You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the agreement signed by plaintiff in this medical malpractice action which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial was void and unenforceable:

The issue on this appeal is whether the defendants Benjamin M. Schwartz, M.D., and Island Gynecologic Oncology, PLLC (hereinafter together the defendants), may enforce a provision in an agreement that the defendant physician’s receptionist asked the injured plaintiff to sign among other routine medical releases prior to undergoing surgery. Pursuant to this provision, if a patient commenced a medical malpractice action against the defendant physician, each party’s counsel would have the right to depose the other parties’ expert witness(es) at least 120 days before trial. We hold that this provision is unenforceable as against public policy and, in any event, the defendants waived the right to enforce the provision. Furthermore, the entire agreement is unenforceable because the Supreme Court found certain other provisions to be unenforceable, the defendants do not challenge the court’s holding regarding those provisions on appeal, and those provisions are not severable from the remainder of the agreement, including the provision at issue on appeal. * * *

Requiring experts to be made available for deposition 120 days before trial also directly contradicts the provision in CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) that gives trial courts the discretion to “make whatever order may be just” in the event that a party retains an expert in an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to provide appropriate notice. This statutory provision reflects the important public policy of allowing courts to retain discretion in their role as gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert testimony … . For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, here, the public policy in favor of freedom of contract is overridden by these other important and countervailing public policy interests … . Mercado v Schwartz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04962, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: An agreement signed by a patient, who became a plaintiff in this medical malpractice action, which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial is void and unenforceable as against the policy underlying the expert disclosure provisions of the CPLR.

 

THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. The fact that there was only one handrail, which did not violate any statute or code provision, was not tied to the fall:

… [E]ven if a plaintiff’s fall is precipitated by a misstep, where the plaintiff testifies that he or she reached out to try to stop his or her fall, the absence of a handrail, if required by law, may raise an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of his or her injury” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall … . … [T]he building was not subject to the particular code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff … .. … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was an applicable statutory or code provision that required a second handrail on the staircase. The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant breached her common-law duty to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition by failing to install a second handrail … . Mancini v Nicoletta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. There was one handrail. There was no code provision or statute requiring a second handrail. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inspection pit into which plaintiff fell was open and obvious and therefore not actionable:

… “[T]here is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” ,,, , or “where the condition on the property is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the inspection pit was an open and obvious condition that was inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and was not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The speculative and conclusory affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the motion did not allege that there was a violation of any applicable statute or relevant industry standard, and it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Lebron v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04960, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The open and obvious condition, an inspection pit, into which plaintiff fell, was open and obvious and did not violate any statute or code provision. Therefore, plaintiff’s fall was not actionable.

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS NOT HIS DWELLING PLACE; DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO MISLEAD THE PARTY ATTEMPTING TO SERVE HIM (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been estopped from claiming the address in the affidavit of service was not his “dwelling plaice” because defendant misled the party attempting to serve him:

Estoppel, in this context, may preclude a defendant “from challenging the location and propriety of service of process if that defendant has engaged in affirmative conduct which misleads a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . For example, “where a defendant willfully misrepresented his address or violated a statutory notification requirement … , or where he ‘engaged in conduct calculated to prevent the plaintiff from learning his actual place of residence’ … , he may be estopped from asserting the defense of defective service” … .

Here, the record established that the defendant engaged in “affirmative conduct which misl[ed] a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . Hudson Val. Bank, N.A. v Eagle Trading, 2022 NY Slip Op 04956, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A party who affirmatively takes steps to mislead the party attempting to serve him will be estopped from claiming the address in the the affidavit of service is not his dwelling place.

 

, ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations:

… [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause'” …  “The determinative question is not what the noteholder intended or the borrower perceived, but whether the contractual election was effectively invoked” … . Here, a letter sent to the defendants … , did not effectively accelerate the mortgage debt, as this letter merely discussed acceleration as a possible future event … . HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A letter from the bank to the borrower which discussed the acceleration of the mortgage debt but did not indicate the debt was in fact accelerated did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations on the foreclosure action. The foreclosure action was not, therefore, time-barred.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the defect was not cured by an affidavit submitted in reply:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Kolette Modlin, an authorized officer of Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), the loan servicer for the plaintiff’s successor in interest. Modlin stated that she had reviewed the plaintiff’s business records, which had been verified for accuracy, incorporated into Caliber’s records, and relied upon by Caliber in the ordinary course of its business, and determined that 90-day notices were mailed by first-class and certified mail to the defendant at the mortgaged premises. The plaintiff also submitted copies of the 90-day notices that were allegedly sent to the defendant. However, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notices were actually mailed … . Moreover, although Modlin attested that she had personal knowledge of Caliber’s records, and that those records included the plaintiff’s records, Modlin did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the plaintiff, which was the entity that allegedly sent the 90-day notices to the defendant … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, although it submitted with its reply papers a second affidavit from Modlin, along with documentary evidence in the form of a letter log purportedly establishing the mailing of the 90-day notices, the plaintiff could not, under the circumstances, rely on the second affidavit to correct deficiencies inherent in the original one … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Cummings, 2022 NY Slip Op 04949, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff bank did not submit the records proving the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed and the affiant did not demonstrate familiarity with the mailing procedures used by the party which mailed the notice. The defects were not cured by a second affidavit submitted in reply. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-cross-walk traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant driver alleged sun-glare prevented her from seeing the infant plaintiff in the cross-walk. Sun-glare is not an “emergency” and did not raise a question of fact:

… [A] “violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . “A driver who faces a green light has a duty to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are lawfully within a crosswalk in accordance with the standard of care imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(a)(1)” … . “A driver also has ‘a statutory duty to use due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians on the roadway [pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146], as well as a common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses” … .

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting the police accident report, and an affidavit from a witness who averred that the defendants’ vehicle struck the infant plaintiff with its front bumper while the infant plaintiff was crossing Stillwell Avenue in a marked crosswalk with an active “white pedestrian signal” … . In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver had a non-negligent explanation for the accident … . By the defendant driver’s own admissions in the police accident report and her affidavit, she did not see the infant plaintiff prior to the accident, which she only realized had occurred upon “hear[ing] the impact,” and she continued to drive into the crosswalk after being “blinded” by sun glare, which “caus[ed] her to collide into [the infant plaintiff].” Further, as the plaintiffs contend, the foreseeable occurrence of sun glare while the defendant driver was driving west at sundown did not constitute a ‘qualifying emergency’ under the emergency doctrine … . E.B. v Gonzalez, 2022 NY Slip Op 04942, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff was lawfully crossing the street in a cross-walk when struck by defendant driver. The driver’s allegation she was blinded by sun-glare was not an emergency and did not raise a question of fact. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Whole Foods) did not demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the puddle of liquid which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Yerry [plaintiff] as the nonmovant, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the accident was not the result of the defendants’ failure to take appropriate remedial measures within a reasonable period of time after acquiring actual notice of a hazardous condition … . The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ employees made the condition “more hazardous by incomplete remedial measures” … . Yerry v Whole Food Mkt. Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05000, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Unusual case where there was a question of fact whether defendant’s inadequate clean-up of a puddle of liquid caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

,

AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined:

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met, including that issue has been joined in the action” … .. Here, dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 was improper, since none of the defendants had interposed an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Similarly, under the circumstances of this case, 22 NYCRR 202.27 did not provide a basis for dismissal of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Frederic, 2022 NY Slip Op 04999, Second Dept 6-17-22

Practice Point: Where issue has not been joined the action cannot be dismissed for neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

 

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove compliance with the mailing requirements for mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice and the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint:

… [P]laintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the required RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by first-class mail. In an affidavit in support of its motion, Joanna M. Gloria, the plaintiff’s vice president of loan documentation, neither attested that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, nor did she present proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. “‘[T]he mere assertion that the notice was mailed, supported by someone with no personal knowledge of the mailing, in the absence of proof of office practices to ensure that the item was properly mailed, does not give rise to the presumption of receipt'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . No extraordinary circumstances were present in this case, as the “failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not jurisdictional” … , the defendant did not present any proof as to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and did not cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cascarano, 2022 NY Slip Op 04998, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The bank did not prove the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed, requiring denial of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. But the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint.

 

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