You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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.

 

,

THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIM AGAINST THE POLICE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; THE APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim in this “excessive force” action against the police should have been granted. The county had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim and the county did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay. The absence of an adequate excuse was not determinative:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the County of Suffolk and the SCPD, alleging, inter alia, that he had sustained personal injuries due to the use of excessive force by the arresting officers. …

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court is required to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely serve a notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense … . …

… [T]he respondents had timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim, since their employees participated in the acts giving rise to the claim and filed reports and prepared other documentation with respect to the subject incident from which it could be readily inferred that the respondents had committed a potentially actionable wrong … . Matter of Romero v County of Suffolk, 2022 NY Slip Op 04966, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the county had timely knowledge of the nature of petitioner’s excessive-force claim against the police and the county could not demonstrate any prejudice from petitioner’s late filing. The absence of an adequate excuse for failure to file on time was not determinative. Petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim should have been granted.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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