You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank violated the “separate envelope” rule (RPAPL 1304) in that the foreclosure notice sent to defendant included notices in addition to the foreclosure notice:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). “[I]nclusion of any material in the separate envelope sent to the borrower under RPAPL 1304 that is not expressly delineated in these provisions constitutes a violation of the separate envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2)” … . The envelope containing the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304 included notices pertaining to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC et seq.) and bankruptcy, and, therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Lanzetta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04322, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure was sent to defendant in an envelope with other notices, a violation of RPAPL 1304, which must be strictly complied with.

 

,

THE PROOF OF THE AMOUNT DUE PURSUANT TO THE MORTGAGE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action was based on hearsay and should not have been confirmed:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “The referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute” … .

Here, as the defendant correctly contends, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [s]he purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations” … . Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Barton, 2022 NY Slip Op 04319, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: In foreclosure actions where the proof is presented by affidavit, if the affidavit relies on business records which are not attached, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Sourour’s) motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the failure to do diagnostic testing decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome. During the trial Sourour sought to but was precluded from cross-examining plaintiff’s expert about whether other doctors who consulted on the case also departed from accepted practice by not performing the additional diagnostic testing. That was deemed reversible error:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . “In considering such a motion, [t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision” … . …

If, as Sourour proposes, a jury were to find that these doctors departed from accepted medical practice and that their departures were a substantial factor in depriving the decedent of a chance for an improved outcome, they could be found at fault together with Sourour … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of these doctors was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding testimony on this issue deprived Sourour of “substantial justice” … . Schuster v Sourour, 2022 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant doctor’s failure to do further diagnostic testing for cancer was deemed to have decreased the chance of a better outcome. Therefore the plaintiff’s verdict was supported by the evidence and properly survived a motion set aside as a matter of law. However, the judge erroneously precluded cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert about whether the other doctors who consulted on plaintiff’s treatment departed from accepted practice failing to order further diagnostic testing. If so, fault would have been shared pursuant to CPLR 1601.

 

, ,

A PLAINTIFF BRINGING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST ADDRESS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RAISED IN THE ANSWER; HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER, WAS RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this traffic accidence case did not demonstrate the owner of defendants’ vehicle, PV Holding, was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore plaintiff’s summary judgment motion with respect to PV Holding should not have been granted. Defendants apparently raised the affirmative defense that the vehicle was leased from PV Holding and therefore was not liable under the Graves Amendment. Because that defense was not addressed in plaintiff’s summary judgment papers, the motion should have been denied:

… [I]n 2005, Congress enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. That act included the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), which provides that the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (1) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing contributing to the accident … .* * *

“CPLR 3212(b) requires the proponent of a motion for summary judgment to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses” … . Pierrelouis v Kuten, 2022 NY Slip Op 04314, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: A plaintiff bringing a motion for summary judgment must address affirmative defenses raised in the answer. Failure to do so requires denial of the motion. Here the Graves Amendment was raised as an affirmative defense in this traffic accident case. The Graver Amendment provides that companies in the business of leasing cars are not vicariously liable for the negligence of the drivers. Plaintiff did not address that defense in the motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE TEMPORAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF 20 POINTS FOR RISK FACTOR 4 AND DEFENSE COUNSEL AGREED WITH THAT 20-POINT ASSESSMENT, THEREBY WAIVING ANY OBJECTION TO IT ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW SORA HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk level assessment, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing. The People did not present evidence of defendant’s commission of two or more sexual offenses separated by more than 24 hours or three or more over at least two weeks to justify the relevant 20 point assessment (risk factor 4). Defense counsel agreed to that 20 point assessment. Defense counsel contested a different assessment but that argument was deemed to have no merit. Defendant’s counsel was deemed ineffective and a new SORA hearing was ordered:

… [T]he sole argument advanced by the defendant’s assigned counsel, challenging the assessment of points under risk factor 9, was clearly devoid of merit. Counsel then expressly conceded that the points in all other categories had been properly assessed, even though there was at least a colorable argument to be made that the People had failed to establish that the temporal requirements for the assessment of points under risk factor 4 were satisfied …  Contrary to the People’s contention, it cannot be said that such an argument would have had little or no chance of success. Although the case summary established that the defendant committed multiple offending acts, it did not contain any information as to when these acts occurred relative to each other, and therefore, standing alone, was insufficient to support the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 4 … . Moreover, counsel’s argument regarding risk factor 9, and other statements made by counsel during the hearing, indicated that counsel was not adequately familiar with the applicable law … . In addition, counsel stated that he was seeking a downward departure, but failed to articulate any argument in support of such a departure … . People v Echols, 2022 NY Slip Op 04310, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: At the SORA risk-level hearing, defense counsel agreed with an assessment of 20 points for risk level 4 despite the People’s failure to submit any evidence in support of it. Because counsel agreed to the assessment, any objection to it was waived and could not be raised on appeal. However, the ineffective-assistance argument, based upon defense counsel’s failure to object to that same 20 point assessment, was properly raised on appeal and was the basis for reversal.

 

, ,

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

 

FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s consent to adoption was not required. Although father, who never married mother, was incarcerated for much of the time since the child was born, and there was an order of protection prohibiting him from seeing the child, the Second Department held father could have, but did not, make an effort to support the child and have the order of protection lifted during the periods he was not incarcerated:

The father bore the burden of establishing that he was a consent father pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) … . The father provided no support for the child, and no evidence was submitted that he lacked the means to do so … . Further, the fact that the father was incarcerated, or that there was no order directing child support, did not absolve him of the obligation to support the child … . Moreover, there were substantial periods of time when the father was out of prison and, therefore, could have petitioned for contact with the child. Although an order of protection in favor of the child was in effect until November 2018, that order specifically provided that it could be modified by a subsequent order issued by the Family Court or the Supreme Court in a parental access proceeding. Further, there was a substantial period in 2019 when the father was out of prison, but the father failed to seek contact with the child through the Family Court….Matter of Statini v Reed, 2022 NY Slip Op 04304, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: In the context of whether father’s consent to adoption of his child (born out-of-wedlock) is required, the fact that father was incarcerated for much of the time since the child was born did not relieve him of his obligation to support the child. Father made no effort to gain parental access to the child, or to support the child, during the periods he was not in prison. Father’s consent to adoption of the child was not required.

 

,

PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined petitioner, who is mildly autistic, demonstrated he did not have a disability within the meaning of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) article 17-a and, therefore, his petition to dissolve the guardianship of his property should have been granted. Petitioner held a job was up-to-date on all his bills:

The petitioner established that he did not have a disability as defined in SCPA article 17-A, as his evidence showed that his ability to “understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of decisions” was not impaired (id. § 1750-a[1]). The petitioner presented medical evidence that his autism was mild and that he did not have significant deficits in adaptive functioning. He also showed, through his own testimony, that he understood the consequences of decisions in financial and other areas. * * *

The petitioner understood, for example, how his rent was calculated, the importance of staying up to date with his bills, what expenses were nonessential and could be eliminated when he needed to conserve money, how to open a bank account, how to obtain advice from the bank on improving his financial situation, and that he would not have direct access to his trust funds if the guardianship were dissolved and that those funds were placed into a pooled trust. Matter of Robert C. B., 2022 NY Slip Op 04301, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The medical records demonstrated petitioner’s mild autism is not a disability within the meaning of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Petitioner demonstrated through his own testimony that he understands and is able to manage his financial affairs. The petition to dissolve the guardianship of his property should have been granted.

 

,

UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS BUT NOT CITY OWNED TREE WELLS, UNLESS THEY AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, NEGLIGENTLY REPAIR THE AREA, OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY A SPECIAL USE; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WELL, NOT THE SIDEWALK, AND NONE OF THE OTHER LIABILITY THEORIES APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant property owner and manager could not be held liable for the condition of a tree well within a city sidewalk. Therefore their motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City to the abutting property owner … . However, “section 7-210 does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells” … . Thus, “liability may be imposed on the abutting landowner in such instances only where she or he has ‘affirmatively created the dangerous condition, negligently made repairs to the area, [or] caused the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of that area'” … . Ivry v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04157, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: Under the NYC Administrative Code, abutting property owners can be liable for a slip and fall due to the condition of the sidewalk, but not a city-owned tree well.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT RECALL HOW OR WHERE HE SLIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT RECALL A FIGHT OR BEING HIT WERE FATAL TO THE SLIP AND FALL AND ASSAULT CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he didn’t recall how or where he slipped and fell, and, with respect to his assault cause of action, did not recall the fight or being hit, was fatal to the complaint:

In a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation … . Here, with regard to that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his alleged fall without engaging in speculation … . …

“To sustain a cause of action to recover damages for assault, there must be proof of physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . Here, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he could not recall a physical altercation at the premises on the date of the alleged incident and did not “recall being hit.” Barnett v Fusco, 2022 NY Slip Op 04147, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, the failure to recall the cause of the fall requires dismissal. In an assault and battery case, the failure to recall the fight or being hit requires dismissal.

 

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