You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion; (2) there were questions of fact about whether there was a de facto merger of two defendant corporations; and (3) there was a question of fact whether the breach of contract action was barred by the statute of frauds (part performance). The “de facto merger” and “part performance” discussions are substantive and too detailed to summarize here. The Second Department noted that even inaction will satisfy part performance of a contract when inaction is a term of the oral agreement:

Supreme Court erred in converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). The plaintiff objected to this procedure on the ground that he had not received any discovery, and no preliminary conference had taken place due to the pendency of the motion to dismiss, which was made only one month after this action was commenced. Indeed, a motion for summary judgment is premature when a party had no reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, and discovery may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the complaint (see CPLR 3212[f] … ). Here, issue was not yet joined and there had been no opportunity to engage in discovery regarding the plaintiff’s allegations of successor liability and fraud with respect to the apparent transformation of [defendant] Labs into [defendant] Diagnostics. Therefore, converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment was premature.

… The defendants’ evidence did not establish as a matter of law that Diagnostics was not the de facto continuation of Labs … . * * *

Part performance in the form of inaction may … suffice to invoke the doctrine, if inaction is pleaded as a term of the oral agreement and alleged to be unequivocally referable to the oral agreement, and the element of detrimental reliance is present … . … [D]efendants failed to demonstrate … that the plaintiff did not partially perform by refraining from seeking to confirm the arbitration award, thereby rendering the statute of frauds inapplicable. Menche v CDx Diagnostics, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05964, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action at issue sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore, to avoid summary judgment, plaintiff was required to submit expert opinion evidence in opposition. Plaintiff’s decedent, a patient in a rehabilitation facility (defendant St. James), fell when walking unattended after going to the bathroom. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s failure to provide decedent with a bed alarm was a proximate cause of the fall. The motion court held that cause of action sounded in negligence and raised a jury question:

The essence of the allegation that St. James improperly failed to provide the decedent with a bed alarm which would have prevented his fall is that it improperly assessed his condition and the degree of supervision necessary to prevent him from falling, which sounds in medical malpractice … . Thus, with respect to this allegation, St. James bore the initial burden of establishing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … .

In response to St. James’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by submitting an expert opinion that specifically addressed the defense expert’s assertions … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of St. James’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged a failure to provide the decedent with a bed alarm. Losak v St. James Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DID NOT TIMELY COMPLETE SERVICE BY MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE LAW OFFICE FAILURE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE AND THE LACK OF DILIGENCE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate could good cause for failing to timely mail the summons and complaint to defendant and was not entitled to an extension of time to serve the defendant in the interest of justice. The court noted that law-office-failure precludes an extension for good cause, and the attorney’s lack of diligence in filing the action (ten days before the expiration of the statute of limitations) and in serving the pleadings ruled out an extension in the interest of justice:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to an extension of time to serve Marin [defendant] for good cause, as she failed to establish that she exercised reasonably diligent efforts in attempting to effect proper service … . The plaintiff’s attorney’s mistake in failing to note, until pointed out in the defendants’ reply papers, that Marin had not been served by mail, amounts to law office failure, which does not constitute good cause … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to an extension of time for service in the interest of justice given the lack of diligence in commencing the action, which was not commenced until 10 days before the statute of limitations expired; the lack of diligence in effecting service; the more than six-month delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed and the time the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, for an extension was made; and the lack of an excuse, other than law office failure, for the failure to effect timely service … . Jordan-Covert v Petroleum Kings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05960, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s judgment after trial and ordering a new trial in this traffic accident case, determined the defendant police department’s internal police-chase rules should not have been admitted in evidence without a limiting instruction explaining the rules could be considered as some evidence of negligence. The internal rules imposed a higher standard of care for police-chases than the reckless-disregard standard imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a driver who was being pursued by the police. The jury found both the driver and the police negligent:

The Suffolk County defendants are correct that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence, without any limiting instruction, the Suffolk County Police Department Rules and Procedures on vehicular pursuits. An organization’s internal rules or manuals, “to the extent they impose a higher standard of care than is imposed by law, are inadmissible to establish” a violation of the standard of care … .

Here, the rules and regulations at issue imposed a higher standard of care than the reckless disregard standard imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which “‘qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation, and precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court committed reversible error in admitting the internal rules without providing a limiting instruction that the rules could be considered only as some evidence of recklessness along with other factors … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05956, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s untimely cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the delay in making the cross-motion was not satisfactorily explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212(a), courts have “considerable discretion to fix a deadline for filing summary judgment motions” … , so long as the deadline is not “earlier than 30 days after filing the note of issue or (unless set by the court) later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” … . Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may nevertheless be considered by the court “where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … .

… Supreme Court erred in considering the plaintiff’s untimely cross motion. The cross motion was made months after the deadline imposed by the court had elapsed, and the plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his cross motion did not raise nearly identical issues as [defendant’s] timely motion, which had a different factual basis and addressed substantively different violations of the Industrial Code … . Dojce v 1302 Realty Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

THE DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF HER (NON-ATTORNEY) HUSBAND DID NOT AUTHORIZE HER HUSBAND TO FILE COURT PAPERS ON HER BEHALF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED ACTION; THE HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT IS PROHIBITED BY THE JUDICIARY LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s husband could not represent the defendant in this account stated action based upon his holding a power of attorney executed by the defendant:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, alleging that the defendant failed to pay sums due on her credit card account. Following service of the summons and complaint, the defendant’s husband, James W. Gilliam II (hereinafter Gilliam), purportedly in his capacity as the defendant’s attorney-in-fact by short form power of attorney, in accordance with New York General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N, filed with the court an answer and certain cross claims on behalf of the defendant. …

“New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney” … . The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and “cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478” … . Discover Bank v Gilliam, 2021 NY Slip Op 05949, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, HUSBAND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE WAS CONTEMPLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff husband in this divorce action should not have been awarded credit for mortgage payments made before terminating the marriage was contemplated:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a credit in the sum of $34,000 for payments he made toward the mortgage on the marital residence. Where a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt during the pendency of the action, including payments toward the mortgage on the marital residence, reimbursement is required … . However, “[a]s a general rule, where the payments are made before either party is anticipating the end of the marriage, . . . courts should not look back and try to compensate for the fact that the net effect of the payments may, in some cases, have resulted in the reduction of marital assets” … . Here, the plaintiff’s payments toward the mortgage, which was satisfied in October 2017, were made prior to the commencement of this action, and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to a credit for those payments. Cuomo v Moss, 2021 NY Slip Op 05945, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant insurance-broker’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action was properly denied, and the motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation cause of action should have been denied. The issues are whether the insured made a specific request for coverage and whether there was a special relationship between the insured and defendant broker:

“An insurance agent or broker has a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for a client within a reasonable amount of time, or to inform the client of the inability to do so … . Generally, “‘[t]o set forth a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy'” … . “Thus, the duty is defined by the nature of the client’s request” … . However, “[w]here a special relationship develops between the broker and client, . . . the broker may be liable, even in the absence of a specific request, for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … .

… [T]he defendant insurance broker failed to meet its initial burden of tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff client made a specific request for coverage which was not obtained … . … [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether a specific interaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding a question of coverage related to the plaintiff’s renovation work on the insured property that could give rise to a special relationship between the parties … . Copacabana Realty, LLC v A.J. Benet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05944, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SISTER CARRIED A GENE WHICH INCREASED THE CHANCE OF DEVELOPING OVARIAN CANCER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined evidence that plaintiff’s decedent’s sister carried a gene which increased the chance of developing ovarian cancer should have been admitted:

“Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant’s departure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury” … . “‘A plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased the injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased [the] injury'” … .

The evidence that the decedent’s sister tested positive for the harmful variant of the BRCA2 gene was not unduly prejudicial and was relevant to the issue of proximate cause, as it would have supported the plaintiff’s argument and the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert that the decedent would have undergone gene testing if properly advised to do so, and more likely than not would have tested positive for the harmful gene variant and undergone a procedure to remove her ovaries, diminishing her chances of developing ovarian cancer. This evidence also would have contradicted the position of the Akhund defendants that the decedent’s chances of testing positive for the harmful gene variant were as low as 2.5 to 5% … . The weight to be accorded to this evidence is a matter to be determined by the jury … . Walsh v Akhund, 2021 NY Slip Op 05890, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

, ,

ALLOWING THE APPLICANT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO RETURN WITH A SIGNAGE PROPOSAL AFTER THE PLAN WAS APPROVED DID NOT CONSTITUTE (IMPERMISSIBLE) SEGMENTATION UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact the site plan was approved by the planning board without signage did not constitute segmentation under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

The fact that the site plan was approved without signage did not constitute segmentation under SEQRA. Segmentation is defined as the division of the environmental review of a single action such that various activities or stages are addressed as though they are independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance (see 6 NYCRR 617.2[ah]). The regulations which prohibit segmentation are designed to guard against a distortion of the approval process by preventing a project with potentially significant environmental effects from being split into two or more smaller projects, each falling below the threshold requiring full-blown review … . Here, signage is not being treated as an independent, unrelated activity, but as a part of the entire project, and allowing [the applicant] to return to the Planning Board with a signage proposal will not distort the approval process. Matter of Route 17K Real Estate, LLC v Planning Bd. of the Town of Newburgh, 2021 NY Slip Op 05858, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

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