You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANTS’ VAN FAILED TO YIELD TO APPELLANT’S VEHICLE, WHICH HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN DEFENDANTS’ VAN ATTEMPTED TO MERGE INTO APPELLANT’S LANE; THE DASH CAM VIDEO DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT-DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; APPELLANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a dash cam video demonstrated that defendants’ van failed to yield to appellant’s vehicle. Therefore, appellant was not negligent as a matter of law:

“A driver has a duty not to merge into a lane of moving traffic until it is safe to do so, and a violation of this duty constitutes negligence as a matter of law” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]). Moreover, a driver of a vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the driver in the lane next to him or her will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to a driver with the right-of-way … . “‘[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision'” … .

Here, in support of her motion, the appellant submitted evidence which included, among other things, a dash cam video of the accident which demonstrated that the defendant van driver failed to yield the right-of-way to the appellant’s vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a). The video revealed that the defendant van driver suddenly moved into the appellant’s lane of travel as that lane widened to become both a travel lane and an exit ramp lane and, within seconds, the right side of the vehicle of the defendant van driver collided with the driver’s side of the appellant’s vehicle as the appellant’s vehicle was entering the exit ramp lane. Thus, the evidence submitted by the appellant established, prima facie, that the defendant van driver’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the collision and that the appellant was free from fault … . Vigdorchik v Vigdorchik, 2022 NY Slip Op 05886, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Here defendant driver struck appellant’s car while attempting to merge into appellant’s lane, which violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law because appellant had the right of way. The accident was captured in a dash cam video. Appellant was not negligent as a matter of law.

 

,

THE BROKER WAS THE PROCURING CAUSE OF THE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE AGREED 4% COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the broker in this sale of real property was the procuring cause of the sale and was therefore entitled to the agreed 4% commission:

“To prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale” … . Here, the issue disputed by the parties was whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. “To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was ‘a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote'” between the bare introduction of the parties to the transaction and the consummation of the sale … . “[I]n order to qualify for a commission, a broker need not have been involved in the ensuing negotiations or in the completion of the sale,” if such a direct and proximate causal link exists … . …

It was Minetree’s [the broker’s] introduction of the subject properties to, and work with, TNC [the nature conservancy] which brought the County and the defendants together on a bargain sale transaction. Saunders Ventures, Inc. v Catcove Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05879, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: If a broker is the “procuring cause” of the sale of real property, the broker is entitled to the commission agreed to in the broker’s contract.

 

DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORDS OF HIS NEW YORK CONVICTION; HOWEVER, THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION MUST BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SEALING THE NEW YORK RECORDS; SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an out-of-state conviction should be considered where defendant seeks to seal the records of a New York conviction. Here Supreme Court had granted the motion to seal, finding that only New York convictions need be considered. The matter was remitted for a hearing in which the out-of-state conviction would be part of the analysis:

This appeal presents the question of whether CPL 160.59(3)(f) requires a court to summarily deny a defendant’s motion to seal an eligible offense where the defendant subsequently has been convicted of a crime under the laws of another state. We hold that CPL 160.59(3)(f) does not require summary denial under these circumstances. Instead, a defendant’s subsequent conviction under the laws of another state is a factor that the motion court should consider in its discretionary determination as to whether to seal the eligible offense … . * * *

… [A] hearing is … appropriate in this case. Although the defendant’s 2018 Virginia misdemeanor conviction was not a ground to summarily deny the defendant’s motion to seal, at the hearing, the parties may provide additional evidence related to that conviction, as well as any other evidence relevant to the determination of the defendant’s motion. Further, assuming that the defendant was in fact convicted of a misdemeanor in Virginia, the Supreme Court should consider that conviction and the nature and circumstances of the underlying conduct in making its discretionary determination as to whether to grant the defendant’s motion to seal. The court should also consider how the conviction reflects upon the defendant’s character under CPL 160.59(7)(d). In particular, we note that the defendant’s affidavit failed to disclose the existence of the 2018 Virginia misdemeanor conviction or explain the circumstances surrounding the conviction. Further, the affirmation of the defendant’s attorney affirmatively stated that the defendant had no contact with the criminal justice system since his 1990 New York conviction, which does not appear to be accurate. Upon remittal, the court should consider all of these circumstances, as well as the nonexhaustive list of factors in CPL 160.59(7), in its new determination of the defendant’s motion to seal. …

Although the Supreme Court properly determined that it was not required to summarily deny the defendant’s motion to seal his 1990 conviction for attempted grand larceny in the third degree pursuant to CPL 160.59(3)(f), as the People opposed the defendant’s motion to seal, the court was required to hold a hearing pursuant to CPL 160.59(6). People v Witherspoon, 2022 NY Slip Op 05866, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: A motion to seal the records of a New York conviction need not be summarily denied because of an out-of-state conviction. However, the out-of-state conviction must be considered as a factor in the analysis of the appropriateness of sealing the New York records.

 

,

IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS AN INNOCENT PASSENGER, DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE-TO-STATE-A-CAUSE-OF-ACTION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE THE MOTION TO STRIKE AMOUNTED TO TESTING THE SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF’S OWN CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “failure to state a cause of action” affirmative defense in this traffic accident case should not have been struck. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car rear-ended by defendants. The court noted that any comparative negligence among defendant-drivers does not preclude summary judgment on liability in favor of a non-negligent passenger:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). …

Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the defendants’ first affirmative defense, alleging that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. “[N]o motion by the plaintiff lies under CPLR 3211(b) to strike the defense [of failure to state a cause of action], as this amounts to an endeavor by the plaintiff to test the sufficiency of his or her own claim” … . Ochoa v Townsend, 2022 NY Slip Op 05854, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ failure-to-state-a-cause-of-action affirmative defense should not have been granted because the motion amounts to plaintiff’s testing the sufficiency of his or her claim.

Practice Point: In a traffic-accident case, comparative negligence among defendant drivers does not preclude summary judgment on liability in favor of an innocent passenger.

 

 

,

IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact in this reverse-mortgage foreclosure action. The mortgage allowed foreclosure upon the death of a borrower (Goldman) as long as the property is not occupied by a “surviving borrower.” Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she was names as a borrower in the mortgage, which she signed:

… [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she was a “surviving Borrower” under the note and mortgage, which would preclude the plaintiff from requiring payment in full upon Goldman’s death … . Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she signed the mortgage in which she was named as a borrower. “Generally, the rule is that separate contracts relating to the same subject matter and executed simultaneously by the same parties may be construed as one agreement” … . Here, the note and mortgage, construed together, were ambiguous as to whether the defendant was intended to be a borrower … . Where, as here, contract language is “reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, . . . extrinsic or parol evidence may be . . . permitted to determine the parties’ intent as to the meaning of that language” …  Here, the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was a borrower under the subject loan. Although Goldman, and not the defendant, was named as the borrower on various documents, including the loan application, both Goldman and the defendant signed a copy of a Truth-in-Lending Act disclosure. Moreover, in her affidavit, the defendant averred that when she and Goldman applied for the reverse mortgage, they were “assured that when [Goldman] passed away, that I would get the house and that I could continue to live there.” Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Hoar, 2022 NY Slip Op 05853, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage and the note must be read as a single agreement. The fact that defendant was named in the mortgage, which she signed, but not named in the note, raised a question of fact whether she was a “surviving borrower,” precluding the reverse-mortgage foreclosure.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE HIS DIMINISHED RANGE OF MOTION TO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO HIS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “SERIOUS INJURY;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT (DEFENDANTS’ TRUCK REAR-ENDED PLAINTIFF’S CAR AT 45 MILES PER HOUR) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DEFENDANT MUST TAKE THE PLAINTIFF AS HE OR SHE FINDS HIM (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether he suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 in this rear-end traffic accident case. [Editor’s Note: Decisions determining whether plaintiff suffered “serious injury” within the meaning of the No-Fault Law are not covered in the New York Appellate Digest because each analysis is necessarily unique and fact-specific. This “serious injury” decision has been summarized because there is a two-justice dissent arguing (1) the nature of the accident, defendants’ truck rear-ending plaintiff’s car at 45 miles per hour, should have been considered, (2) the defendant must take the plaintiff as he or she finds him, and (3) there are questions of fact whether plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accident.]:

… [P]laintiff did not provide … objective medical evidence distinguishing his preexisting back condition from its purported exacerbation in the November 2016 accident — such as, for example, proof tying the diminished ranges of motion observed by [plaintiff’s expert] in March 2021 to the November 2016 accident rather than plaintiff’s prior degenerative back problems — or demonstrating a causal link between any exacerbation and the self-reported limitations on plaintiff’s activities for purposes of his 90/180-day claim … .

From the dissent:

The facts regarding the accident are not in dispute. Defendant Alton E. Horn was driving a 1998 Kenworth tractor trailer at a speed of 45 miles per hour when he rear-ended plaintiff. While we could find no postaccident photographs of the vehicles in the record, Horn stated that the impact bent his bumper and pushed the hood up on his tractor trailer, and plaintiff referred to his vehicle as “totaled.” Plaintiff was removed from the scene by ambulance and was administered morphine en route to the hospital. Although plaintiff was released from the hospital that night, he reported that he was bedridden for the next 10 days. During oral argument, defendants’ counsel urged us to ignore these facts attendant to the actual accident, however we could find no case law that mandates that the Court leave its common sense at the door. Simply put, the facts do matter. Finally, it is undisputed that, although plaintiff had not undergone surgery to alleviate the discomfort in his lower back before the accident, he has since.

… [E]very first-year law student is aware of the eggshell plaintiff axiom, namely that the defendant must take the plaintiff as he or she finds him, i.e., the plaintiff may recover to the extent that the accident aggravated his or her preexisting conditions … . Lemieux v Horn, 2022 NY Slip Op 05739, Second Dept 10-13-22

Practice Point: The majority concluded the plaintiff’s evidence did not link his current range of motion limitations to the traffic accident, as opposed to his pre-existing conditions. Therefore plaintiff did not demonstrate “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The two-justice dissent argued the nature of the accident–defendants’ truck rear-ended plaintiff’s car at 45 miles per hour–and plaintiff’s medical evidence raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accident.

 

,

A DRAINAGE GRATE WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CODE AND WHICH IS NOT DEFECTIVE IS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS WET FROM RAIN AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the drainage grate on which plaintiff slipped and fell was not a dangerous or defective condition. The grate did not violate any code and was not defective. The fact that the grate was wet from falling rain did not demonstrate a dangerous condition:

A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition … . “In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition upon the landowner’s property, the plaintiff must establish, among other things, that a dangerous or defective condition actually existed” … . Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the metal drainage grate, which was not in violation of any applicable code, was not in a defective or hazardous condition and that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition … . The mere fact that the grate was wet from the falling rain was insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous condition … . Shuttleworth v Saint Margaret’s R.C. Church in Middle Vil., 2022 NY Slip Op 05730, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here a drainage grate which did not violate any code and which was not defective was not a dangerous condition simply because it was wet with rain at the time of the slip and fall.

 

, ,

THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the judge should not have determined defendant breached the cooperation agreement without a hearing. The prosecutor argued defendant breached the agreement by not providing information which defendant didn’t reveal until he was about to testify against a codefendant in accordance with the agreement. The defendant argued the information did not relate to the codefendant and he did not believe it was relevant at the time the cooperation agreement was created:

“[S]entencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and . . . ‘the sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause'” … . Generally, “a guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … , but, where no promises are breached by the People and a defendant fails to abide by the terms of a cooperation agreement, a court is not obligated to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea … . Under the circumstances present here, these important issues have not been adequately resolved because the Supreme Court failed to hold a hearing or conduct a sufficient inquiry into whether the defendant violated the terms of the cooperation agreement … . …

This record reflects that the parties are sharply at odds as to whether there was a material breach of the cooperation agreement when the defendant provided additional information in response to new evidence shown to him during the codefendant’s trial … . The determination of this issue rests on nuanced considerations, including the defendant’s intent and the prosecutors’ interactions with the defendant while preparing for the codefendant’s trial. A hearing would have provided, among other things, an opportunity for the defendant to testify about the nature of the belatedly disclosed information, his reasons therefor, and his understanding of its importance to the case against the codefendant. People v Owensford, 2022 NY Slip Op 05716, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here there were nuanced disputed facts concerning whether defendant breached the cooperation agreement. The judge should have held a hearing to resolve the disputed facts. Conviction reversed and matter remitted.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING MOTHER NEGLECTED HER TWO-MONTH OLD CHILD BY EXPOSING THE CHILD TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THAT THE CHILD MAY HAVE HEARD LOUD ARGUING BEFORE GRANDMOTHER TOOK THE CHILD TO HER APARTMENT WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support finding mother abused her two-month old child. The child, who was removed from the scene by the grandmother before the acts of domestic violence took place:

“‘[A] finding of neglect is proper where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired by the parent’s commission of an act, or acts, of domestic violence in the child’s presence'” … . “However, ‘exposing a child to domestic violence is not presumptively neglectful,'” and “‘[n]ot every child exposed to domestic violence is at risk of impairment'” . “The Legislature’s requirement of actual or imminent danger of impairment prevents st… ate intrusion into private family life in the absence of ‘serious harm or potential harm to the child, not just . . . what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior'” … .

While testimony was elicited from the paternal grandmother that the subject child, then under two months old, was somewhere in an apartment with the mother and the father while they yelled at each other, the grandmother testified that she removed the child from that apartment prior to any acts of domestic violence. The evidence that the mother and the father engaged in a loud verbal argument in the presence of their infant child was insufficient to establish that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger of becoming impaired … . Matter of Kingston T. (Diamond T.), 2022 NY Slip Op 05694, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Mother’s two-month-old child may have heard loud arguing before grandmother removed the child from the scene. The evidence did not support a finding mother neglected the child by exposing the child to domestic violence.

 

,

ALTHOUGH FATHER DEMONSTRATED HIS FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT WAS NOT WILLFUL, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED A MONEY JUDGMENT BASED ON HIS FAILURE TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined that although father demonstrated his failure to pay child support was not willful, a money judgment for father’s failure to obey a lawful order of child support should have been entered:

“Proof of failure to pay child support as ordered constitutes prima facie evidence of willful violation of an order of support” … . Here, the mother presented evidence at the hearing of the father’s failure to pay child support as ordered. Specifically, the mother presented evidence that the father had made only one child support payment during the relevant period, and that he owed basic child support in the sum of $19,591.43. Therefore, the mother met her prima facie burden … .

The burden then shifted to the father to offer some competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay child support in accordance with the order was not willful … . The father testified, and presented proof, that he intended to pay, but his employer and/or the Support Collection Unit had not properly followed through with the wage garnishment procedure. The Support Magistrate found the father’s testimony credible. “Great deference should be given to the credibility determinations of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses” … .. Under the circumstances of this case, the father’s showing was sufficient to establish that his failure to pay was not willful.

Nevertheless, as there was competent proof at the hearing that the father failed to obey a lawful order of child support (see Family Ct Act § 454[1]), a money judgment should be entered in favor of the mother for the amount of child support arrears that accrued during the relevant period … . Matter of Santman v Schonfeldt, 2022 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here father demonstrated his failure to pay child support was not willful. But the court still should have entered a money judgment against father based upon his failure to obey a lawful order of child support.

 

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