You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against plaintiff’s employer for negligence alleging an assault by a coworker should not have been dismissed. Defendants’ alleged that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Because there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment, Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

… Supreme Court improperly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the negligence causes of action … . Since “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,” it is “inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” … . Here, questions of fact were raised as to whether the plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment, and thus, the court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board … . Chin v Doherty Enters., 2022 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by a coworker and sued her employer in negligence. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was injured during the course her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.. Therefore the negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed and the matter should have been referred to the Board.

,

HERE THE FRAMING COMPANY HIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND GIVEN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK WAS LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A “STATUTORY AGENT” OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant South Ocean Framing was a statutory agent liable for plaintiff’s injury pursuant to  Labor Law 240(1). The general contractor hired South Ocean Framing, which in turn subcontracted the framing work to plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff stepped on a beam which flipped out from under him and he fell 15 feet. He was entitled to summary judgment. With respect to the statutory-agent question, the court wrote:

Contrary to South Ocean’s … contention, it is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) as a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor, since it had the authority to supervise and control the particular work in which the plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury .. . Once South Ocean became such an agent, it could not escape liability by delegating its work to another entity [i.e., plaintiff’s employer]. Mogrovejo v HG Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04299, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The general contractor hired the framing company. The framing company hired plaintiff’s employer to do the framing. Because the framing company had supervisory control over plaintiff’s work, it was liable for plaintiff’s injury as a statutory agent under Labor Law 240 (1) and could not escape liability by delegating its supervisory role.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not prove the RPAPL 1304 was properly mailed to the defendants:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied on copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly mailed, purported domestic return receipts, and an affidavit of Catherine Rogers, a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc., the plaintiff’s purported servicer. However, the domestic return receipts were unsigned and undated, and there was no other indication that the certified or first class mailings were accepted by the post office for mailing. Rogers also did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or of Seterus, Inc.’s standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices were mailed. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima, facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Young, 2022 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with and compliance must be proven in the bank’s summary judgment motion papers. Without proof of strict compliance, the motion must be denied.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANKRUPTCY STAY DID NOT TERMINATE WHEN DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE; THE STAY TERMINATED LATER WHEN DEFENDANT RECEIVED A DISCHARGE FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, in a matter of first impression, determined the foreclosure action, which had been stayed when defendant twice filed for bankruptcy, was timely brought. If the stay ceased when defendant bought the subject property from the bankruptcy estate, the foreclosure would have been untimely. But the Second Department held that the stay did not cease until the subsequent discharge order, rendering the action timely:

… [D]efendant’s purchase of the Middle Pond Road property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order did not terminate the automatic bankruptcy stay barring commencement of the instant foreclosure action, but rather, under the circumstances of this case, the automatic bankruptcy stay terminated when the defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court on November 3, 2014.

Pursuant to the plain language of 11 USC § 362(c)(1), the discharge of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order terminated the stays of an act against “property of the estate,” which stays are established by 11 USC § 362(a)(3) and (4). Here, however, upon the defendant’s purchase of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to November 26, 2013 order, ownership of the … property returned to the defendant, as debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding … . Consequently, the termination of the stay of an act against “property of the estate” provided for by 11 USC § 362(c)(1) has no bearing on the stays established by 11 USC § 362(a)(1) and (5), which expressly apply to acts taken against “the debtor” or “property of the debtor,” and which continued in effect. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lubonty, 2022 NY Slip Op 04288, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here whether the foreclosure action was timely depended on when the bankruptcy stay terminated. The defendant in the foreclosure action was the “debtor” in the bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant bought the property which was the subject of the foreclosure action from the bankruptcy estate. Based on the applicable bankruptcy statute, the bankruptcy stay did not terminate when defendant bought the property. It terminated later when defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court. Because the stay terminated on the later date, the foreclosure action was timely.

 

,

RE: A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, IF ALLEGATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVITS ARE CONTROVERTED, A HEARING MUST BE HELD; TO BASE A TEMPORARY-CUSTODY RULING ON CONTROVERTED ALLEGATIONS IS AN ERROR OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined controverted allegations in the affidavits required a hearing on the motion for temporary residential custody of the child:

… [W]hile temporary custody may generally “be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody, even in a pendente lite context, based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing” … .

… [T]he record demonstrates disputed factual issues so as to require a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for temporary primary residential custody of the child … . Chukwuemeka v Chukuemeka, 2022 NY Slip Op 04287, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: A motion for temporary custody may be decided on the papers if the allegations are not controverted. If allegations are controverted, it is an error of law to determine the issue without a hearing.

 

, ,

THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the collateral estoppel doctrine preclude defendants from disputing the identity of plaintiff’s employer because the issue was not in dispute the Workers’ Compensation proceeding. Plaintiff was a matron on a school bus and was injured when the bus was involved in a collision. Plaintiff sued the bus driver (Bonhome) and the bus company (Reliant). Defendants alleged plaintiff and Bonhome were both employed by Reliant and, therefore, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s only remedy. But the defendants submitted conflicting evidence of the identity of plaintiff’s employer and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment:

… Bonhome and Reliant were not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from disputing the identity of the plaintiff’s employer. “Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from ‘relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same'” … . “The quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the identity of her employer was a disputed issue at a proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board, or that the Workers’ Compensation Board specifically adjudicated that issue…. .

… [T]he defendants submitted conflicting evidence regarding the identity of the plaintiff’s employer. Thus, they failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that both Bonhome and the plaintiff were employees of Reliant at the time of the accident … . Calixte v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04286, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: In this traffic accident case the identity of plaintiff’s employer was not in dispute in the prior Workers’ Compensation proceeding. The collateral estoppel doctrine, therefore, did not apply and defendant can contest the identity of plaintiff’s employer in the related negligence proceeding. If both plaintiff and defendant were employees of the same employer, Workers’ Compensation would be plaintiff’s only remedy.

 

, ,

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.

 

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