You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM BASED UPON EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE 50-H HEARING, THE AMENDMENT CANNOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE FACTS AND ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation should not have been granted. Although the court has the power to allow amendment of a notice of claim based upon evidence given at the 50-h hearing, the amendment cannot substantively change the facts and add a new theory of liability:

After a hearing was conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h … , the petitioner served an amended notice of claim … expanding the dates of alleged malpractice from January 2, 2014, through September 6, 2018, based on the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing that the decedent had stomach pains since 2016, had been diagnosed with paralytic ileus, and had been treated for that condition by a physician affiliated with Coney Island Hospital since approximately 2016. …

“‘A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability'” … . “[W]hile a court has the discretion to permit a plaintiff to serve an amended notice of claim, amendment is permitted only where the error in the original notice of claim was made in good faith, the municipality is not prejudiced, and the amendment does not substantively change the nature of the claim” … . “A court may consider evidence adduced at a 50-h hearing to correct a good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the notice of claim. However, the evidence adduced at the 50-h hearing cannot be used to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability” … . Matter of Lesaine v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06617, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined father’s consent to the adoption of his child is not required where the father has not maintained contact with the child:

“A biological father’s consent to adopt a child over six months old who was born out of wedlock is required only if the father ‘maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as manifested by’ payment of reasonable child support and either monthly visitation or ‘regular communication’ with the subject child[ ] or custodian” … . “Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) imposes a dual requirement upon the biological father, and the father’s unexcused failure to satisfy either of these requirements is sufficient to warrant a finding that his consent to the proposed adoption[ ] is not required” … .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father, by failing to financially support the child, despite having the means to do so, did not maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) … . Matter of Raniah M. K. (Joma K.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06616, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict and ordering a new trial in this slip and fall case, determined the defense verdict was against the weight of the evidence:

“A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless ‘the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors … . Where, as here, “a jury verdict with respect to negligence and proximate causation is irreconcilably inconsistent, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, as the finding that the defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence … . The infant plaintiff testified that she slipped on a step that was cracked, sloped down, and uneven. That testimony was consistent with the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert engineer. The defendants failed to adduce any evidence to refute the testimony of the infant plaintiff and the plaintiffs’ expert witness. Middleton v New York City Tr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06613, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

WHEN THE BALANCES OF FIRST MORTGAGES ARE INCREASED WITH SECOND MORTGAGE LOANS AND A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION, AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) IS ENTERED CONSOLIDATING THE MORTGAGES INTO SINGLE LIENS, THE FIRST NOTES AND MORTGAGES STILL EXIST; WHEN A MORTGAGE IS ERRONEOUSLY DISCHARGED WITHOUT A SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT, THE MORTGAGE MAY BE REINSTATED IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE ON THE ERRONEOUS DISCHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that where balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and a Consolidation, Extension, and Modification Agreement (CEMA) is entered consolidating the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist. And where, as here, there has been an erroneous discharge of mortgage without a satisfaction of the mortgage debt, the mortgage may be reinstated where there has been no detrimental reliance on erroneous discharge:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated … that MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc] erred in executing and filing the satisfaction of mortgage dated October 31, 2005, which certified that the first mortgage in the principal sum of $600,000 was paid. … [T]he satisfaction references the second mortgage, dated April 12, 2005, in the sum of $8,421.28, and acknowledges that the two mortgages were combined and consolidated to form a “single first lien.” Accordingly, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or support their contention that no mortgage existed upon which the plaintiff can foreclose. Bank of Am., N.A. v Schwartz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06602, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence:

… [I]n support of its motion Bayview [plaintiff, successor-in-interest to the original plaintiff, Bank of America (BoA)] submitted the affidavit of Nicole Currey, a supervisor for Bayview, who attached to her affidavit copies of various documents generated by nonparty Walz Group, Inc. (hereinafter Walz), to establish compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. However, Currey failed to address the nature of the relationship between Walz and BoA , and Bayview’s submissions were insufficient to establish a foundation for the admission of the business records relied upon by Bayview to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, Bayview failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with the 90-day notice requirement of RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Evanson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06601, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

,

THE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND THE CITY DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ROADWAY DEFECTS IN THE AREA; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall and the city did not have written notice of any roadway defects:

“In a trip-and-fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgement as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall” without resorting to speculation … . Here, the injured plaintiff acknowledged at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that he had no recollection of what caused his accident. He testified that he remembered riding his bicycle downhill somewhere on Forest Park Drive and waking up in an ambulance—but nothing in between. Given this lack of information, “it is just as likely that the accident [was] caused by some . . . factor [other than the conditions of the road], such as a . . . loss of balance” or control … . Accordingly, a finding that the City’s negligent maintenance of the roadway, if any, was responsible for the accident would be impermissibly based on speculation … . …

… [T]he defendants established their … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City by presenting evidence that the City Department of Transportation had not received prior written notice of the defective roadway condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s accident  … . Xin Zheng Zhan v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06646, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

THE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S EXCLUSION OF A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s exclusion of a juror should have been granted:

When providing a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge as to S.K., the prosecutor stated that S.K. “is a school counselor and . . . when talking about how she would . . . settle disputes amongst two parties, indicated that she wanted to hear from both sides.” Defense counsel disputed this reason, and argued that the prosecutor did not exercise a peremptory challenge as to prospective white juror N.Z., a school counselor who “indicated that she would need to hear both stories” when working through a conflict between two children at work. The court then acknowledged that the prosecutor did not use a peremptory challenge as to N.Z., and that “[s]he is a white female.” The court denied the defendant’s Batson challenge. * * *

The defendant correctly contends that the court erred in finding that the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason for striking S.K. was not a pretext for discrimination. Here, the record demonstrates that the articulated race-neutral reasons for challenging S.K. were not applied equally to exclude a prospective juror, N.Z., who was not black and could have been challenged by the prosecutor for the same reasons. “Although the uneven application of race-neutral factors does not indicate pretext where the prosecution can articulate other legitimate reasons to justify the use of its challenges”… , the prosecution here failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the nonracial bases advanced by the prosecutor for challenging S.K. were pretextual and “give[ ] rise to an inference of discriminatory intent” … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06627, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET LOADING DOCK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-322.1 (1) APPLIES ONLY TO NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING, NOT TO CLEANING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the wet loading dock. Therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. As to the action against the maintenance company charged with keeping the loading dock clean (ABM), General Obligations Law 5-322.1 (1), which imposes liability for negligent maintenance, applies only to maintenance associated with the integrity of a building, not cleaning services:

The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition in that they failed to offer evidence as to when the loading dock was last cleaned or inspected before the plaintiff’s fall. A security guard hired by the defendants testified that, while he would typically perform a “security walk around” twice every 30 to 60 minutes, on the day of the accident, he did not pay attention to the area where the plaintiff later fell. Further, the testimony of witnesses employed by the defendants and ABM as to general cleaning and inspection procedures for the loading dock area was insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . Skerrett v LIC Site B2 Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06386, Second Dept 11-17-21​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED HIS GUILTY PLEA COULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to Supreme Court, determined defendant should be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not informed of the possibility of deportation. The issue was not subject to the preservation requirement for appeal:

… [T]he defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … . Inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a result of his pleas … , the defendant had no “practical ability” to object to the court’s comment about immigration consequences or to otherwise tell the court, if he chose, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the possibility of deportation … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . People v Bamugo, 2021 NY Slip Op 06363, Second Dept 11-17,21

 

,

THE DENIAL OF THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT ADVISE PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 petition seeking the production of documents should not have been dismissed on the ground petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. When the FOIL request was denied the denial did not advise petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal:

Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and (4)(a) requires that FOIL requests be granted or denied by an agency within five business days, and that any administrative appeal of a denial, as required for exhausting administrative remedies, be undertaken within 30 days of the denial. 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b) further requires, however, that “[d]enial of access shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the person denied access of his or her right to appeal to the person or body designated to determine appeals, and that person or body shall be identified by name, title, business address and business telephone number. The records access officer shall not be the appeals officer.” Since there is no dispute that the subject denial of the petitioner’s FOIL request failed to advise the petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal and the person to whom the appeal should be directed as required by 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b), the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies … . Matter of Snyder v Nassau County, 2021 NY Slip Op 06359, Second Dept 11-17-21

 

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