You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this basketball-injury case. Plaintiff was deemed to have assumed the risk of slipping and falling on condensation on the floor of the court:

… [T]he defendants established … ,that the plaintiff was aware of and had assumed the risk that the floor of the basketball court would be slippery from condensation that had formed due to humid conditions in the gymnasium. The defendants’ submissions, including the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, demonstrated that the plaintiff had played basketball in the gymnasium on more than 50 occasions prior to the day of the accident, knew that the gymnasium air was “humid” and had dry-mopped the gymnasium floor while playing basketball in the past when it was “getting wet” from “[c]ondensation,” and nevertheless continued playing basketball in the gymnasium on multiple occasions up until the date of the accident despite his awareness of this condition. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury inherent in playing basketball on an indoor court which he knew to become slippery due to humid conditions in the gymnasium … . Lungen v Harbors Haverstraw Homeowners Assn., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03717, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was aware that the basketball court routinely became wet with condensation. Therefore he assumed the risk of slipping on the condensation while playing basketball.

 

, ,

COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304, PARTICULARLY THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS, WAS NOT SHOWN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A}lthough the plaintiff submitted a certified mail receipt, the receipt did not contain a postal stamp, indication that postage was paid, or an attendant signature, and the plaintiff did not submit any United States Postal Service tracking information … . The affidavit of Nancy Sczubleski, submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, also failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Sczubleski did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing … . Furthermore, while Sczubleski averred that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, the notices submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment indicate that they were not mailed by the plaintiff, but rather were mailed by an entity known as MGC Mortgage, Inc. (hereinafter MGC). Sczubleski, who stated in her affidavit that she was employed by Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., a sub-servicer of the loan, does not address this fact at all, let alone demonstrate that she was familiar with MGC’s mailing practices and procedures … . LNV Corp. v Allison, 2022 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Yet another example of the mortgagee’s failure to demonstrate the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mailed in its foreclosure motion papers.

 

, ,

CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendants’ counterclaims alleging violations of the Labor Law, noted that corporate shareholders and officers can only be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations if they exercise control of a corporation’s day-to-day operations, which was alleged here:

“[C]orporate shareholders and officers generally may not be subjected to civil liability for corporate violations of the Labor Law absent allegations that such persons exercised control of the corporation’s day-to-day operations by, for example, hiring and firing employees, supervising employee work schedules, and determining the method and rate of pay” … . Here, the defendants adequately alleged, inter alia, that the additional defendants controlled the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff’s payment practices. Interstate Home Loan Ctr., Inc. v United Mtge. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03715, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Corporate shareholders and officers may be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations only if they exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s failure to file a notice of claim required dismissal of its counterclaim (anticipatory repudiation of contract) against the village:

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, “no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “‘[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit [against a governmental entity] must be strictly construed'” … . This is true even when the municipality “‘had actual knowledge of the claim or failed to demonstrate actual prejudice'” … .  …

… [T]he plaintiff’s exchanging of discovery and participation in the depositions of witnesses did not estop it from raising a defense pursuant to CPLR 9802, as mere participation in litigation does not constitute action calculated to mislead or discourage the defendant from filing a notice of claim … . Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: In a contract action against a municipality, here an anticipatory-repudiation-of-contract counterclaim, a notice of claim must be filed (CPLR 9802). No notice of claim was filed here and the counterclaim should have been dismissed. The fact that the municipality participated in discovery did not give rise to the estoppel doctrine because there was no intent to mislead the defendant with respect to the notice-of-claim requirement.

 

, ,

AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT BEFORE THE CLOSING, THE MORTGAGOR STARTED AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUD IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT RENDER THE TITLE UNMARKETABLE SUCH THAT THE PURCHASER COULD SET ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND HAVE THE DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that the mortgagor, after the foreclosure sale but before the closing, started an action alleging fraud in the foreclosure proceeding did not render the title to the property unmarketable. Therefore the purchaser at the foreclosure auction did not have right to set aside the foreclosure sale and have the down payment returned:

“A marketable title is a title free from reasonable doubt, but not from every doubt” … . “[S]omething more than a mere assertion of a right is essential to create an unmarketable or doubtful title” … . Here, contrary to the purchaser’s contention, the mortgagor’s action did not render title unmarketable. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the purchaser’s motion which were to set aside the foreclosure sale and to direct the plaintiff to return the down payment. DiTech Fin., LLC v Steplight, 2022 NY Slip Op 03710, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The title to the property sold at the foreclosure auction was not rendered unmarketable by a subsequent action brought by the mortgagor alleging fraud in the foreclosure proceedings. Therefore the purchaser’s motion to set aside the foreclosure sale and return the down payment was properly denied.

 

A FLATTENED CARDBOARD BOX ON THE FLOOR WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a flattened cardboard box was not actionable in this slip and fall case;

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries after she slipped and fell on a flattened cardboard box that was lying on the floor in an aisle of the defendant’s grocery store. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she saw the cardboard box prior to the accident, as well as an employee of the defendant stocking shelves in the aisle close by. The plaintiff testified that, prior to her fall, it was her intention to step onto the cardboard in order to reach a product on a nearby shelf. …

While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition … , “there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence demonstrating that the flattened cardboard box, which was readily observable to the plaintiff prior to her fall, was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . DiScalo v Mannix Family Mkt. @ Forest & Richmond Ave, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03708, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: A flattened cardboard box on the floor was not actionable in this slip and fall case because it was “open and obvious.”

 

,

HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION PRECLUDED THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER, A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE HOMEOWNER’S LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the homeowner’s exemption applied to preclude plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action in this ladder-fall case. The Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action (alleging defendant property-owners’ ladder was defective) properly survived summary judgment. The fact that the property-owner is a religious organization did not affect the applicability of the homeowner’s exemption:

The deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and of the defendant’s employee demonstrated that the defendant did not direct or control the plaintiff’s work. Additionally, the deposition transcript of the defendant’s employee and the affidavit of the defendant’s expert architect demonstrated that the defendant was the owner of a one-family dwelling to which the meditation room [which plaintiff was painting when he fell] was an accessory. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant is entitled to the protections of this exemption even though it is a religious organization … . …

The defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition with respect to the ladder … . Reinoso v Han Ma Um Zen Ctr. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03755, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The homeowner’s exemption precludes Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against a homeowner which/who does not direct plaintiff’s work, even if the homeowner is a religious organization. The homeowner’s exemption does not apply to Labor Law 200 or negligence causes of action, here based on allegations the homeowner’s ladder was defective.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the punitive damages claim against defendant insurer should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle when she was in a cross-walk. She settled with the driver’s insurer, with her insurer’s consent, for $25,000. She the brought this breach of contract action against defendant insurer for $225,000, plus punitive damages for a bad-faith breach of the insurance contract:

The elements required to state a claim for punitive damages when the claim arises from a breach of contract are: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be actionable as an independent tort; (2) the tortious conduct must be of the egregious nature set forth in Walker v Sheldon [10 NY2d 401]; (3) the egregious conduct must be directed to the plaintiff; and (4) it must be part of a pattern directed at the public generally. Where a lawsuit has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, the threshold task for a court considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss a demand for punitive damages is to identify a tort independent of the contract … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to allege an independent tort. There is no separate tort for bad faith refusal to comply with an insurance contract … . While an insurer may be held liable for damages to its insured for the bad faith refusal of a settlement offer … , the plaintiff here failed to state such a cause of action. …

The plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct constituted a gross disregard of the plaintiff’s interests. …

The plaintiff failed to allege any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct was of an egregious nature as set forth in Walker v Sheldon, such that it was morally reprehensible and of such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations … . Schlusselberg v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03539, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: The criteria for punitive damages for breach of contract are difficult to meet. The defendant’s conduct must amount to an independent tort, be morally reprehensible, wantonly dishonest, and criminally indifferent to civil obligations. Here, those criteria were not met by the allegations of breach of an insurance contract.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER OR THAT PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ASPECT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Zorn Realties, the owner of the property, did not demonstrate it was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer, Zorn Poultry Farm, and did not demonstrate plaintiff was a special employee of Zorn Realties. Therefore, the negligence action stemming from plaintiff’s fall through a chute or a hole on defendant’s property was not precluded by the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law:

“‘A defendant moving for summary judgment based on the exclusivity defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law under this theory must show, prima facie, that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer'” … . “A defendant may establish itself as the alter ego of a plaintiff’s employer by demonstrating that one of the entities controls the other or that the two operate as a single integrated entity” … . However, “a mere showing that the entities are related is insufficient where a defendant cannot demonstrate that one of the entities controls the day-to-day operations of the other” … .

… Although the defendant presented evidence that the two entities were related inasmuch as they shared an address and a liability insurance policy, the defendant failed to establish that the entities shared officers or had identical owners. Additionally, the evidence showed that the entities served different purposes, had separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and did not have a shared workers’ compensation policy … . …

“Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive . . . Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business . . . The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

… [T]he defendant failed to establish … that the plaintiff was its special employee at the time of the accident because it did not submit sufficient evidence to establish, inter alia, that it controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work, nor did it establish that the plaintiff had knowledge of and consented to a special employment relationship … . Mauro v Zorn Realties, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03509, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant property owner was not able to take advantage of the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law in this personal injury action. Plaintiff’s employer was not the alter ego of defendant and plaintiff was not defendant’s special employee.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff’s causes of action for constructive discharge and hostile work environment should have been dismissed. The court laid out the criteria for those causes of action:

“An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s complaints were insufficient to show an intolerable work environment that would lead a reasonable person in that position to feel compelled to resign … . …

A hostile environment claim “involves repeated conduct,” not “[d]iscrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire” … . Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03490, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: A “constructive discharge” employment-discrimination cause of action requires the deliberate creation of intolerable working conditions designed to force the plaintiff to quit (not demonstrated here). A “hostile work environment” employment-discrimination cause of action requires “repeated conduct” which is not demonstrated discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer or refusal to hire.

 

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