You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS UNSWORN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT; DESPITE PLAINTFF’S SIGNING A GENERIC CONSENT FORM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined: (1) the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for some of the causes of action; (2) the plaintiffs’ expert’s unsworn affidavit raised questions of fact about a departure from the requisite standard of care (although the unsworn affidavit was not in admissible form, defendants did not object); and (3) the lack of informed consent cause of action should not have been dismissed:

… [C]ontinuous treatment may be found when a plaintiff “returns to the doctor because of continued pain in that area for which medical attention was first sought” … . Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated that, continuing until at least October 23, 2014, the injured plaintiff repeatedly sought treatment … for ongoing and sometimes increasing symptoms relating to her original complaints … . * * *

Although the unsworn affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert does not constitute competent evidence to oppose a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2106 … ), the defendants failed to object to the unsworn affidavit on this ground in the Supreme Court and, therefore, any deficiency in the submission has been waived … . * * *

“[T]he fact that the [injured] plaintiff signed a [generic] consent form does not establish [the defendants’] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” dismissing this cause of action insofar as asserted against the North Shore defendants … . … [T]he transcripts of the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and of the physicians … , submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, did not establish that the injured plaintiff was given sufficient information on the risks and alternatives regarding the materials used and the procedures performed. … [D]efendants failed to establish that a reasonably prudent person in the injured plaintiff’s position would not have declined to undergo the procedures if she or he had been fully informed of the risks and alternatives regarding the materials used and the procedures performed (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[3] …). Hall v Bolognese, 2022 NY Slip Op 06692, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here in this medical malpractice action the appellate court held: (1) the continuous treatment doctrine applied to toll the statute of limitations; (2) the unsworn affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert should have been considered because defendants did not object to it; (3) plaintiff’s signing a consent form did not preclude causes of action alleging a lack of informed consent.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND PAROL EVIDENCE THEREFORE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR WHICH PAROL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract causes of action, which were properly dismissed because the contract was not ambiguous and parol evidence was therefore not admissible:

Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement. The fraudulent inducement cause of action is not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as the fraudulent inducement cause of action is not based upon promised performance of an obligation of the defendants under the pledge agreement, and the plaintiffs sought separate and distinct damages for each cause of action … . Furthermore, the use of parol evidence is not precluded to establish the fraudulent inducement cause of action … . Goodale v Central Suffolk Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06691, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent inducement cause of action was not duplicative of the dismissed breach of contract causes of action. Because the contract was not ambiguous, parol evidence was not admissible for the breach of contract causes of action. But parol evidence may be admitted in the fraudulent inducement action. The fraudulent inducement cause of action was not based on the performance of the contract and alleged separate and distinct damages.

 

DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER STRUCK IT FROM BEHIND; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STOPPING THE CAR IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (AS OPPOSED TO MERELY FURNISHING THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT?) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Feder defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this rear-end collision traffic-accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car when the driver pulled into the shoulder lane because a speeding car crossed his lane. The Feder defendants’ car was stopped in the shoulder lane and the car in which plaintiff was a passenger struck it. The Feder defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because there were questions of fact whether stopping in the shoulder lane for a non-emergency reason constituted a proximate cause of the accident (as opposed to merely furnishing the occasion for the accident?):

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … . However, “[t]he mere fact that other persons share some responsibility for plaintiff’s harm does not absolve defendant from liability because there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … .. “Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, the Feder defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Feder defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether Abraham Feder’s conduct in stopping on the shoulder of the highway for a non-emergency purpose imposed upon them a duty of reasonable care to warn other drivers of the hazard posed by their stopped vehicle, and whether their failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of the accident … . Georgiadis v Feder, 2022 NY Slip Op 06690, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here defendants’ car was stopped in the shoulder lane for a nonemergency reason when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger struck it from behind. The Second Department held there were questions of fact about whether the car stopped in the shoulder lane was a proximate cause of the accident. The case illustrates the fine line between “furnishing the occasion for an accident,” which is not actionable, and a “proximate cause” of an accident, which is.

 

WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to retore the action to the calendar after it was marked off because plaintiff failed to appear should have been granted. A note of issue had not been filed, there had been no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint. Therefore restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic:

Where, as here, the case was marked “inactive” before a note of issue had been filed, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 for failure to appear at a compliance conference, “‘restoring a case marked “inactive” is automatic'” … . Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “‘without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [it] engaged in dilatory conduct'” … . Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame … . Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s motion was not untimely. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v Schiro, 2022 NY Slip Op 06689. Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Where a case has been marked off as “inactive,” there is no note of issue, there has been no 90-day demand and there is not order dismissing the complaint, restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic.

 

,

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Airway Cleaners’ contract with American Airlines did not entirely displace defendant American Airlines’ duty to maintain the bathroom where plaintiff slipped and fell. Therefore the contract between Airway Cleaners and American Airlines could not serve as the basis for Airway Cleaners’ liability to third parties (plaintiff) under Espinal:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, insofar as relevant here, an exception to this general rule applies where “the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 140).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Airway Cleaners, LLC, by demonstrating that a limited janitorial service agreement between Airway Cleaners, LLC, and American Airlines was not a comprehensive and exclusive agreement which entirely displaced American Airlines’ duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . DaCruz v Airway Cleaners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06687, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here there was a contract between defendant Airway Cleaners and defendant American Airlines with respect to cleaning the premises at Kennedy Airport. The contract was not comprehensive enough to entirely displace American Airlines’ duty to keep the bathroom on the premises, where plaintiff slipped and fell, safe. Therefore, the contractor, Airway Cleaners, under the Espinal criteria, could not be sued by plaintiff.

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this bus-car traffic accident should not have been granted. The defendants submitted conflicting evidence about how the accident happened. The fact that plaintiff pled guilty to a traffic offense does not necessarily prove she was negligent. Plaintiff alleged she pled guilty to avoid traveling from her home in New Jersey for court appearances:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they were free from fault in the happening of the accident, because their submissions in support of the motion contained conflicting accounts of how the accident happened, and failed to eliminate triable issues of fact, including which vehicle entered the other vehicle’s lane prior to the collision … .

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that the plaintiff pleaded guilty to the traffic offense of driving or operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner does not conclusively establish that she was negligent … . “It is well settled that a person who pleads guilty to a traffic offense is permitted to explain the reasons for the plea, and it is for the jury to decide what weight, if any, to give to the testimony” … . Here, the plaintiff contended that she pleaded guilty, inter alia, because she did not have the money to keep traveling to New Jersey for court appearances, and thus, it is for a jury to evaluate her explanation and determine what weight, if any, the plea is entitled to in determining if she was negligent … . Charles v American Dream Coaches, 2022 NY Slip Op 06685, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff pled guilty to a traffic offense is not proof of negligence as a matter of law because the reason for the guilty plea can be explained to the jury. Here plaintiff alleged she pled guilty because she did not have enough money to return to New York for court appearances. That raised a question of fact for the jury.

 

, ,

HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order entered upon plaintiff’s default should not have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . excusable default.” “A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion” . “Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party’s default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible” and detailed explanation of the default … . The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse is a matter of the court’s discretion, but mere neglect will not suffice … .

… [A] managing attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiff was notified of the February 28, 2018 adjourned deadline to submit opposition papers to the defendants’ motion, and a member of the firm entered a “follow up docket date” for February 7, 2018, “to ensure that the opposition was being handled” … . However, instead of “follow[ing] up with the managing attorney to make sure the opposition was assigned,” the member of the law firm returned the file to the file room. As the member of the law firm affirmed, “[i]t simply was not addressed properly.” … [T]he plaintiff did not move to vacate the order dated August 29, 2018, for approximately eight months, or 253 days, after being served with the order and notice of entry … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to oppose the defendants’ motion was the equivalent of mere neglect and was therefore insufficient to warrant vacatur … . Sauteanu v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default may be granted on law-office-failure grounds but not if the matter was simply neglected. Here the plaintiff did not move to vacate the order for 253 days after service of the order and notice of entry. The court found the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the summary judgment was due to neglect and the motion to vacate the order should not have been granted.

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE DEFICIENCY-JUDGMENT CASE, THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THE LIQUIDATION VALUE USED BY THE COURT TO CALCULATE THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fair market value of the property in this foreclosure-deficiency-judgment proceeding was considerably greater than the liquidation valued used by the court:

“RPAPL 1371(2) permits the mortgagee in a mortgage foreclosure action to recover a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount of indebtedness on the mortgage and either the auction price at the foreclosure sale or the fair market value of the property, whichever is higher” … . “It is the lender who bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, the property’s fair market value as of the date of the auction sale” … . “When a lender moves to secure a deficiency judgment against a borrower, ‘the court . . . shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid [o]n at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof'” … .

Here, the record does not support a finding that the estimated liquidation value of $620,000 constituted the fair and reasonable market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale … . Rather, the record supports a determination that the higher estimated value of $1,060,000 presented by the plaintiff’s appraiser constituted the fair and reasonable market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale. Rhinebeck Bank v WA 319 Main, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06507, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Here the court should have used plaintiff’s appraiser’s determination of the fair market value of the foreclosed property to calculate the amount of the deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371(2). The court used a much lower “liquidation value.”

 

,

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE; THE SCI WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and vacating the plea, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint:

The defendant was charged, by felony complaint, with one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75(1)(b), and one count of endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law § 260.10(1). He waived indictment by a grand jury and entered a plea of guilty under a superior court information to one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree under Penal Law § 130.80(1)(a). …

The single count in the superior court information was not an “offense for which the defendant [had been] held for action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.20), in that it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint … . Thus, the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective. This defect survives the defendant’s failure to raise this claim in the Supreme Court, his plea of guilty, and his waiver of the right to appeal … . People v Mendoza, 2022 NY Slip Op 06499, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: A superior court information (SCI) which does not include an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense is jurisdictionally defective and the error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

WHETHER THE VILLAGE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS ARBITRABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the issue whether the village police were entitled to additional compensation for work during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic is arbitrable:

Where the relevant arbitration provision is broad, a court “should merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]” … . If such a relationship exists, “the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … .

… [T]he Village’s petition was grounded on its contention that the dispute in this case is not arbitrable because article V, § 4 of the CBA provides for additional compensation when the mayor of the Village declares “a holiday for Village employees due to an emergency,” and no such declaration was made by the mayor here. The petition further asserted that arbitration would be against public policy because the “members of the PBA are seeking to extract a benefit to which they clearly are not entitled and which is not contained in their contract.” These contentions are without merit, since the applicability of article V, § 4 of the CBA does not affect the arbitrability of the dispute, but only the merits of the dispute, and the merits are to be determined by the arbitrator and not by the courts … . Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park v Floral Park Police Benevolent Assn., 2022 NY Slip Op 06481, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Whether a matter is arbitrable is separate and distinct from whether the dispute has merit, which is determined by the arbitrator.

 

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