You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

EXCLUDING A SPECTATOR FROM THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS SLEEPING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR IS NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s excluding a spectator from defendant’s trial violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The spectator, apparently a friend of the defendant, had been asleep during the trial. He was excluded solely on that ground:

While trial courts have “inherent discretionary power to exclude members of the public from the courtroom” … , that discretion “must be exercised only when unusual circumstances necessitate it” … . “In sum, ‘an affirmative act by the trial court excluding persons from the courtroom’ without lawful justification constitutes a violation of the defendant’s right to a public trial” … . “A violation of the right to an open trial is not subject to harmless error analysis and a per se rule of reversal irrespective of prejudice is the only realistic means to implement this important constitutional guarantee” … .

Here, after the first day of testimony had concluded and jurors had been dismissed for the day, the Supreme Court excluded a spectator from the courtroom for sleeping, which the court noted was “disrespectful” and “distracting to the jurors.” The court told the spectator … he was “excluded from this courtroom for the rest of this trial” and was “not to return” to the courtroom. * * *

The record demonstrates that the Supreme Court did not sufficiently consider whether less drastic measures could have addressed the spectator’s behavior, such as warning the spectator or requesting that the spectator alter his demeanor in the courtroom … . The court’s statement the next day that the spectator was no longer excluded from the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court’s error. People v White, 2025 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: A judge has to have a good reason for excluding a spectator from a trial. The fact that the spectator had slept during the trial was not enough. Exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a public trial.

,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT PLACEMENT OF THE AUTISTIC CHILD IN A “QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM” (QRTP) AS OPPOSED TO FOSTER CARE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support placement of the child, who is on the autism spectrum, in a “qualified residential treatment program” (QRTP) pursuant to the New York State Family First Prevention Service Act. The case gave the court the opportunity to decide an issue of first impression, i.e., which factors a court must consider in approving a child’s placement in a QRTP:

Here, since the qualified individual assessed the child and determined that placement in a QRTP would not be appropriate, the Family Court could approve the child’s placement in the QRTP only if it complied with the requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 1055-c(2)(c). Although the court found that QRTP placement was inconsistent with the child’s long-term permanency goal of adoption and that the child’s needs could be met in a less restrictive environment, the court nevertheless approved the child’s placement in a QRTP. The court, in essence, based this determination on a finding that there was not an alternative setting available that could meet the child’s needs in a less restrictive environment. * * *

However, the Family Court’s findings in this regard were not supported by the record. The court’s finding that there was not an alternative setting available was based on Loehr’s [the foster care supervisor’s] testimony that SCO [a foster-care agency] did not have any foster family homes available that could meet the child’s needs but that SCO was working to place the child in a foster family home for developmentally disabled children and was actively exploring families to adopt the child. On cross-examination, Loehr testified that SCO had not yet placed the child in a foster family home for children with developmental disabilities or a therapeutic foster family home through another agency because this would require a “step-up” conference, yet Loehr failed to explain why a “step-up” conference had not been held during the two months in which the child had been placed in the QRTP. This testimony was insufficient to support the court’s finding that there was not an alternative setting available that could meet the child’s needs in a less restrictive environment. Furthermore, Loehr’s testimony that the child had continuously lived in a foster family home setting from 2019 until January 2024, during which time his needs consistently had been met, calls into question the purported unavailability of any alternative, less restrictive settings. Matter of Joseph D.L. (Keisha T.M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04178, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for the criteria for placement of a child in a “qualified residential treatment program” (QRTP) as opposed to foster care. The criteria were not met here.

 

, , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to compel defendants to accept a second supplemental bill of particulars after plaintiff had surgery on her injured shoulder:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff in a personal injury action may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing ‘continuing special damages and disabilities,’ without leave of the court at any time, but not less than 30 days prior to trial, if it alleges ‘no new cause of action’ or claims no ‘new injury'” (… quoting CPLR 3043[b]). Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered to her left shoulder and described in the original bill of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries … . Since the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars, and was served more than 30 days prior to trial, leave of court was not required … . Miller v Great Vegetable Farm, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04170, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff documented the results of surgery on her injured shoulder in a supplemental bill of particulars. Because the document addressed injuries already alleged to have been caused by the slip and fall, and not new injuries, the document was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. As long as a supplemental bill of particulars is served more than 30 days before trial, leave of court is not required and defendant must accept it.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case against NYC, determined the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was untimely served. Although the notice of claim was served one day after the 90-day deadline, and the city initially notified plaintiff that service was untimely, subsequent communication from the city indicated the claim was being considered:

The plaintiff’s submissions established that although the Comptroller sent the plaintiff a letter dated March 6, 2020, indicating that a notice of claim was not timely filed within 90 days from the date of occurrence, the Comptroller sent the plaintiff another letter, also dated March 6, 2020, acknowledging receipt of the notice of claim, which was assigned a claim number, and stating that “[w]e will do our best to investigate and, if possible, settle your claim.” That letter also stated that “if we are unable to resolve your claim, any lawsuit against the City must be started within one year and ninety days from the date of the occurrence,” without any reference to the claim being untimely … . Further, the plaintiff’s attorney averred that on March 21, 2021, the City sent a letter requesting certain documents from the plaintiff “to evaluate the claim for settlement purposes” and that the plaintiff’s attorney emailed the requested documents the following day. The plaintiff also submitted an email dated March 25, 2021, from Millicent Nicholas-Richards, Negotiation and Settlement Supervisor for the New York City Law Department, acknowledging receipt of the requested documents, and stating that “[w]e are reviewing” and that the plaintiff’s attorney would be contacted if any additional documents were needed. Thus, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants made representations that the plaintiff’s claim was under consideration for settlement and that the plaintiff did not need to take any action other than providing documents “for settlement purposes” or to commence an action against the City within one year and 90 days if a settlement was not possible. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff, who did not move to deem the notice of claim timely served or to extend the time to serve the notice of claim within the one year and 90 day limitations period, was “lulled . . . into sleeping on [his] rights to [his] detriment” … .Guo En Tan v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 04161, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: The notice of claim in this slip and fall action against the city was served one day late. Communications from the city indicated the city was considering the claim. The deadline for making a motion for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim passed. At that point, the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was not timely served as a defense to the action.​.

 

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT DRIVER ALLEGED PLAINTIFF DRIVER STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE LANE OF TRAFFIC FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER WAS SOLELY AT FAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this rear-end collision case were not entitled to summary judgment. Defendant raised a question of fact alleged plaintiff driver stopped suddenly in the middle lane of traffic for no apparent reason:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . Thus, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … .

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting an affidavit of the plaintiff driver, which demonstrated that the plaintiffs’ vehicle was stopped for a traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . However, an affidavit of the defendant driver … raised triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether the defendants had a nonnegligent explanation for their vehicle striking the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. According to the defendant driver, the plaintiff driver was solely at fault in causing the accident by making a sudden stop for no apparent reason in the middle of their lane of traffic on the highway … . Correa v Cannon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04157, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Unless the driver of the rear vehicle in a rear-end collision case raises a nonnegligent explanation for striking the car in front, summary judgment will be awarded to the front driver. Here the rear driver alleged the front driver stopped in the middle lane of traffic for no apparent reason. That allegation raised a question of fact whether the front driver was solely at fault.

 

,

ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD SAW OR HEARD THE INCIDENT AND NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (OF THE THEN UNBORN CHILD) FINDINGS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the findings that father neglected a child and derivatively neglected a child who was not yet born at the time of the incident. The findings were based on an incident in which father struck his girlfriend, who was pregnant, while a child, Jolie M., was in the house. However, the evidence did not demonstrate Jolie M. witnessed or heard the incident:

The testimony of the father’s girlfriend and an ACS child protective specialist established that the father struck his girlfriend in the mouth while Jolie M. was in her nearby bedroom down the hallway. However, the testimony also indicated that Jolie M. did not see the incident or any resulting injuries, did not hear the father’s girlfriend’s plea for the father to stop hitting her, and was otherwise unaware that a domestic violence incident, as opposed to a mere verbal argument, was occurring … . Moreover, no evidence was offered to suggest that Jolie M. was frightened or upset by the incident, and the testimony established that, when recounting the events in a subsequent interview, the child presented a calm demeanor, interacted normally and comfortably with the father, and reportedly felt safe with the father … . In the absence of evidence that Jolie M.’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in danger of becoming impaired by the father’s acts of violence against his girlfriend, the court’s finding that the father neglected that child is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … .

Consequently, the Family Court’s further finding that the father derivatively neglected Jose M. based on the same domestic violence incident was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . Matter of Jose M. (Jose M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04094, Second Dept 7-9-25

Practice Point: To prove neglect based upon domestic violence there must be proof the child saw or heard the incident and was upset by it.

 

,

TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, A DEFENDANT MUST PROVE WHEN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant hospital did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the water on the floor in front of the elevator. To warrant summary judgment the defendant must show that the area of the slip and fall was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Evidence of general cleaning practices is not enough:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s security manager and of another employee of the defendant merely referred to the general cleaning and inspection practices at the hospital. The defendant did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Delfino v Montefiore Nyack Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04082, Second Dept 7-9-25

Same issue and result in Freeman v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip op 04086, 7-9-25 Second Dept

Practice Point: A defendant seeking to prove it did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused a slip and fall must prove the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices will not suffice.

 

, ,

THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BEFORE FILING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner foster-care-agency in this termination of parental rights proceeding did not demonstrate it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship before filing the petition:

When a foster care agency brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, it must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship” ( … see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). “Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for parental access, providing assistance to the parents to resolve the problems preventing the child’s discharge, and advising the parents of the child’s progress and development” … . “An agency must always determine the particular problems facing a parent with respect to the return of his or her child and make affirmative, repeated, and meaningful efforts to assist the parent in overcoming these handicaps” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f]). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing failed to establish that the petitioner assisted the single, working mother with obtaining childcare services, followed up with her therapy progress for six months, or built a rapport with her in order to engage in cooperative dialogue…. . Matter of Syiah C.M. (Shatasia C.M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04095, Second Dept 7-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what a foster care agency must try to do to strengthen the parent-child relationship before filing a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

 

,

AN UNSECURED LADDER THAT SLIPS OUT FROM UNDER THE PLAINTIFF WARRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case should have been granted. The ladder was not secured and slipped out from under the plaintiff, who fell 10 to 12 feet:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Whether a device provides proper protection is a question of fact, except when the device collapses, moves, falls, or otherwise fails to support the plaintiff and his or her materials” … . “Specifically, with respect to accidents involving ladders, liability will be imposed when the evidence shows that the subject ladder was . . . inadequately secured and that . . . the failure to secure the ladder[ ] was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendant. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of a witness to his accident which showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder slipped out from under the plaintiff as he descended from the roof, that the ladder fell away from the wall, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts were the sole cause of the accident … . Ruiz v Ewan, 2025 NY Slip Op 04032, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Here evidence the ladder was tethered to the house after the accident did not raise a question of fact about whether the ladder was unsecured when it slipped out from under plaintiff.

 

, , ,

CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proper procedure was not followed to substitute the executor of defendant’s estate for defendant. Therefore Supreme Court lacked any jurisdiction over the matter and did not have the power to grant defense counsel’s motion to substitute the executor:

… [T]he former counsel for the defendant purportedly moved on the defendant’s behalf, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126. … Supreme Court, sua sponte, substituted Jared Pierre, as executor of the defendant’s estate, for the defendant nunc pro tunc and granted the motion purportedly made on the defendant’s behalf. The plaintiff appeals.

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . “[A]ny determination rendered without such a substitution is generally deemed a nullity” … . Further, “[t]he death of a party terminates the authority of the attorney for that person to act on his or her behalf” … .

“CPLR 1021 defines the procedural mechanisms for seeking a substitution of successor or representative parties, and for the dismissal of actions where substitutions are not timely sought” … . “A motion for substitution pursuant to CPLR 1021 is the method by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the deceased party’s personal representative, and such a motion is not a mere technicality” … . Pierre v King, 2025 NY Slip Op 04028, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction over the matter. The procedure for substitution of a representative is explained in CPLR 1021 and must be followed.​

 

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