You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner was not entitled to a variance pursuant to the doctrine of vested rights. Petitioner had been issued a permit to build commercial space which included 557 parking spaces. The town subsequently revoked the permit because the town code required 624 parking spaces. Petitioner then applied for a variance arguing the permit which had been issued conveyed a vested right to the originally approved 557 parking spaces:

“The doctrine of vested rights is implicated when a property owner seeks to continue to use property, or to initiate the use of property, in a way that was permissible before enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance but would not be permitted under a new zoning law” … . Such “a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development” … . However, “[v]ested rights cannot be acquired in reliance upon an invalid permit” … . “[T]he mistaken or erroneous issuance of a permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results” … . Here, as the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] soundly determined, the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, since the Town Code plainly sets forth the method for calculating the nonresidential gross floor area according to which the number of required parking spaces is set and pursuant to that method, the required number of spaces exceeded the 557 spaces planned by the petitioner … . Since the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, it could not have conferred vested rights … . Matter of C & B Realty #3, LLC v Van Loan, 2022 NY Slip Op 05036, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner was issued a permit for construction which was later revoked as invalid because it violated the town code. The “doctrine of vested rights” does not apply to the provisions in an invalid permit. Therefore petitioner’s application for a variance to build according to the provisions of the revoked permit was denied. The “doctrine of vested rights” is explained in the decision.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT; THE NEGLIGENT-PARENTAL-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STUDENT’S PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “negligent parental supervision” cause of action against the parents of an autistic child who assaulted plaintiff school psychologist should not have been dismissed. In addition, the parents did not demonstrate their son was, due to his disability, incapable of being liable for negligence or assault. The facts are not discussed:

The plaintiff * * * was assaulted by the defendant David George (hereinafter David), an autistic student with an IQ of 41, who was almost 14 years old at the time. * * *

“While, as a general rule, parents are not liable for the torts of their child, a parent may be held liable, inter alia, where the parent[s] negligence consists entirely of his [or her] failure reasonably to restrain the child from vicious conduct imperilling others, when the parent has knowledge of the child’s propensity toward such conduct'” … . Thus, a parent moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging negligent supervision based on the physical tortious conduct of the parent’s child, must establish, prima facie, that the parent was not aware that, prior to the subject incident, his or her child engaged in violent or vicious conduct that would endanger a third party … . …

The defendants’ contention that the branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against David, on the ground that due to his developmental disability he was “non sui juris and incapable of being liable for negligence” or assault …, is without merit. Levine v George, 2022 NY Slip Op 05032, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Parents are usually not responsible for the torts of their child. In this case the autistic child assaulted plaintiff school psychologist. The facts were not discussed, But the appellate court determined the “negligent parental supervision” cause of action should not have been dismissed.

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the driver of the bus negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and in failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand:

A “defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” …, and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . The evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether [the driver] negligently closed the doors as the plaintiff was attempting to board the bus, and negligently failed to reopen the doors and release the plaintiff’s hand after it became trapped. John v Dobson, 2022 NY Slip Op 05029, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s hand was caught in the closed door of the defendants’ bus. There were questions of fact whether the driver was negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand.

 

,

DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Defendant attempted to make a left turn in front of plaintiff’s vehicle from the middle lane, cutting off plaintiff. The court noted that a plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not a bar to summary judgment:

The accident allegedly occurred when the defendants’ vehicle attempted to make a left turn from the middle lane of Rockaway Boulevard in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle, and cut off the plaintiff’s vehicle. …

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . “To be entitled to . . . summary judgment [on the issue of liability] a plaintiff does not bear the . . . burden of establishing . . . the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … . A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting, inter alia, his own affidavit, which demonstrated that the driver of the defendants’ vehicle was negligent in striking the plaintiff’s vehicle while attempting to make a left turn from the middle lane of traffic (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128[a]; 1160[b …). Jaipaulsingh v Umana, 2022 NY Slip Op 05028, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn from the middle lane, cutting plaintiff off. Comparative negligence is not a bar to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff motorcyclist raised a question of fact whether defendant’s double-parked truck was a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff alleged the motorcycle struck a defect in the road which cause the motorcycle to veer toward defendant’s truck. Plaintiff flipped over the motorcycle when he braked to avoid colliding with truck. The issue was whether the double-parked trucked merely furnished the occasion for the accident or whether the double-parked truck was a proximate cause of the accident (a difficult distinction which comes up occasionally in the appellate decisions):

In support of its motion, [defendant] Peapod submitted the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which the plaintiff testified that his motorcycle struck a road defect, but that the defect did not cause him to immediately fall or apply the brakes. Instead, when the motorcycle encountered the defect, the motorcycle veered toward Peapod’s double-parked truck 40 yards ahead of him in the same lane of traffic. In order to avoid colliding with the truck, the plaintiff applied the front brakes of the motorcycle, which resulted in him flipping over the motorcycle. Given this evidence, it cannot be said that Peapod established as a matter of law that the truck merely furnished the occasion for the accident … . Rather, this testimony demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the presence of Peapod’s double-parked truck was a proximate cause of the accident … . Further, the evidence relied upon by Peapod in support of its motion failed to establish, prima facie, that its truck was not negligently parked or violating applicable traffic regulations … . Colletti v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05019, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Accident cases sometimes require making a difficult distinction between merely furnishing an occasion for an accident, which is not actionable, and a proximate cause of an accident. Supreme Court held the presence of defendant’s double-parked truck merely furnished the occasion for plaintiff’s motorcycle accident. The Second Department reversed finding a question of fact whether the presence of the truck was a proximate cause of the accident.

 

,

AN ACTION FOR “STRICT FORECLOSURE” PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1352 ALLOWS THE PURCHASER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO EXTINGUISH ANY POTENTIAL CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY BY A NECESSARY PARTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department explained that an action for “strict foreclosure” pursuant to RPAPL 1352 is properly brought by the purchaser of foreclosed property to extinguish any claim to the property by a necessary party who not named in the foreclosure action:

Where, as here, a necessary party was omitted from a foreclosure action, the purchaser of the foreclosed property may commence a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352 … . “RPAPL 1352 permits a strict foreclosure action against a person not named in the original foreclosure action, who has either a right of redemption to the subject property or a right to foreclose a subordinate mortgage or other lien” … . The statute authorizes the court to issue a judgment that fixes a time period within which any such person must act to redeem or begin a foreclosure action. If the person fails to redeem the property or commence a foreclosure action within the time period fixed by the court, such person “shall be excluded from claiming any title or interest in such property and all title or interest of such person . . . or the right to foreclose a subordinate mortgage or other lien against such property shall thereby be extinguished and terminated” … . “Since RPAPL 1352 operates to dispose of the encumbrances of those whose interests were junior at the time of the original foreclosure but who were not joined as parties to that action, a judgment of strict foreclosure cures a defect in the judgment or sale under the first foreclosure” … . 71-21 Loubet, LLC v Bank of Am., N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 05012, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to RPAPL 1352, the purchaser of foreclosed property can extinguish any potential claim to the property by a necessary party not included in the original foreclosure proceedings.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action based upon plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure by a specified date:

… [A] status conference order was entered … which … directed the plaintiff to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by December 20, 2017, and warned that “failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” The plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the status conference order. … [T]he Supreme Court, … sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. …

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'”… . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive of the status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Stuart, 2022 NY Slip Op 05055, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Generally, appellate courts will reverse a “sua sponte” dismissal of a complaint.

 

,

APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue would be considered even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute; (2) the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from plaintiff’s fall into a pit should not have been dismissed:

“As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so” … . Since the plaintiff appealed from an order superseding the prior order appealed from at a time before the prior appeal was deemed dismissed, we exercise that discretion here. …

… [T]he defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the risk of falling into a 16-foot pit on an excavation site is a type of elevation-related risk within the purview of protection of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the foreman, which were submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, contain conflicting testimony raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff received instructions not to stand within five feet of the pit. The defendants also did not establish, prima facie, that the installation of a protective device “would have been contrary to the objectives of the work” … . Thorpe v One Page Park, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05053, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate court exercised its discretion to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue, even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from his fall into a pit should not have been dismissed.

 

STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined sheetrock panels which were stored upright and fell over on plaintiff did not constitute an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do ‘not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Therefore, to recover under Labor Law § 240(1), the injured plaintiff “must have suffered an injury as ‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “Therefore, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, [defendant] established … the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Parrino v Rauert, 2022 NY Slip Op 04970, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here stored sheetrock panels which fell over on plaintiff did not constitute the kind of elevation/gravity-related incident that is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The facts are not explained. If the sheetrock should have been secured, it would seem Labor Law 240(1) would apply. Apparently defendant demonstrated there was no need to secure the sheetrock?

 

,

THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued. The nonparty, Bijari, listed for sale the real property where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff sought information about the sale because the information could be relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied:

CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from nonparties to an action, provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . . . any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” … .. Under that statute, the party who served the subpoena has an initial minimal obligation to show that the nonparty was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that the disclosure is sought … . Once that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . …

For a protective order to be issued, the party seeking such an order must make a “factual showing of ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice'” … . “‘Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to issue appropriate protective orders to limit discovery. . . . [T]his discretion is to be exercised with the competing interests of the parties and the truth-finding goal of the discovery process in mind'” … . Here, Bijari failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order with regard to the subpoena…. . Nunez v Peikarian, 2022 NY Slip Op 04969, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action the plaintiff subpoenaed a nonparty who listed for sale the property where plaintiff was injured. The information plaintiff sought was relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied. The subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued.

 

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