You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF, THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF OR THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED NEAR PLAINTIFF’S HOME; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and retention cause of action against the church defendants should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged plaintiff, who was seven years old, was abducted near her home, taken to a secluded area, and sexually assaulted by the defendant. The court noted that the church defendants may have been negligent in hiring the defendant, but there was no connection between the offense committed by the defendant and his employment:

With respect to a cause of action alleging negligent hiring and retention, “[t]he employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring and retention of the employee” … . As such, a necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention is a nexus or connection between the defendant’s negligence in hiring and retaining the offending employee and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Here, the plaintiff failed to allege any such nexus, since the sexual assault occurred far from the Church’s premises, and there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff had any prior contact with the alleged attacker, any prior relationship with any of the defendants, or even any knowledge, at the time of the sexual assault, that the alleged attacker was employed by the defendants. Roe v Domestic & Foreign Missionary Socy. of the Prot. Episcopal Church, 2021 NY Slip Op 05360, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

BY ARGUING HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON AND AMMUNITION WERE IN THE TRUCK HE WAS DRIVING, DEFENDANT PUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN ISSUE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD TWICE BEFORE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, ONCE ON A PLANE AND ONCE IN A VEHICLE, WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined evidence of two prior incidents (more than a decade before defendant’s arrest) in which defendant had a firearm in his possession was admissible Molineux evidence in this prosecution for weapons and ammunition possession. Defendant argued at trial that he did not know the weapons and ammunition were in the truck he was driving. A strong dissent argued the Molineux evidence should not have been admitted because it was too remote, too prejudicial, and did not fit the state-of-mind exception to the Molineux rule:

“When [the] defendant’s criminal intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act or when [the] defendant’s intent or mental state in doing the act is placed in issue, . . . proof of other crimes may be admissible under the intent exception to the Molineux rule” … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting the proferred Molineux evidence. The evidence was directly relevant and probative of a material element of the crimes charged, namely, the defendant’s knowing possession of the guns … .

Our dissenting colleague’s assertion that the defendant’s criminal intent could be easily inferred from the circumstances of the incident, thus rendering the Molineux evidence unnecessary, ignores the fact that the defendant asserted a lack of criminal intent theory at trial. Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s assertion, the defendant placed his state of mind squarely in issue in his opening statement and throughout the trial, by pursuing the defense that “[h]e didn’t know” the guns were in the truck, and that the People would be unable to prove his intent to possess the guns beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Telfair, 2021 NY Slip Op 05355, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

THE DNA TEST RESULT GENERATED USING THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant conviction, determined the DNA test results using the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST) should not have been admitted without first holding a Frye hearing:

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Prior to trial, the defendant moved, inter alia, to preclude the People from introducing at trial DNA testing results derived from the use of the Forensic Statistical Tool (hereinafter FST), or alternatively, to conduct a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir]) to determine the admissibility of the evidence generated by the FST. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant’s motion, finding that FST was generally accepted in the scientific community. We reverse.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting FST evidence without first holding a Frye hearing … . People v Adeyeye, 2021 NY Slip Op 05347, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, over a strong dissent, determined RPAPL 1304 requires that the 90-day notice of foreclosure proceedings be sent to each borrower in separate envelopes. Here a single envelope with the RPAPL 1304 notice addressed to both borrowers did not comply with the statute and the foreclosure action was properly dismissed by Supreme Court:

… [W]hile 30-day notices of default were separately mailed to each of the defendants, the 90-day notice, which was sent via certified and first-class mail, was jointly addressed to the defendants. While the record reflects that “F. Yapkowitz” signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice sent via certified mail, receipt of the notice is inconsequential. Even assuming, arguendo, that both of the defendants had signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice, the plaintiff would not have demonstrated strict compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 by mailing a notice jointly addressed to both of the borrowers in the same envelope. Since it is undisputed that the 90-day notice to each of the borrowers was sent in the same envelope, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304, a condition precedent to the commencement of the action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 05139, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, ,

THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the summary judgment motions by several defendants in this slip and fall case should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on water dripping from and air conditioning unit in the break room. The landlord did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. The defendants failed to show they did not have actual of constructive notice of the condition. Superior, the company which installed the air conditioner (HVAC system], did not show that it did not launch an instrument of harm:

An out-of-possession landlord and its agent may be liable for injuries occurring on its premises if it has “retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” to perform maintenance and repairs … . … [The defendants] failed to establish … that they were out-of-possession landlords, that they did not assume a duty by course of conduct to maintain the area of the building at issue, including the HVAC system, and that they relinquished control over the premises to such a degree so as to extinguish their duty to maintain the premises … . * * *

… Superior’s submissions demonstrated that it entered into a contract with the … defendants’ general contractor to install the HVAC system, that the installation was completed approximately eight months before the plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall, and that, subsequently, it entered into a contract … to service and maintain at least a part of that HVAC system, and this contract was in effect at the time of the accident. Superior failed to establish … that the source of the leak at issue was not the HVAC system. Superior also failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it launched an instrument of harm by creating the alleged recurring condition through its negligent installation or maintenance of the HVAC system … . Taliana v Hines REIT Three Huntington Quadrangle, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05138, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEADLY-FORCE-JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a strong dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s request for a deadly-force-justification-defense jury instruction should have been granted. The person with whom defendant was fighting, Gibson, was five inches taller and 66 pounds heavier than defendant. Gibson testified the defendant struck him with a hammer and a meat cleaver. Although Gibson was using only his fists during the fight, he eventually rendered defendant unconscious with a single punch. The medical evidence did not support Gibson’s claim he had been struck with a hammer and a meat cleaver:

The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and convicted him of assault in the second degree.  …

… [B]ased on the differences in size and strength between Gibson and the defendant … , the complainant’s own testimony that he held the defendant down and punched him in the face, the significant injuries suffered by the defendant, including a fractured ankle, Hall’s [a roommate’s] statement during the 911 call that “they’re killing each other,” and the significant factual questions presented regarding what weapons were used and by whom, a rational jury could have found that the defendant reasonably believed that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself … against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by Gibson … . … [B]ased on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, a rational jury could have determined that Gibson, not the defendant, was the first person to use or threaten the imminent use of deadly physical force … . Under these circumstances, the failure to charge the defense constituted reversible error … . * * *

… Supreme Court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. The court credited Gibson’s testimony despite evidence which … significantly called into question the credibility of Gibson’s story. … A criminal defendant has no burden to present evidence at trial to prove his innocence, including by showing that his conduct was justified and therefore lawful … . Instead, the burden to disprove justification falls on the People. People v Singh, 2021 NY Slip Op 05134, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILITY PLEA; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The court noted that the defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude an appeal alleging the guilty plea was not valid:

… [T]he defendant secured new counsel and made a written motion to withdraw his plea a little more than four months after he pleaded guilty. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, without a hearing or any further inquiry into the defendant’s claims. At the subsequent sentencing proceeding, the defendant again asserted his innocence and again asked the court to permit him to withdraw his plea based on his attorneys’ failure to provide meaningful representation. The defendant’s application to withdraw his plea at the sentencing proceeding was based on his statements to the court and his prior evidentiary submissions, which tended to substantiate his contention that he had not understood the concept of constructive possession or the nature of the People’s evidence at the time that he pleaded guilty. These submissions were sufficient to cast doubt on his guilt and the validity of his plea … . The People did not allege any prejudice that would have resulted had the court permitted the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty at that time … . People v Gerald, 2021 NY Slip Op 05130, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAD BEEN FILED; THE AMENDMENT ALLEGED ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed the amendment of the bill of particulars after the note of issue had been filed in this Labor Law 241(6) action. The amendment alleged additional violations of the Industrial Code:

“[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant”… . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to amend the bill of particulars to allege violations of additional Industrial Code sections. The plaintiff’s amendment did not prejudice the defendants and did not involve new factual allegations or raise new theories of liability … . Palaguachi v Idlewild 228th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05127, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, MAKING ITS OWN CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS, DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED ABUSE; A FINDING OF NEGLECT BASED UPON EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, making its own credibility assessments, determined there was sufficient evidence Amir abused Shyla. In addition, the Second Department determined the evidence did not demonstrate that mother neglected Amir by inflicting excessive corporal punishment:

Shyla described in detail at the fact-finding hearing the incidents of abuse by Bryan, which testimony sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court descriptions of the abuse … . Inconsistencies in Shyla’s testimony as to peripheral details, such as timing and the presence of other individuals in the home at the time of the abuse, did not detract from Shyla’s consistent and credible description of the core conduct constituting the abuse, particularly considering the child’s age at the time of these events … . Further, Shyla’s previous, out-of-court recantation of her allegations was sufficiently explained by the indirect threats she received from her own family members … . …

While the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect, “[p]arents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child’s welfare” … . Here, ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] offered evidence of a single instance in which the mother hit Amir’s arm with a belt to discipline him after he was caught shoplifting, and failed to sufficiently demonstrate that marks observed on Amir were the result of being hit with the belt by the mother. Under the circumstances, ACS failed to establish that the mother’s conduct rose to the level of neglect or that she exhibited a pattern of inflicting excessive corporal punishment on Amir … . Matter of Tarahji N. (Bryan N.–Divequa C.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05125, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

THE PROPONENT OF THE WILL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DECEDENT KNEW THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY HE WAS DISPOSING AT THE TIME THE WILL WAS EXECUTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a strong dissent, determined that Alice, the decedent’s sister, did not prove the decedent knew the nature and extent of the property he was disposing at the time the will was executed:

Alice testified that the decedent told her his total assets amounted to $200,000. The decedent then told the attorney who prepared the will that his total assets amounted to $1.5 million, when in fact, with the annuity, his assets, including nonprobate property consisting of an IRA in the amount of $258,299, are valued at more than $2.6 million. This amount does not include the CDs the decedent claimed were held in trust for his grandchildren, which are not listed on the inventory of assets filed with the Surrogate’s Court. * * *

On the day he executed the will [December 15], the 83-year-old decedent, who had stage IV prostate cancer, had been a patient at WPH for two weeks, since December 1, 2014. He was admitted with a fever, generalized weakness, pneumonia, bilateral pleural effusion, and a 30-to-40-pound weight loss over the prior three to four months. During those two weeks, he had a choking incident on December 4, which caused respiratory and cardiac arrest and resulted in intubation and transfer to the ICU, and a second incident on December 13, two days prior to executing the will, during which he developed respiratory arrest, was transferred to the CCU, and was sedated with morphine. At times, during the day before he executed the will, as well as on the morning of the day of the execution, the decedent exhibited an inability to follow instructions, disorientation, confusion, inability to benefit from education, impulsive behavior, and a potential to injure himself. On both the day prior to the execution of the will and the day the will was executed, the decedent was intubated and on a ventilator and unable to speak. The decedent was also sedated with lorazepam the day before the execution of the will. Matter of Falkowsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 05122, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

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