You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

TO BE ENFORCABLE, AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE MUST BE CLEAR, EXPLICIT AND UNEQUIVOCAL; HERE THE WORD “DISAGREEMENTS” IN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS TOO VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO ARBITRATE HER CLAIMS OF UNPAID COMMISSIONS AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration clause in the employment agreement was ambiguous and vague. The clause could not be the basis for forcing plaintiff to arbitrate her claims that she was not paid commissions owed to her and was wrongfully terminated:

… “[A] party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent ‘evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes'” … . “The agreement must be clear, explicit and unequivocal and must not depend upon implication or subtlety” … .

Here, the provision, “[t]hird party in case of a disagreement: Rabbi Shlomo Gross (Belze Dayan) or Rabbi Meir Labin,” does not expressly and unequivocally establish that the parties agreed to arbitrate the plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid commissions or wrongful termination … . Moreover, this provision ambiguously refers to a disagreement, but does not specify the types of disagreements to which it applies … . Rubinstein v C & A Mktg., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03136, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged the defendant employer did not pay her commissions she was owed and wrongfully terminated her. Although the employment contract called for the arbitration of “disagreements,” that term was not specific enough to serve as a basis for forcing plaintiff to arbitrate her unpaid-commission and wrongful-termination claims.

 

, ,

DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONALE BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY MISADVISED HIM ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been afforded a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant alleged he was misadvised of the deportation consequence of his guilty plea.

… [N]either the fact that the defendant had previously been convicted of an offense that may subject him to removal, nor the seemingly strong evidence against him with respect to the instant offense, nor the favorable plea bargain he received, necessarily requires a finding that the defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged misadvice … . The defendant’s averments, including that he has resided in the United States since he was 10 years old, that he is married to his spouse with whom he has two minor children, that his spouse is unable to work due to a medical condition, that he is gainfully employed, and that he is the sole source of financial support to his family, sufficiently alleged that a decision to reject the plea offer would have been rational … . People v Samaroo, 2022 NY Slip Op 03128, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Even if the evidence of defendant’s commission of the crime is strong, a defendant may demonstrate a decision to go to trial, rather than accept a plea offer, would have been rationale based upon family obligations. Here defendant, who is a legal resident and has lived in the US since he was ten, has two minor children, is employed, and his wife can’t work because of medical problems. Defendant brought a motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea) on the ground his attorney did not inform him of the deportation consequences of the plea. Defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion.

 

, ,

THE “ABANDONMENT” EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner did not prove mother had abandoned her children. Mother’s parental rights should not have been terminated:

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the mother evinced an intent to forego her parental rights. The record demonstrates that, during the six-month abandonment period, the mother visited with the children on two occasions, saw the children on at least one additional occasion at a family gathering, purchased clothing for the children, spoke with the case worker on the phone multiple times, and objected to the goal for the children’s placement changing to a kinship adoption rather than returning the children to the mother. Under these circumstances, the Family Court should have denied the petitions on the merits, insofar as asserted against the mother … . We further note that the record contains testimony from a case worker that, during family visits subsequent to the filing of the petitions, the mother’s interactions with the children were “very positive.” “While a parent’s conduct outside the abandonment period is not determinative in an abandonment proceeding, it may be relevant to assessing parental intent” … .  Matter of Grace E. W.-F. (Zanovia W.), 2022 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: The petitioner did not present clear and convincing evidence that mother abandoned her children. The termination of parental rights petition should not have have been granted. Mother had visited the children, seen the children at a family gathering, purchased clothing for the children and frequently talked to the case worker.

 

,

THE NOTICE SENT TO THE BORROWERS IN 2012 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the notice sent to the defendants was not sufficient to accelerate the mortgage debt and, therefore, the debt had not been accelerated at the time this foreclosure action was brought: Supreme Court properly dismissed the foreclosure complaint:

\… [T]he defendants’ submissions in support of that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint demonstrated that the loan matured in 2038 and that the defendants had not commenced a prior foreclosure action. The defendants also submitted a copy of the 2012 notice, which did not demand the entire outstanding balance on the loan, but, as the Supreme Court found, only demanded the amount due as of that date. Notably, the 2012 notice stated that if the plaintiffs were unable to pay the arrears, there were “various options that may be available . . . to prevent a foreclosure sale of [the] property” such as a repayment plan, loan modification, sale of the property, or deeding the property to the noteholder. Thus, the 2012 notice did not set forth the defendants’ clear and unequivocal election to accelerate the debt, but instead, was a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event … . Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, that the consolidated mortgage had not been accelerated at the time the plaintiffs commenced this action.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the plain meaning of the word “may” as it appears in paragraph 22 of the consolidated mortgage renders that provision optional, and “[w]here, as here, the acceleration of the maturity of a mortgage debt is made optional with the holder of the note and mortgage, ‘some affirmative action must be taken evidencing the holder’s election to take advantage of the accelerating provision, and until such action has been taken the provision has no operation'” … . Knox v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03107, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Here the notice sent by the bank to the borrowers in 2012 did not unambiguously accelerate the debt within the meaning of the mortgage document. Therefore the foreclosure complaint was properly dismissed.

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the Graves Amendment did not apply to the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, relieving the owner of a leased vehicle of liability:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” However, pursuant to the Graves Amendment, which “preempt[s] conflicting New York law” … , the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner) cannot be held liable by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner) for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) (see 49 USC § 30106[a] …). Keys v PV Holding Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03105, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: If the owner of a leased vehicle is not negligent (i.e., improper maintenance, etc.), the Graves Amendment relieves the owner of liability for a traffic accident involving the leased vehicle. Here the plaintiff did not demonstrate the Graves Amendment didn’t apply. Therefore the burden to prove the amendment did apply never shifted to the defendant vehicle-owner and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

 

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS ATTEMPTED WAS DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAY NOT BE AMENDED TO CURE AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s affidavit demonstrated that the address at which service of process was made was not his business address and the affidavit of service could not be amended to cure the address-error:

… [A]n affidavit submitted by [defendant] Harooni … was sufficient to demonstrate that the address where service was alleged to have been effected in the affidavit of service … , was not in fact the address of Harooni’s ‘actual place of business’ (CPLR 308[2] …). … Pursuant to CPLR 305(c), a court, ‘[a]t any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, . . . may allow any . . . proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons is issued is not prejudiced’ … . An ‘erroneous address’ contained in an affidavit of service affects a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, and may not be corrected by an amendment …”. Jampolskaya v Ilona Genis, MD, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 03104, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: An affidavit of service may be amended, but not to correct the wrong address.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff was making a left turn when he was struck by defendant in the on-coming lane, there was a question of fact whether defendant should have seen plaintiff. Plaintiff was making the turn after a stopped driver in the on-coming law gestured to him:

… [A]lthough the defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way when turning left in violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1141, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the collision and that the defendant was free from fault … . While testifying, the defendant admitted that he saw nothing out of the ordinary prior to the collision, that he could not recall if he observed the plaintiff’s vehicle, and that he only realized that there was a collision from hearing the sound. However, the defendant also testified that he was only driving at approximately 25 miles per hour and was looking straight ahead on a sunny afternoon with no obstructions to his view … . Moreover, the defendant acknowledged that he did not know if his vehicle or the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first. Thus, the defendant’s evidentiary submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was already in the intersection as the defendant approached and whether the defendant should have observed the plaintiff’s vehicle making a left turn in time to take evasive action to avoid the accident … . Blake v Francis, 2022 NY Slip Op 02974, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Although plaintiff may have violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn in the path of defendant’s car, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Here there was a question of fact whether defendant should have seen the plaintiff as he attempted the turn.

 

, ,

A CONTRACTOR WHICH CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAY BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant sidewalk-repair contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the contractor who repaired the sidewalk created the hole which caused plaintiff to trip. A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in a dangerous condition on a public street or sidewalk:

“A contractor may be [held] liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, Amato [the defendant contractor] failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

At his deposition, Victor Amato, Amato’s owner, testified that his company had replaced a portion of the sidewalk at the subject location.  … He acknowledged … that a two-by-four had been installed as a vertical “stake” to support a form that was used when the concrete was poured, and that he or one of his employees would have removed the stake after the concrete had set.

… [T]he plaintiff testified that she had not seen the hole because, from the direction she was walking, it was on the other side of an uneven, or sloped, portion of the sidewalk. Victor Amato admitted that this slope had been created deliberately (through a process known as “feathering”) because the new portion of the sidewalk was at a different height from the existing sidewalk. Pizzolorusso v Metro Mech., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03018, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Contactors which create a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or road may be liable to a member of the public who is injured by the dangerous condition. The theory is similar to the “launch an instrument of harm” theory of contractor liability under the Espinal case.

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted. To warrant summary judgment on the issue of constructive notice, defendants must show when the stairway was last inspected, which they failed to do:

The defendants … failed to show … that they did not have constructive notice of the condition that the plaintiff alleged caused her to fall. “A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last . . . inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . Here, the evidence submitted on the defendants’ motion failed to demonstrate when the subject staircase was last inspected relative to the plaintiff’s accident … . Weiss v Bay Club, 2022 NY Slip Op 03026, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, to warrant summary judgment the defendant must show it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition by demonstrating that the area of the fall was inspected close in time to the incident.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was deficient because the foundation for the admission of business records was not laid:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … an affidavit of an employee of its current mortgage loan servicer, along with copies of the 90-day notice, which was generated by the plaintiff’s prior loan servicer, along with alleged proof of mailing, which was also generated by the prior loan servicer. The affiant averred … that the current mortgage loan servicer is responsible for maintaining the books and records pertaining to the subject mortgage, “including, but not limited to, the account ledgers, and prior servicer’s records.” However, the affiant did not aver to her familiarity with the prior loan servicer’s business practices and procedures, or that the prior loan servicer’s records were incorporated into the current loan servicer’s records. Thus, the plaintiff’s moving affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … , and the prior loan servicer’s records, including the 90-day notice, were not admissible … . “Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Basta, 2022 NY Slip Op 02971, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment stage, even if business records demonstrating the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 are submitted, they are not admissible unless a proper foundation (CPLR 4518(a)) is laid in the accompanying affidavit.

 

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