept a proper lookout which was sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING THE ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT BY A TEACHER AND HER STEPFATHER IN THE 1970’S, THE FAILURE-TO-REPORT-ABUSE CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act lawsuit, determined the causes of action alleging the defendant school district failed to report the abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher (Bova) pursuant to the Social Services Law should have been dismissed:

Social Services Law § 413, which went into effect on September 1, 1973, provides that certain school officials “are required to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this title when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child” … . Social Services Law § 420(2) provides that “[a]ny person, official or institution required by this title to report a case of suspected child abuse or maltreatment who knowingly and willfully fails to do so shall be civilly liable for the damages proximately caused by such failure.” For purposes of Social Services Law § 413, an “abused child” means “a child under eighteen years of age and who is defined as an abused child by the family court act” … . Family Court Act § 1012(e) defines an “abused child” as one harmed by a “parent or other person legally responsible for his [or her] care.” … .

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the District’s motion which was to dismiss the ninth cause of action, alleging that it failed to report suspected child abuse committed by Bova, because Bova was not a “person legally responsible” for the plaintiff’s care … . The court also should have granted that branch of the District’s motion which was to dismiss the tenth cause of action, alleging that it failed to report suspected child abuse committed by the plaintiff’s stepfather, insofar as asserted against it. The complaint does not contain any allegation that the District received information about abuse committed by the plaintiff’s stepfather at any time after the end of the 1972-1973 school year in June 1973, which was months prior to September 1, 1973, the date that Social Services Law § 413 went into effect … . Finally, …punitive damages are not available against the District … . Hanson v Hicksville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act suit against defendant school district alleging abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher and her stepfather in the 1970’s, the Social Services Law causes of action alleging the district failed to report the abuse were dismissed because: (1) the teacher was not legally responsible for plaintiff’s care; and (2) the Social Services Law requiring the school to report abuse by the stepfather was not in effect at the time.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim in this slip and fall case against the Dormitory Authority for the State of New York (DASNY) should have been granted because DASNY’s insurers had actual knowledge of the facts of the within 90 days of the accident:

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions demonstrated that DASNY’s insurers had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the petitioner’s accident. The petitioner annexed to the petition a copy of a certificate of liability insurance stating that his employer was insured under a number of policies in connection with the construction project at the premises and identifying both DASNY and the State as “Additional Insureds” with respect to the project. The petitioner also annexed to the petition a letter dated July 8, 2019, approximately 70 days after the accident, in which the State informed the insurers named in the certificate of liability insurance that a notice of claim concerning the petitioner’s accident had been served on the State on or about June 14, 2019. The notice of claim that had been served on the State identifies the date, time, and location of the petitioner’s accident, describes the petitioner’s injuries, and specifies construction debris on the stairwell as the dangerous condition which caused the petitioner’s accident. Thus, DASNY’s insurers acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim within 90 days of his accident (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5] …). Matter of Joseph v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05318, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: A slip and fall lawsuit against the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DANYS) must be preceded by service of a notice of claim. Here the fact that the DANYS’s insurers had been given notice of the essential facts of the slip and fall within 90 days of the accident was a sufficient ground for leave to serve a late notice of 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