You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, STARTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANEW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was commenced after the statute of limitations had run. The bank claimed the defendant acknowledged the debt in a loan modification agreement, starting the statute of limitations anew. But the bank did not present evidence of the agreement in admissible form:

The plaintiff argues that the defendant entered into a loan modification agreement, which constituted an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt under General Obligations Law § 17-101 sufficient to reset the statute of limitations to commence a future foreclosure action on the mortgage. “General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . “To constitute a valid acknowledgment, a ‘writing must be signed and recognize an existing debt and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it'” … . “In order to demonstrate that the statute of limitations has been renewed by a partial payment, it must be shown that the payment was accompanied by circumstances amounting to an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Paniagua, 2022 NY Slip Op 04708, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff bank did not demonstrate defendant acknowledged the mortgage debt in a loan modification agreement (thereby re-starting the statute of limitation for a foreclosure action). The evidence of the debt-acknowledgment presented by the bank did not meet the requirements of General Obligations Law 17-101. Therefore the statute of limitations was not revived. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as untimely should have been granted.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH PLANKING WHICH DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT A SHAFT OPENING; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOREMAN INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ENTER THE SHAFT SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. The fact that plaintiff’s employer instructed him not to enter the shaft where plaintiff fell to the floor below spoke to comparative negligence which is not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

The injured plaintiff allegedly was injured when he stepped onto aluminum planks that lay across the unobstructed shaft opening on the sixteenth floor. The planks gave way beneath him and caused him to fall to a platform across the shaft on the fifteenth floor. * * *

… [Deposition testimony] established that the shaft opening was not properly protected so as to prevent workplace accidents … . … [Defendants] failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff’s failure to heed the instructions of the … foreman … not to enter the shaft constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries because “an instruction by an employer or owner to avoid using unsafe equipment or engaging in unsafe practices is not a ‘safety device’ in the sense that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the instruction is equivalent to refusing to use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . “A worker’s injury in an area of the work site where the worker was not supposed to be amounts to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim” … . Zong Wang Yang v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04761, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff fell through planking placed over a shaft after he was instructed not to enter the inadequately protected shaft-area. Failure to heed the instruction speaks to comparative negligence which is not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED: ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE WHERE PLAINTIFF MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WAS NOT PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff pedestrian was entitled to summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case; and (2)  plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was not premature, The court noted that, although plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not a bar to summary judgment, the issue can still be considered at the summary judgment stage when plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that she was approximately halfway across the street in a crosswalk with the pedestrian signal in her favor when the defendant, who was making a right turn, failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her, and that the defendant did not see the plaintiff in the crosswalk while making his turn … . The plaintiff also established, prima facie, that she was not at fault in the happening of the accident by demonstrating that, exercising due care, she had confirmed that she had the pedestrian signal in her favor and checked in both directions for approaching vehicles before entering the crosswalk … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to his negligence or whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … .

… [P]laintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendant failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff … .The “mere hope or speculation” that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is an insufficient basis for denying the plaintiff’s motion … . Xiuying Cui v Hussain, 2022 NY Slip Op 04759, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Although summary judgment in a traffic accident case can be awarded without consideration of plaintiff’s comparative negligence, the issue can be considered at the summary judgment stage when the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

Practice Point: Here the court found that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was not premature because the defendant did not demonstrate further discovery would lead to relevant evidence.

 

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE SPECIFIC OR MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea was not voluntary because defendant was not informed of the specific or maximum period of postrelease supervision to which defendant would be sentenced:

“To meet due process requirements, a defendant must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action [and,] [w]ithout such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required” … . “It is not enough for a court to generally inform a defendant that a term of postrelease supervision will be imposed as a part of the sentence” … .. “Rather, for a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the court must inform the defendant of either the specific period of postrelease supervision that will be imposed or, at the least, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed” … . People v Wolfe, 2022 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Failure to inform the defendant of the specific or maximum period of postrelease supervision aspect of the sentence rendered the guilty plea involuntary.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE THE COMPLAINANT SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” FROM MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND ROBBERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced defendant’s convictions to attempted gang assault first, attempted assault first, attempted robbery first and attempted assault second because the proof the complainant suffered “serious physical injury” was lacking:

… [W]e find that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt on these counts. Although the complainant was stabbed multiple times, there was no evidence of serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ … .

However, the evidence at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to inflict serious physical injury and came “dangerously near” to committing the completed crimes … . People v Mayancela, 2022 NY Slip Op 04741, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Here, although the complainant was stabbed multiple times, the wounds did not damage any organs and were treated with sutures. Therefore the proof the complainant suffered “serious physical injury” was legally insufficient. The convictions were reduced to attempted gang assault, assault and robbery.

 

,

THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE DRY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE ALLEGED FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavit of a building porter stating that the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was dry when he inspected shortly before the alleged fall warranted granting defendants’ summary judgment motion. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on water ono the floor:

…[T]the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. In support of the motion, the defendants submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony and affidavit of the building’s porter, which established that, shortly before the accident, the porter traversed the hallway where the accident occurred, inspected the floor for wetness, and observed that the floor was dry … . Serebrenik v Chelsea Apts., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04658, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: When a defendant brings a summary judgment motion in a slip and fall case, the motion papers must demonstrate the defendant did not create the alleged dangerous condition and did not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition. If defendant can show the area was inspected close in time to the fall and the area was clean (or dry in this case), the defendant will have demonstrated a lack of constructive notice of the condition. Absent evidence to the contrary presented in opposition, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is warranted.

 

,

THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged misrepresentation in plaintiff’s application for car insurance was not demonstrated to have been “material” as a matter of law. Therefore defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this hit-and-run accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was alleged to have stated in her application that she lived in New Rochelle and the car would be garaged there, when in fact she lived in Brooklyn and the care would be garaged there:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident … . At the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s vehicle was insured by the defendant, Mercury Casualty Company (hereinafter Mercury). The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of the insurance policy, alleging that Mercury breached the policy by failing to make payment on her claim under an uninsured motorists endorsement to the policy in connection with the subject accident. …Mercury moved … for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had no obligation to provide the plaintiff with benefits under the “fraud or misrepresentation” provision of the insurance policy. …

Mercury failed to demonstrate the materiality of the misrepresentation complained of, as a matter of law. Although Mercury submitted an affidavit of an underwriting supervisor who stated that it would have issued the plaintiff a different policy with a higher premium had the plaintiff disclosed her Brooklyn address, the underwriting guidelines submitted by Mercury do not state that it does not insure vehicles kept in Brooklyn or that policies insuring vehicles kept in Brooklyn are assessed a higher premium than those garaged in New Rochelle … . Rodriguez v Mercury Cas. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 04656, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: To warrant a denial of coverage based on a misrepresentation in an application for insurance, the misrepresentation must be “material.” Here there was a question of fact on that question and the insurer’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. It was alleged plaintiff stated in her application she lived in New Rochelle and the car would be garaged there, when in fact she lived in Brooklyn and the car was garaged there. The underlying incident was a hit-and-run accident.

 

, , ,

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THIS FIRST DEGREE MURDER (MURDER-FOR-HIRE) TRIAL WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW; IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO FAIL TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO AN ACCUSATION (ADOPTIVE ADMISSION) WAS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT HEARD THE ACCUSATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder-first-degree conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the jury should have been instructed that the defendant’s paramour, Lovell, who was involved the plot to have the victim killed by a third-party, and who testified against the defendant at trial, was an accomplice as a matter of law. Despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve the error, the issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice. The Second Department also held that the “adoptive admission” by the defendant should not have been admitted in evidence. It was alleged the defendant remained silent when her mother-in-law accused her of killing the victim. The People did not prove defendant actually heard the accusation:

Supreme Court failed to instruct the jury that Lovell was an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement. Although the court was “under a duty to charge . . . even without a request from the defendant … , the rule of preservation requires that defense counsel object to the court’s failure in order to preserve a question of law for appellate review … . Notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to object at trial, under the circumstances of this case, we reach the unpreserved error in the interest of justice and find that the failure to properly instruct the jury constituted reversible error … …. [T]he evidence of the defendant’s guilt, which consisted principally of Lovell’s testimony, was not overwhelming … . * * *

“To use a defendant’s silence or evasive response as evidence against the defendant, the People must demonstrate that the defendant heard and understood the assertion, and reasonably would have been expected to deny it” … . Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant actually heard the mother-in-law’s accusations or that the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the accusations prior to the mother-in-law disconnecting the phone call. Therefore, the court should not have admitted the evidence. People v Noel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04647, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The testimony of defendant’s paramour, who was involved in the murder-for-hire, was the principal evidence against the defendant. The failure to instruct the jury that the paramour was an accomplice as a matter of law whose testimony must be corroborated was reversible error. Although the error was not preserved the Second Department considered it ion appeal in the interest of justice. The defendant’s silence in the face of an accusation (an adoptive admission) should not have been admitted in evidence because the People did not prove the defendant heard the accusation.

 

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to the vacation of his sentence for the murder of his father’s girlfriend pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Defendant was 19 at the time of the killing of his father and his father’s girlfriend, with whom he resided. supreme Court had granted defendant’s motion with regard to the manslaughter conviction for the killing of his father, but denied the motion with regard to the murder conviction for the killing of his father’s girlfriend. The facts are not discussed, but the Second Department found that the facts supported the vacation of the sentence for the murder of father’s girlfriend:

The DVSJA permits courts to impose reduced alternative, less severe, sentences in certain cases involving defendants who are victims of domestic violence … .. The DVSJA sets forth three factors for a court to consider, namely: (1) whether the defendant was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by a member of the same family or household at the time of the offense; (2) whether the abuse was a significant contributing factor to the defendant’s criminal behavior; and (3) whether, having regard for the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character, and condition of the defendant, a sentence in accordance with the customary statutory sentencing guidelines would be unduly harsh (see Penal Law § 60.12). The preponderance of the evidence standard applies … . The DVSJA permits the court to impose a less punitive and less harsh sentence without diminishing the seriousness of the offense or finding the crime to have been justified … . People v Burns, 2022 NY Slip Op 04638, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was 19 when he killed his father and his father’s girlfriend. Based on the facts, which were not discussed, the Second Department determined the sentences should be vacated and defendant should be resentenced pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act.

 

THE FEDERAL POSSESSION-OF-A-FIREARM-BY-A-FELON STATUTE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING THE WEAPON WAS OPERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second felony offender adjudication, determined the federal possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon statute is not the equivalent of a New York felony:

… [T]he defendant should not have been adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior federal conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon (see 18 USC § 922[g][1]). “An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under New York’s sentencing statutes only if it is for a crime ‘whose elements are equivalent to those of a New York felony'” (… see Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Bilfulco, 2022 NY Slip Op 04637, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The federal possession-of-a-weapon statute (18 USC 922[g][1]) is not the equivalent of a New York felony because it does not require that the weapon be operable. Therefore that federal statute cannot be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication.

 

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