You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion, in a matter of first impression, by Justice Christopher, determined the New York Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g, is not available to nonresident plaintiffs where the alleged acts of abuse occurred outside New York. CPLR 214-g extends the statute of limitations to allow lawsuits by plaintiffs who were children at the time of the abuse. The Second Department further determined CPLR 214-g does not preclude the application of the borrowing statute, CPLR 202. Here the plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged the acts of abuse were committed in Florida in 1983 and 1984 by Father William Authenrieth. Plaintiff alleged Father Authenrieth was transferred from the Diocese of Brooklyn to the Florida Diocese of Orlando (Florida) in 1973 because of his sexual misconduct with children. Hence the suit by the Florida plaintiff against the Diocese of Brooklyn. Because CPLR 214-g does not apply and CPLR 202, the borrowing statute, requires the application of Florida’s four-year statute of limitations, plaintiff’s suit is time-barred:

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, CPLR 214-g does not apply extraterritorially, where the plaintiff is a nonresident, and the alleged acts of sexual abuse were perpetrated by a nonresident outside of New York … . * * *

… [U]nder these circumstances the borrowing statute would apply, and since the plaintiff’s action is time-barred in Florida, it would also be time-barred in New York, unless, as argued by the plaintiff, CPLR 214-g precludes the application of CPLR 202. … We answer that question in the negative. Therefore, even if CPLR 214-g applied extraterritorially, the plaintiff’s action would be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 202. S.H. v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2022 NY Slip Op 02982, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: The Child Victims Act, which extends the statute of limitations for plaintiffs who were abused as children, does not apply to this Florida plaintiff who was allegedly abused in Florida. Plaintiff sued the Diocese of Brooklyn under the theory that the priest who abused him in Florida in 1983 and 1984 was transferred to Florida from Brooklyn, allegedly because of sexual misconduct with children. New York’s borrowing statute applied rendering the action time-barred under Florida’s four-year statute of limitations.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR AND DID NOT SUBMIT AN ADEQUATE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ACTION IS DEEMED ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not submit sufficient evidence to support a late motion for default judgment against the borrower. The bank did not offer a reasonable excuse for failure to take proceedings for a default judgment within a year, and did not submit a sufficient lost note affidavit. The Second Department deemed the action abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its failure to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement part … .

Further, a plaintiff moving for leave to enter default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original note … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment did not identify who conducted the search for the lost note or explain when or how the note was lost … . LaSalle Bank N.A. v Carlton, 2022 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: If the bank does not present an adequate excuse for failing to take proceedings for a default judgment in a foreclosure action within one year, the action will be deemed abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215.

 

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined conflicting facts precluded summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. Plaintiff alleged the ladder was unsecured and shifted when he attempted to descend. The defendant alleged plaintiff told his supervisor he lost his balance and jumped off the ladder which raised a question whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the ladder shifted to the right and backwards, as the plaintiff testified, or whether the plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of the subject accident. The defendants submitted an affidavit from the plaintiff’s supervisor, who averred that the plaintiff had told him, just after the accident occurred while he was still on the roof, that he had lost his balance as he descended the ladder and jumped off the ladder. The different versions of the accident given by the plaintiff create triable issues of fact that required denial of the motion, including a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Jurski v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02783, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Evidence that plaintiff told his supervisor he lost his balance and jumped from the ladder created a triable issue of fact about whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident in this Labor Law 240(1) action.

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE LAID AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION FOR THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE, A CONDITION PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the evidence that the bank had standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient and the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage, a condition precedent. Although the affidavit submitted by the bank laid a sufficient foundation for the business records described in the affidavit, the records themselves were not submitted:

Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissable hearsay” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Boursiquot, 2022 NY Slip Op 02782, Second Dept 4-27-22

Similar issue (failure to submit records referenced in affidavits) and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Tesoriero, 2022 NY Slip Op 02830, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Even if an affidavit lays a proper foundation for business records, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay if the records themselves are not also submitted.

 

,

THE RIGHT LANE WAS FOR RIGHT TURNS ONLY; THE MIDDLE LANE WAS FOR EITHER GOING STRAIGHT OR TURNING RIGHT; HERE THE DRIVER IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE DID NOT TURN RIGHT AND STRUCK THE CAR IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; THE DRIVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Rubio should not have been granted and defendant Rubio’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi driven by defendant Muy-Angamarca. Muy-Angamarca was in the far right lane, which was for right turns only. Rubio was in the middle lane which could be used to go straight or turn right. When Rubio attempted the right turn, Muy-Angamarco continued straight and struck Rubio’s car:

… [T]he Rubio defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Muy-Angamarca’s vehicle continuing straight through the intersection in disregard of a traffic sign directing that his lane was for right turns only … . Based upon Muy-Angamarca’s disregard of the traffic sign, he was in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and thus, he was negligent as a matter of law (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110[a] …). Rubio was entitled to assume that Muy-Angamarca would obey the traffic sign requiring Muy-Angamarca to turn right … . Indeed, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he observed that Rubio had signaled before making a legal right turn from the middle lane, that Muy-Angamarca “started to accelerate” toward the intersection while Rubio’s vehicle was turning, and that he did not believe Rubio was at fault in the happening of the accident. Ellsworth v Rubio, 2022 NY Slip Op 02781, Second Dept 4-27-22

 

VAGUE, CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not state a cause of action for constructive discharge from his employment as a civil engineer for the City of New York:

The plaintiff was employed by the New York City Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) as an assistant civil engineer from 1997 until 2014, when he resigned. He commenced this action in 2017 alleging, inter alia, that he had been constructively discharged because he had reported other employees’ misconduct … . * * *

“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, affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the facts as alleged to be true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint fails to state a cause of action alleging constructive discharge, as the allegations are either vague and conclusory … , or pertain to events that occurred after the plaintiff resigned. Dhar v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02779, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Vague and conclusory allegations will not support a cause of action for constructive discharge, i.e., working conditions which are intolerable, “forcing” plaintiff to resign.

 

,

THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLOSING DATE OR THE MORTGAGE TERMS; THE CONTRACT WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seller was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action for specific performance of the real estate purchase contract, because the contract did not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds:

Under the statute of frauds, a contract for the sale of real property must be evidenced by a writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[1]). The writing must “identify the parties, describe the subject matter, be signed by the party to be charged, and state all of the essential terms of an agreement” … . “In a real estate transaction, the essential terms of a contract typically include the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities” … . “‘[T]he writing must set forth the entire contract with reasonable certainty so that the substance thereof appears from the writing alone . . . If the contract is incomplete and it is necessary to resort to parol evidence to ascertain what was agreed to, the remedy of specific performance is not available'” … . …

In addition to the document not specifying the closing date, the evidence established that the parties never agreed with respect to the mortgage terms. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he was purchasing the property “subject” to the existing mortgage and that he had the “option” of obtaining a purchase money mortgage. The document, however, did not state whether the plaintiff was purchasing the property subject to the existing mortgage, obtaining a purchase money mortgage, or obtaining his own mortgage. The failure to include such terms makes the purported real estate contract unenforceable … . Cohen v Holder, 2022 NY Slip Op 02778, Second Dept 4-27-22​

Practice Point: A real estate purchase contract which does not include all the material terms is not enforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Here the contract did not include the closing date or the mortgage terms. It was deemed unenforceable and the action for specific performance was dismissed.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED TYPE SIZE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1303:

“RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled ‘Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure’ be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings” … . “The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it provided notice in compliance with RPAPL 1303. The plaintiff’s submissions did not demonstrate that the notice served upon the defendant complied with the type-size requirements in RPAPL 1303 … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Keefer, 2022 NY Slip Op 02776, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In foreclosure actions, the bank must demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Here the bank did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303, included the required type size.

 

,

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE SUPPORT FOR PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S CLAIM THE MOVEMENT OF THE BUS WHICH CAUSED HER TO FALL WAS “UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant bus company’s, MTA’s, motion to dismiss the complaint in this bus-passenger injury case should have been granted:

To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, a plaintiff must establish that the movement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was “‘unusual and violent'” … . “Moreover, a plaintiff may not satisfy that burden of proof merely by characterizing the stop as unusual and violent” … . There must be “objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant” … . “In seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, however, common carriers have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the movement of the vehicle was not unusual and violent” … .

… MTA established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. MTA demonstrated, by submitting the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that the movement of the bus was not unusual and violent or of a “different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” … . The nature of the incident, according to the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, was that she was caused to fall as the bus stopped at the intersection. According to the plaintiff, who did not provide an estimate as to how fast the bus was traveling prior to stopping at the intersection, she was the only passenger on the bus who fell, although there was another passenger standing within two feet of her at the time. The plaintiff testified that she landed on the floor near where she was standing prior to falling down. This is not, in itself, sufficient to provide the objective support necessary to demonstrate that the movement of the bus was unusual and violent, and of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel … . Orji v MTA Bus Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02811, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a bus passenger’s allegation his or her injury was caused by an “unusual and violent” movement of the bus must have some sort of “objective support,” which was absent in this case.

 

THE COMPOSITE LIEN ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT INVALID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SHOWN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HIRED THE RESPONDENT IN SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS; THE LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISCHARGED ON THE GROUND THE AMOUNT WAS WILFULLY EXAGGERATED, A FINDING WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the composite lien encompassing several parcels of real property was not invalid on its face and had not bee declared void for wilful exaggeration. Therefore the validity of the lien must be determined in a foreclosure proceeding:

… [T]he composite mechanic’s lien was facially valid and the Supreme Court should not have summarily discharged it. … [T]he composite mechanic’s lien was not invalid because of a failure to apportion the work and material furnished between the four parcels of real property that were identified in the composite mechanic’s lien. The requirement to do so “applies where several transactions, involving the improvement of distinct parcels of property, have been effected at the request of independent owners” … . Here, the petitioners failed to establish that the individual and independent lot owners identified in the composite mechanic’s lien hired BKS in separate and distinct transactions. Furthermore, the composite mechanic’s lien was not invalid on its face merely because it identified multiple lots by their respective tax block and lot designations … . …

The Supreme Court also should not have summarily determined that branch of the petition which alleged that the amount claimed in the composite mechanic’s lien was willfully exaggerated. “Pursuant to Lien Law § 39, the court may declare a lien void and deny recovery if the lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount claimed” … . This Court has held that the remedy in Lien Law § 39-a is “available only where the lien was valid in all other respects and was declared void by reason of willful exaggeration after a trial of the foreclosure action” … . Matter of Matrix Staten Is. Dev., LLC v BKS-NY, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02795, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Here the lien should not have have summarily discharged on the ground it encompassed several parcels of property because it was not shown the individual property owners hired respondent in separate transactions. The finding that the amount of the lien was wilfully exaggerated is not a ground for summary discharge. Wilful exaggeration will void a lien, but that determination must be made in a foreclosure proceeding.

 

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