You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff, while pouring a concrete floor, tripped over a drainage pipe which had been covered by a blanket to protect it from the concrete. The defendants demonstrated: (1) the pipe was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous; (2) they did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work; and (3), the Industrial Code provision which addresses accumulation of debris did not apply:

… [T]he defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating both that the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work. …

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) is inapplicable because the protruding drainage pipe over which the plaintiff allegedly fell was a permanent and an integral part of what was being constructed … . Sanchez v BBL Constr. Servs., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove standing to bring the action and compliance with the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

… [T}he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendant prior to the commencement of this action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, although Victoria Wolff, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff, stated in an affidavit that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, she did not aver that she had mailed the notices herself or otherwise claim to have personal knowledge of the mailing … . Raymond James Bank, NA v Guzzetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION FOR RESENTENCING WHICH ALLEGED SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion for resentencing which alleged she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the commission of the crime:

Provided that the defendant meets certain threshold eligibility requirements pertaining to, inter alia, the length of incarceration and the type of offense … , a defendant may move for resentencing in accordance with Penal Law § 60.12 (see CPL 440.47[1][c]). The motion itself … must make a preliminary evidentiary showing consisting of “at least two pieces of evidence corroborating the applicant’s claim that he or she was, at the time of the offense, a victim of domestic violence subjected to substantial physical, sexual or psychological abuse inflicted by a member of the same family or household as the applicant as such term is defined in” CPL 530.11(1) (CPL 440.47[2][c]). Furthermore, “[a]t least one piece of evidence must be either a court record, presentence report, social services record, hospital record, sworn statement from a witness to the domestic violence, law enforcement record, domestic incident report, or order of protection” … .

Here, the defendant’s evidence in support of her motion included affidavits of her sister and mother, as well as a purported transcription of her interrogation by the police. Together, this evidence corroborated her allegations that she was subjected to domestic violence by the codefendant at the time of the offense … , and that the defendant and the codefendant were “member[s] of the same family or household” … . People v Coles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00678, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in the foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice and “one envelope” requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate … that it strictly complied with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Kyle Lucas, a senior loan analyst employed by the plaintiff, did not make the requisite showing that Lucas was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and “therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish that it complied with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). “[I]nclusion of any material in the separate envelope sent to the borrower under RPAPL 1304 that is not expressly delineated in these provisions constitutes a violation of the separate envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2)” … . … [T]he plaintiff acknowledged that the envelope … , which contained the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304, also included other information in two notices pertaining to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and bankruptcy. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Sirianni, 2022 NY Slip Op 00677, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller which is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. determined plaintiff police officer was properly subjected to disciplinary charges brought by the town and was not entitled to all the retiree benefits set forth in the collective bargaining agreement:

We are called upon in this case to navigate the interplay between various forms of equitable relief grounded in common law doctrine, principles of modern practice under CPLR article 78 and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and certain state-level policies regarding the right to collective bargaining and the authority of public officials over law enforcement. These issues have been raised as a result of the plaintiff’s complaint, the central aim of which is to prevent the plaintiff’s employer from holding him accountable for the serious disciplinary infractions that he allegedly committed in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the equitable powers and legal doctrines that he seeks to invoke in this litigation do not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Murray v Town of N. Castle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00675, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NEGLECT FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to vacate the neglect finding should have been granted:

… [T]he mother demonstrated good cause to modify the order of disposition and to vacate the order of fact-finding, which found that she neglected the children. The mother demonstrated her lack of a prior child protective history, her remorse and insight into how her actions affected the children, and her commitment to ameliorating the issues that led to the finding of neglect, including her compliance with court-ordered services and treatment … . In addition, she demonstrated that the requested relief was in the best interests of the children … . Matter of Nila S. (Priscilla S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 00670, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

PETITION TO REMOVE A TRUSTEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition by one of decedent’s daughter, Eckhouse, to remove the other daughter, Taormina, as trustee of the generation skipping transfer (GST) trusts should have been granted. The decision includes a comprehensive discussion of the criteria for removing a trustee:

… [T]he record clearly demonstrates that, in contrast with the high duty of loyalty owed by a fiduciary, Taormina placed her own interest in a greater share of the estate above her fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the GST trusts and their beneficiaries. Even accepting Taormina’s rather strained protestations that her only goal was to “fund these trusts properly and pay the proper taxes” in accordance with the decedent’s will, as a fiduciary, she was required to pursue those goals in a manner consistent with the protection of the beneficiaries’ interests. Matter of Epstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 00658, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM DICTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that no appeal lies from dicta. Here the plaintiff acknowledged her slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed against two defendants, but attempted to appeal the motion court’s statement that “the plaintiff is unable to establish where she fell:”

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in a trip and fall accident. On her appeal from an order which granted the motion of the defendants … for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … , she concedes that those motions were properly granted. … [S]he challenges the statement of the Supreme Court that “the plaintiff is unable to establish where she fell.” However, no appeal lies from dicta … . Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Kelly v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00654, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in a matter of first impression, determined the service of process in this foreclosure action was invalid. A relative of a defendant (daughter) told the process service that the address where service was made was proper, but, in fact, the defendant did not reside at that address:

This appeal presents a simple question that has not previously arisen: whether an affirmative misrepresentation by a relative of a defendant at a residential address that the address is proper, which is relied upon by a process server, may establish that service was valid, if evidence establishes that the address is not, in fact, the defendant’s actual dwelling place or usual place of abode. We hold that, under the circumstances of this action, service of process upon the defendant at an address that was not actually his dwelling place or usual place of abode was defective, notwithstanding information provided to the process server at the doorstep. * * *

For a defendant to be estopped from raising a claim of defective service, the conduct misleading the process server must be the defendant’s conduct, as distinguished from conduct of a third party … . Everbank v Kelly, 2022 NY Slip Op 00651, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied making this dental malpractice action timely; and (2) plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant dentist (Irlin) should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her current treating dentist, who opined that the plaintiff initially sought treatment from Irlin in order to obtain a permanent prosthetic replacement for the missing teeth in her upper jaw. The plaintiff’s dentist further opined that the numerous surgeries that the plaintiff underwent on her upper jaw to repair and replace implants and prostheses were related to Irlin’s initial alleged malpractice in failing to diagnose the bone condition that caused the implants and prostheses to become loose and need replacement. The record otherwise presents questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff timely initiated return visits to complain and seek corrective treatment from Irlin … . …

… [T]he individual defendants’ own submissions, which included the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and numerous signed consent forms written in English, demonstrated that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against Irlin. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she agreed to the installation of dental implants and a permanent prosthetic device in her upper jaw because Irlin verbally promised her that it would “last a lifetime,” that she would “treat [the prosthesis] as if” it was her “own teeth,” and that she would only need follow-up appointments for cleanings once every 6 to 12 months, among other things. The individual defendants’ evidence could support the conclusion that the treatment Irlin rendered did not achieve these allegedly promised results. Chvetsova v Family Smile Dental, 2022 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

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