You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in this FOIL proceeding. It was only after petitioner brought an Article 78 petition that the respondents provided the bulk of the requested documents:

… [T]he respondents did not timely respond to the petitioner’s FOIL request … . The first response, which consisted of four pages of materials, failed to address three of the four enumerated categories of material the petitioner sought. It was not until after the commencement of this proceeding that the respondents provided a significant number of additional documents responsive to the FOIL request. Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was the “substantially prevailing” party … . …

… [T]he respondents did not have a reasonable basis for initially denying the petitioner access to the responsive materials. Although a limited amount of material was reasonably withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the “petitioner’s legal action ultimately succeeded in obtaining substantial unredacted post-commencement disclosure responsive to h[is] FOIL request” … . Matter of McNerney v Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 02799, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Respondents didn’t disclose the bulk of the documents described in the FOIL request until the Article 78 proceeding was started and did not have an adequate excuse for the initial incomplete response. Petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

 

, , ,

MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER CLAIM SHE ADMITTED TO PERMANENT NEGLECT BECAUSE HER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; MOTHER ALLEGED COUNSEL DID NOT INFORM HER OF THE RELEVANT BURDENS OF PROOF AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was entitled to a hearing on whether her counsel was ineffective in failing to inform her of the applicable burdens of proof and in allowing her to admit to permanent neglect:

 “‘A respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), which encompasses the right to the effective assistance of counsel'” … . “[T]he statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded to defendants in criminal proceedings” … . Effective assistance is predicated on the standard of “meaningful representation” … .

… [M]other submitted an affidavit alleging that, prior to entering her admission to permanent neglect, counsel failed to inform her of the burden and standard of proof at trial and that she made the admission “because [she] was advised that it was necessary in order to have [her] children returned.” She further alleged that she “would not have made the statements that [she] made to the court if [she] had been fully advised of [her] rights.” The Family Court did not ameliorate these purported deficiencies in its colloquy with the mother, and also omitted any reference to the possible consequences of the finding, including termination of her parental rights … . Matter of Skylar P. J., 2022 NY Slip Op 02793, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: A party in a neglect proceeding has a right to effective assistance of counsel. Here mother was entitled to a hearing on her claim she would not have admitted to permanent neglect had she been informed of the relevant burdens of proof at trial.

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION IN THIS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A TENURED TEACHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Department of Education’s (DOE’s) motion to dismiss the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s award should have been granted. The arbitrator determined the petitioner, a tenured teacher, was properly charged with incompetence, misconduct and neglect of duty and termination the teacher’s employment was appropriate. The teacher petitioner argued unsuccessfully that the initial probable cause determination must be made by the school board, not, as was the case here, the school principal:

… [T]he absence of a vote on probable cause by the “employing board” (Education Law § 3020-a[2]), did not deprive the hearing officer of the jurisdictional authority to hear and determine the underlying disciplinary charges. Rather, … the Chancellor was vested with the authority “[t]o exercise all of the duties and responsibilities of the employing board as set forth in [Education Law § 3020-a]” … , and with the authority to “delegate the exercise of all such duties and responsibilities” … . Matter of Cardinale v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In New York City, a school principal has the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to charge a tenured teacher with, for example, incompetence, misconduct and neglect of duty.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S INTERFERENCE IN AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEFENSE SUMMATION AND IMPROPER EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder, assault and weapon-possession convictions in the interest of justice, determined the judge improperly restricted defense counsel’s summation and evidence submissions, and improperly allowed hearsay identification evidence which supported the People’s theory. Identification of the shooter was the key issue, and the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent and contradictory. The judge prohibited defense counsel from questioning the fairness of the identification procedure (line up) in summation and repeatedly interposed “objections” during the defense summation, in the absence of any objection by the prosecutor:

The Supreme Court’s limitation of the defendant’s cross-examination of the police witness and its sua sponte admonishments to defense counsel during summation improperly limited the defendant’s right to challenge the lineup procedures as unfair and suggestive … . Moreover, the court erred in informing the jury and the parties in front of the jury that it had already determined that the pretrial identification procedure was fair and not suggestive, and that the lineup was “constitutional,” wrongly intimating that those facts were not within the jury’s province to determine … . …

The Supreme Court also substantially impaired the defendant’s right “to make an effective closing argument” … through sua sponte “objection sustained” interruptions without any actual objection being posited by the People…. . …

The Supreme Court also erred in admitting into evidence the hearsay statement of an unidentified woman that a man “wearing all gray had the firearm” as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule … .. The record contained no evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infer that the statement was based on the woman’s personal observation … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s application to admit into evidence the photographs of the defendant and Cruzado [who was also at the scene] to allow the jury to compare their likenesses, since, under the circumstances of this case, such evidence was highly probative of the defense of third-party culpability and plainly outweighed any danger of delay, prejudice, and confusion … .People v Aponte, 2022 NY Slip Op 02813, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In this case, where identification of the shooter was the central issue, the judge improperly prohibited defense counsel from questioning the fairness of the line-up procedure in summation. This and other substantial interference and evidentiary errors by the judge required reversal of the murder conviction in the interest of justice.

 

,

THE 21-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE CRIME AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the 21-year delay between the crime (rape) defendant’s arrest did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial:

… [T]he People met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the delay … . Nineteen years of the subject delay was due to the lack of connection between the semen sample collected at the time of the rape in 1994 and the defendant’s DNA profile, which was not developed and uploaded to the law enforcement databases until 2013. Once the police were able to identify a viable suspect, they had a good-faith basis to wait until they could locate the victim to arrest the defendant. Furthermore, the detectives’ hearing testimony established that the police made reasonable and diligent efforts to locate the victim, and the defendant was arrested immediately after a detective located and interviewed the victim … . The extent of the delay in prosecution is outweighed by the People’s good cause for the delay, the nature of the crime, the fact that there was no period of pretrial incarceration during the period at issue, and the lack of any prejudice from the delay identified by the defendant. We are satisfied that the defendant was not deprived of his due process right to prompt prosecution … . People v Gardner, 2022 NY Slip Op 02816, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: The 21-year delay between the crime and defendant’s arrest in this rape case was adequately explained. The DNA sample was not connected to a person until nearly 20 years after the rape and the victim was not located until a year or so after that.

 

THE SENTENCE FOR WEAPON-POSSESSION SHOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTING-RELATED CONVICTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentence for weapon-possession should be concurrent with the sentences for the shooting-related convictions:

… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should not run consecutively to the concurrent sentences imposed on the convictions of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree. The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the defendant’s “possession of a gun was separate and distinct from his shooting [at the two victims, resulting in the death of one of them]” … .People v Burgess, 2022 NY Slip Op 02814, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Unless the possession of a weapon charge is somehow distinct and separate from the possession of the weapon used in the shooting, the sentences for possession of a weapon and the shooting-related convictions should be concurrent.

 

,

THE VENUE DESIGNATION IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nursing home admission agreement, signed by plaintiff’s decedent’s wife (Anderson), was not a sufficient basis for changing the venue of this action against the nursing home from plaintiff’s residence, Bronx County, to the venue designated in the admission agreement, Westchester County. The decision is comprehensive and addresses several substantive issues (agency, rights of non-signatories, for example) not summarized here:

Although the defendant submitted a copy of the admission agreement, it did not provide an affidavit from anyone who signed the agreement, who was present when it was signed, or who otherwise claimed to have personal knowledge of that agreement. The admission agreement was not signed by the plaintiff or the decedent, and it did not identify or include the names of the plaintiff or the decedent anywhere on that document. * * *

An admission agreement may be enforced against an individual where it was properly executed by that individual’s “designated representative” … . As relevant here, “[d]esignated representative shall mean the individual or individuals designated in accordance with [10 NYCRR 415.2(f)] to receive information and to assist and/or act in behalf of a particular resident to the extent permitted by State law” … . The subdivision lists three ways in which a designation may occur … .

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the defendant failed to establish that Anderson was properly designated in any of the three ways authorized by applicable law … . Sherrod v Mount Sinai St. Luke’s, 2022 NY Slip Op 02826, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In this case, the venue designation in the nursing home admission agreement, signed by plaintiff’s decedent’s wife, could not be enforced by the nursing home.

 

,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S BUS, THE AUTHORITY GAINED TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM WHEN IT INVESTIGATED THE ACCIDENT AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim in this traffic accident case should have been granted. It was alleged defendant NYC Transit Authority’s bus collided with a NYC sanitation truck which then collided with petitioner’s car. The Transit Authority investigated the accident and therefore had knowledge of the essential facts of the claim. Because the defendant had timely actual knowledge of the potential claim and did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay, petitioner did not need to present a reasonable excuse for the late notice:

… [A]s the Authority acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner met his initial burden of showing that the Authority would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In response to the petitioner’s initial showing, the Authority failed to come forward with particularized evidence demonstrating that the late notice of claim substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … . Since the Authority had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and no substantial prejudice to the Authority was demonstrated, the petitioner’s failure to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim did not serve as a bar to granting leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Manbodh v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02544, Second Dept 4-20-22

​Practice Point: Here the defendant NYC Transit Authority investigated the traffic accident involving petitioner’s car and therefore had timely notice of the essential facts of the potential lawsuit. In that situation, in the absence of prejudice to the defendant caused by petitioner’s failure to timely file a notice of claim (none here), petitioner need not provide a reasonable excuse and leave to file a late notice should be granted.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304, which, to be valid, must state the default amount and length of time the borrower has been in default, was not shown to be inaccurate. But the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to foreclose. The evidence that the bank’s standing was based on a merger with the holder of the note was not submitted until the reply, and therefore should not have been considered:

Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, including but not limited to the duration and an amount of the default, the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid … . …

… [T]here is no reason for us to conclude at this juncture that the $64,862.12 default sum set forth in the plaintiff’s RPAPL 1304 notice reflects any actual error. The second paragraph of the plaintiff’s 30-day notice explains that the $64,862.12 amount claimed to be due includes principal, interest, escrow payments, and late charges, which would necessarily raise the gross amount due to a sum that exceeds the amount of the missed principal. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action. The plaintiff is not the original lender. The subject note, though attached to the complaint, bears no indorsement. And further, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence in admissible form as part of its prima facie case that the note was assigned to it prior to the date of commencement of the action … . …

The certificate of merger showing that ESB-LI merged into the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the plaintiff is the holder of the subject note. It was submitted to the Supreme Court for the first time in the plaintiff’s reply papers, and therefore, could not be considered as part of the plaintiff’s initial prima facie proof of standing … . Emigrant Bank v Cohen, 2022 NY Slip Op 02532, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: To be valid, the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must accurately state the amount of the default and the length of time the borrower has been in default (there was no showing the amount was inaccurate here). If the bank does not demonstrate it was holding the note at the time the foreclosure was commenced in its moving papers, it has not demonstrated standing to foreclose. Evidence of standing submitted in reply papers should not be considered.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED TWO DAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR-NINETY-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN THE FILING AND THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE MUNICIPALITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim was timely and should have been granted. Although the second order to show cause was submitted two days beyond the one year-and-90-day deadline for suing a municipality. the statute of limitations was tolled for three days between the filing of the first order to show cause and the denial of that first motion:

Since the time to serve a notice of claim upon a public corporation cannot be extended beyond the time limited for commencement of an action against that party … , the court lacks authority to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute of limitations has been tolled … . “CPLR 204(a) tolls the statute of limitations while a motion to serve a late notice of claim is pending” … . Where “a court declines to sign an initial order to show cause for leave to serve a late notice of claim on procedural grounds, but a subsequent application for the same relief is granted, the period of time in which the earlier application [was] pending [is also] excluded from the limitations period” … . …

… [T]he medical records provided the defendants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s claim. The records evinced that a stroke code was called shortly after the plaintiff’s presentation to the hospital, that, based on an assessment of her condition, it was decided that a tissue plasminogen activator was not needed, and that it was later determined that the plaintiff had suffered a stroke but that it was too late to administer that drug.

The plaintiff further made an initial showing that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving the notice of claim, and the defendants failed to rebut the showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … .

Finally, where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Ahmed v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02521, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: The one-year-ninety-day statute of limitations for suing a municipality is tolled for the time between submitting an order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice of claim and the judge’s refusal to sign the order to show cause. Here, although the second order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice was submitted two days after the one-year-ninety-day statute had run, it was timely because of the three-day toll between the filing and denial of first order to show cause. Here the medical records sufficiently notified the municipality of the essential facts of the claim, the municipality did not demonstrate prejudice and there was no need for a reasonable excuse because there was actual knowledge and no prejudice.

 

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