You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defaulting defendant whose answer had been struck was not entitled to further discovery for the inquest on damages:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to compel the plaintiff to provide additional discovery. “While a defaulting defendant is entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses at the inquest on damages, such a defendant is not entitled to any further discovery since its answer was stricken” … . Here, since the court struck the defendant’s answer … the defendant “is not entitled to any further discovery” … . Brasil-Puello v Weisman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04893, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant whose answer has been struck is not entitled to discovery prior to the inquest on damages.

 

THE ELECTRICAL STUB UP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING PASSAGEWAYS TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS GENERALLY DO NOT APPLY TO AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION; HERE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFETY MARKERS CALLING ATTENTION TO THE STUB UPS APPARENTLY BROUGHT THE FACTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THOSE “KEEP PASSAGEWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS” CODE PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provisions which require passageways to be kept clear of debris applied to electric “stub ups” which protrude from the floor, even though the stub ups are integral parts of the construction, to which those Code provisions do not apply. Apparently the absence of safety markers calling attention to the stub ups was deemed to be covered by those “free of debris” Code provisions:

Although neither subdivision (1) nor (2) of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e) applies where the object over which the plaintiff trips is an integral part of construction …, that exception does not apply here. While it is undisputed that the stub up was an integral part of the construction, none of the defendants have pointed to evidence that it was necessary that the stub ups be unmarked or that safety markings or other protective measures would have interfered with the work … . Murphy v 80 Pine, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04811, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: The Industrial Code provisions requiring passageways to be kept clear of debris do not apply to tripping hazards that are integral parts of construction. Here the electrical stub up over which plaintiff tripped was an integral part of construction. Nevertheless, the Second Department deemed the Code provisions to apply because of the absence of safety markers to alert workers to the location of the stub ups (which protrude from the floor).

 

,

EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE NINE MONTH DELAY BEFORE THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT REPORT WAS CREATED BY THE POLICE ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was a nine-month delay. There was an incident report prepared on the day of the accident but the Second Department found the report did not notify the city of a potential lawsuit stemming from the accident. The attorney affirmation submitted by the city was speculative and therefore did not demonstrate the city was prejudiced by the failure to timely file the notice of claim. Petitioner did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file. Despite the city’s failure to show prejudice, the petition should have been denied:

… [T]he appellants did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . … [A] Yonkers Police Department incident report prepared on the day of the accident by a responding officer did not provide the appellants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. For reports to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, “one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed” … . A police accident report prepared by a responding officer, establishing knowledge of the accident, generally does not, without more, provide actual knowledge to the municipal defendants of the essential facts underlying the claim against them … . Here, the Yonkers Police Department report indicated that the petitioner stated that she had slipped and fallen while exiting a ramp on the appellants’ property and turning the corner, but there is no identification of the cause of the fall from which negligence on the part of the appellants could be inferred.

The petitioner asserts that there is no prejudice to the appellants’ ability to conduct an investigation inasmuch as the transitory nature of the icy condition would be difficult to investigate whether 90 days later or months later … . In response, the appellants rely upon an attorney affirmation stating that their ability to conduct an investigation was substantially prejudiced by the delay because one of the responding officers retired and might not be available to testify, and the others could not be expected to recall the accident, given the passage of time. This affirmation, based solely on speculation and conjecture, is insufficient for the appellants to rebut the petitioner’s showing of lack of prejudice with particularized evidence in the record … .

Nevertheless, weighing the appropriate factors, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition in light of the lack of reasonable excuse, the time elapsed, and the lack of actual knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the claim … . Matter of Ortiz v Westchester County, 2022 NY Slip Op 04807, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Here an incident report prepared by the police on the day of the slip and fall was deemed not to have provided the city with timely notice of a potential lawsuit. And the fact that the city did not demonstrate it was prejudiced by the delay did not prevent the Second Department from finding the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted.

 

,

THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT FROM AN ACCIDENT REPORT AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. The accident alerted the city to the potential lawsuit and the delay was minimal. The absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay was overlooked:

It was readily inferable from a police accident report, a line-of-duty injury report, and witness statements taken on the day of the subject accident “that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by [an employee of] the public corporation” … . Thus, the defendant was not prejudiced by the petitioner’s delay, which was, in any event, minimal. Accordingly, the court should have granted the petition notwithstanding the lack of a reasonable excuse … . Matter of Dautaj v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04802, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Where a municipal defendant has actual timely notice of a potential lawsuit from an accident report, the delay is not long, and the city suffers no prejudice from the failure to timely file, a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted even when petitioner does not have a reasonable excuse.

 

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off an inverted bucket when he was installing stacked washers and dryers. Defendant demonstrated plaintiff did not need to elevate himself to do the work:

According to the plaintiff, on the day at issue, he was standing on an inverted bucket in order to reach the power cable for the stacked washer dryer unit that he had just pushed into the closet before he had plugged in the power cable. The plaintiff contended that the power cable was resting on top of the dryer and was out of reach, and that the washer dryer unit, although on wheels, was difficult to move, so he stood on an inverted bucket to reach the power cable. The plaintiff alleged that the bucket slipped out from under him and he fell and was injured. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because his conduct unnecessarily exposed him to an elevation-related risk … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony … established that a ladder was not necessary for the plaintiff to do his work. The plaintiff testified that each of the stacked washer and dryer units that he was installing was on wheels and not secured within the closet in which they were being installed. … [P]rior to the incident, he had installed approximately 20 stacked washer and dryer units without using a ladder. … [W]ith respect to the unit he was installing on the day at issue, in order to reach the power cable, he could have moved the stacked washer and dryer out of the closet rather than stand on an inverted bucket, but he chose not to do so. Morales v 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04801, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: In this unusual Labor Law 240(1) action, the defendants demonstrated plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to do his job. Therefore plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall (from the bucket) and defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-police officer’s (Maldonado’s) action against Domino’s Pizza (DP) as the employer of defendant pizza-delivery-driver (Alum) should have been dismissed. Maldonado pulled Alum over to issue a ticket for a defective headlight. Alum allegedly became violent and injured Maldonado sued DP under vicarious-liability theory negligent hiring-supervision theories. The Second Department held Alum was not acting within the scope of his employment when he resisted arrest, DP demonstrate it did not have knowledge or notice that Alum had a propensity for violence:

… [DP demonstrated] that Allum’s allegedly tortious conduct was not within the scope of his employment. … DP demonstrated that the violent conduct displayed by Allum during the course of receiving a ticket for a defective headlight was not reasonably foreseeable or incidental to the furtherance of DP’s business interests and that Allum was not authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of his employment … . …

… DP demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. In this regard, DP demonstrated that it did not have knowledge, or notice, of Allum’s propensity for the violent conduct that resulted in Maldonado’s injury … . Moreover, “[t]here is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Maldonado v Allum, 2022 NY Slip Op 04798, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: An employer will not be liable for the tortious behavior of an employee unless the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. Here a pizza-delivery driver allegedly resisted arrest after a traffic stop and injured plaintiff police officer. The employer was not liable for the violent behavior of the employee under either a vicarious liability or negligent hiring theory.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department upheld a jury verdict (reducing it however) in favor of plaintiff who was detained in defendant Home Depot’s store by a Home Depot employee based upon the false allegation plaintiff had assaulted a woman. Plaintiff was detained until the police arrived and then arrested. Plaintiff was a court attorney and was seeking a judicial nomination. Plaintiff was awarded $1.8 million, which the Second Department reduced to $500,000:

The jury, after a trial on the issue of liability, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the causes of action alleging battery and false imprisonment. …

… False arrest and false imprisonment are two different names for the same common-law tort … . The elements of the tort are intent to confine the plaintiff, the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and the confinement was not otherwise privileged … . “Probable cause is a complete defense to an action alleging . . . false imprisonment” … .

The fact that the police had probable cause to detain the plaintiff based on what Marrugo [the Home Depot employee] told them does not mean that Marrugo had probable cause to detain the plaintiff. Although a civilian complainant generally cannot be found liable for false imprisonment merely for providing information to the police which turns out to be wrong … , a private person can be liable for false imprisonment for actively participating in the arrest such as “‘importuning the authorities to act'” … . The record indicates that the plaintiff would not have been arrested but for Marrugo’s detention of him, and importuning the police to arrest him. Marrugo instigated the arrest, making the police his agents in confining the plaintiff … . Marrugo did so based upon false information that the plaintiff assaulted the female customer with a shopping cart. Wieder v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04830, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Here a Home Depot employee detained plaintiff until the police arrived based on the false allegation he had assaulted a woman. Plaintiff sued Home Depot and the verdict in plaintiff’s favor was upheld.

 

UPON CONVICTION OF ROBBERY SECOND, ROBBERY THIRD, AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that robbery third is a lesser included offense of robbery second and must be dismissed upon conviction of robbery second:

… [R]obbery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree (see CPL 300.30[4] …). A verdict of guilt upon the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count (see CPL 300.40[3]). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction of robbery in the third degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment … . People v Hardy, 2022 NY Slip Op 04820, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Upon conviction of the greater offense, a lesser included offense must be dismissed.

 

, ,

A JURY NOTE WHICH REQUIRES NO ACTION BY THE COURT NEED NOT BE SHARED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was no need for the judge to notify defense counsel of a jury note which did not require any action by the court, Also, jury notes requesting exhibits did not need to be shared with counsel because counsel agreed at the outset of deliberations that the jury could request exhibits:

In the defendant’s view, the Supreme Court’s failure to read note 6 into the record constituted a mode of proceedings error. We disagree.

Note 6 did not request “further instruction or information with respect to the law, [or] with respect to the content or substance of any trial evidence” (CPL 310.30). Nor did it indicate that the jury was deadlocked or struggling to reach a verdict on any or all of the counts submitted to it, or otherwise apprise the court of a significant development in the deliberations … . All the note conveyed was that the jury was continuing to deliberate on all of the charges, and that they were nearing a verdict on the first count in the defendant’s case, as well as the two counts in the codefendant’s case. Plainly, then, there was no action for the Supreme Court to take, and, concomitantly, no input or participation from defense counsel was necessary to ensure that the defendant’s rights were “adequately protect[ed]” … . Note 6 was, in short, not a substantive communication from the jury. People v Edwards, 2022 NY Slip Op 04818, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: A jury note which does not require action by the judge need not be shared with defense counsel. Here the note informed the judge that they were near a verdict on certain counts.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED INCLUDE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS WITH ITS MOTION PAPERS AND THEREBY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT OR PLAINTIFF’S STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not establish defendants’ default or plaintiff’s standing in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of Christy Vieau, a document execution associate for the plaintiff, who, based upon her review of business records, attested to [defendant’s]  default in payment. While Vieau made the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures (see CPLR 4518[a]), she did not identify the records she relied upon, and did not attach them to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions as to the contents of these records were inadmissible … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, its standing to commence the action. … “A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note, either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint” … . A plaintiff may establish its standing by “demonstrating that the note was in its possession prior to the commencement of the action, as evidenced by its attachment of the endorsed note to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced” … . Here, the plaintiff contends that it established standing by annexing a copy of the original note, endorsed to it, to the complaint. However, there is no copy of an endorsed note attached to the complaint. Rather, the copy of the note attached to the complaint states that it is an electronic document with an electronic transfer history, a fact wholly unaddressed by the plaintiff … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Koznitz I, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04813, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Many foreclosure summary judgment awards are reversed because the bank did not attached the documents referenced in its papers. Here the documents supporting defendants’ alleged default and the bank’s standing were missing and summary judgment was reversed.

 

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