You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT THE CITY BUS STOPPED “VIOLENTLY,” CAUSING HER TO FALL; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVICENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant Transit Authority’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony that the bus stopped “violently,” causing her to fall, was not supported by any objective evidence:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found for the plaintiff against the defendants. Although the plaintiff characterized the stop as “violent,” neither her testimony regarding the nature of her fall nor the circumstances surrounding the stop nor any other evidence she presented was sufficient to provide the objective support necessary to demonstrate that the movement of the bus was “unusual and violent” … . Stark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which had a station in the vicinity of where plaintiff tripped over a bolt protruding from the sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. A town ordinance required abutting property owners to maintain the sidewalk and the MTA did not demonstrate the protruding bolt was not in an area of the sidewalk for which it was responsible:

… [T]he MTA defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate that they were not tenants or occupants of a lot or building abutting the subject sidewalk or that, for any other reason, section 191-16(A) of the Town Code did not apply to them. Among other things, the evidence they submitted did not clearly show the location of the sidewalk in relation to the station house and train platform, or clearly establish the Town’s and the MTA defendants’ relative use of, and duties with respect to, the portions of the property at issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the MTA defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Sanon v MTA Long Is. R.R., 2022 NY Slip Op 01337, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured doing the work he was hired to do—repairing an elevator. The issue was considered even though it was first raised on appeal. In addition, defendants were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

We find merit to the defendants’ contention—raised for the first time on appeal but fully briefed by both sides … —that the injured plaintiff cannot succeed in his causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as “[n]o responsibility rests upon an owner of real property to one hurt through a dangerous condition which he [or she] has undertaken to fix”… . Indeed, the evidence in the record conclusively establishes that the injury-producing accident was caused by an unidentified defect in the very elevator that the injured plaintiff’s employer had been hired to repair. Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

… The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The homeowner’s exemption to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is available to “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” Here, the defendants, as owners of the single-family townhouse where the accident occurred, established, prima facie, that they did not direct or control the home improvement work being done by the injured plaintiff and his employer at the time of the subject accident … . Soto v Justin Hochberg 2014 Irrevocable Trust, 2022 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , ,

IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE THE TOTTEN TRUSTS SO THE FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER WISHES AS SET OUT IN THE WILL AND TRUST DRAFTED BY DEFENDANTS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-attorneys should not have been granted summary judgment in this legal malpractice action brought by the executor of the estate of attorneys’ client. It was alleged two bank accounts were Totten Trusts which passed outside of the will and therefore were not distributed as decedent wished (as was set out in the will and trust drafted by defendants). As a result one of decedent’s sons, whom decedent intended to disinherit, received half of the Totten Trusts:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. The defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence establishing … that they exercised the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession. In addition, the court erred in determining that the defendants established, prima facie, that the decedent’s estate did not sustain actual and ascertainable damage as a result of the defendants’ alleged negligence in failing to advise the decedent to revoke the Totten Trusts prior to her death. Schmidt v Burner, 2022 NY Slip Op 01191, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE ICY CONDITION AND WHETHER THEY HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant property-owner’s and defendant property-manager’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendants created the icy condition and had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he plaintiff asserted in his bill of particulars that the defendants were negligent … in failing to maintain the premises, failing to repair the dangerous and defective condition, and in allowing an icy condition to exist. In his fourth supplemental bill of particulars, … the plaintiff clarified that the defendants created the dangerous condition that caused him to slip and fall by permitting the downspouts from the roof of the premises to deposit water directly onto the sidewalk, and alleged violations of various property maintenance codes related thereto. Thus, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants were … required to demonstrate that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition … .. The defendants failed to establish … that the drains played no role in the creation or exacerbation of the icy condition that allegedly caused the accident … . Moreover, the defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not have constructive notice of the allegedly defective downspouts. While [the] property director testified at his deposition that no tenants raised concerns about drainage issues caused by the downspouts, he acknowledged that, after snow events, his on-site maintenance worker would check for “ponding” on the sidewalks around the premises. Messina v Morton Vil. Realty, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01155, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED THE PROGNOSIS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact about whether a delay in diagnosis affected the prognosis:

On February 26, 2014, the plaintiff’s decedent presented to the emergency department of the defendant Brookdale Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter Brookdale) complaining of swelling in both legs. The attending emergency room physician, the defendant Morombaye Mbaidjol, diagnosed the decedent with “[l]ikely peripheral vascular disease” and discharged her to her home. The decedent’s bilateral leg swelling initially improved, but nine days later, she presented to a different hospital’s emergency department again complaining of bilateral leg swelling. An ultrasound revealed acute deep vein thrombosis (hereinafter DVT) of major veins in both lower extremities. Shortly after the ultrasound was performed, the decedent experienced cardiopulmonary arrest and died. An autopsy of the decedent revealed that she died as a result of bilateral DVT of the lower extremities, which led to a bilateral pulmonary embolism, causing cardiac arrest and death. * * *

“Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions” … .. Contrary to the Brookdale defendants’ contention, the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert physician were not speculative and conclusory … . The plaintiff’s expert physician opined … that the Brookdale defendants departed from the standard of care by failing to take a proper history and perform a proper workup of the decedent, failing to rule out DVT, misdiagnosing the decedent, and failing to institute the proper treatment, which resulted in the progression of the DVT, bilateral pulmonary embolism, and ultimately cardiac arrest and death nine days later. Among other things, “[w]hether a diagnostic delay affected a patient’s prognosis is typically an issue that should be presented to a jury” … . Ivey v Mbaidjol, 2022 NY Slip Op 01152, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2007 notice of default in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt. Also, the initial action was dismissed for lack of standing and, therefore did not accelerate the debt.  Therefore the action should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendant established that the mortgage was not accelerated. The language in the 2007 notice of default did not serve to accelerate the loan, as it was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause … . Moreover, since the 2008 foreclosure action was dismissed on the ground that the defendant lacked standing, the commencement of that action as purported acceleration was a nullity, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run at the time of the purported acceleration … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint.  IPA Asset Mgt., LLC v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2022 NY Slip Op 01151, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL GYM TEACHER WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s discovery requests in this Child Victim’s Act action against the Archdiocese of New York were palpably improper and should have been denied (the requests were not described in the decision). Plaintiff alleged sexual abuse by a gym teacher when he was a child in the 1960’s:

Notices for discovery and inspection and interrogatories are palpably improper if they are overbroad or burdensome, fail to specify with reasonable particularity many of the documents demanded, or seek irrelevant or confidential information (see CPLR 3120[2] …). Where the discovery demands are overbroad, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it … . “The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one” …

Here, the plaintiff’s discovery demand and interrogatories were palpably improper in that they were overbroad and burdensome, sought irrelevant or confidential information, or failed to specify with reasonable particularity many of the documents demanded … .Fox v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 01148

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavits purporting to demonstrate the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action were not accompanied by the relevant documents and therefore constituted inadmissible hearsay:

… [I]n order to establish standing, the plaintiff submitted affidavits from two contract management coordinators of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, each of whom stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed that pertained to the issue of standing, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing to commence this action. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Idarecis, 2022 NY Slip Op 01144, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The conditional order of dismissal did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 and therefore did not dismiss the action as abandoned:

… [T]he conditional order of dismissal “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice ‘will serve as a basis for a motion’ by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, there was no indication that the plaintiff’s counsel was present at the status conference at which the Supreme Court issued the conditional order of dismissal, nor was there evidence that the conditional order of dismissal was ever properly served upon the plaintiff … . In addition, notwithstanding the statement in the conditional order of dismissal that “more than one year ha[d] elapsed since the joinder of issue,” there is no dispute that issue was not joined … .. Accordingly, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal, and to restore the action to the active calendar…. . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Beckford, 2022 NY Slip Op 01143, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

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