You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

,

THE FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT REQUIRES A COURSE OF CONDUCT; A SINGLE, ISOLATED INCIDENT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the evidence of the family offense of harassment was not sufficient. A single isolated incident is not enough:

” … [A] person commits the family offense of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she ‘engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose'” … . “[T]here is no question that an isolated incident cannot support a finding of harassment” … .

Here, contrary to the Family Court’s finding, the father failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the mother committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, as the father failed to identify more than an isolated incident (see Penal Law § 240.26[3] …). The father testified to only one isolated incident involving a verbal dispute that he had with the mother and her husband … . That dispute occurred on the driveway of the father’s home when the mother and her husband dropped off the child at the father’s home, instead of at a police station, which the father claimed was the agreed upon exchange location. Matter of Martinez v Toole, 2025 NY Slip Op 03721, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: The family offense of harassment requires proof of a course of conduct, a single incident does not suffice.​

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 52 TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE INSURANCE FUND TO THE EXTENT THE STATE IS A GARNISHEE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this CPLR article 52 action to enforce a money judgment against New York State Insurance Fund. Ordinarily an action for money damages against a state agency is litigated in the Court of Claims:

In this proceeding, the State Insurance Fund is postured not as a judgment debtor but as a garnishee. As such, under CPLR 5207, all procedures for the enforcement of money judgments against other judgment debtors are applicable to it, as a garnishee, “except where otherwise prescribed by law” and except that an order “shall only provide for the payment of moneys not claimed by the [S]tate” and that no judgment may be entered against the State in such a procedure.

The State Insurance Fund has not shown that this proceeding is otherwise prescribed by law. To the contrary, CPLR 5221(a)(4) provides that the Supreme Court or a County Court has authority to hear enforcement proceedings “authorized by this article,” meaning the entirety of CPLR article 52, which, of course, includes CPLR 5207 garnishment proceedings against the State. … The petition seeks entry of an order, not a judgment. Thus, contrary to the State Insurance Fund’s contention, we hold that the Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment as against the State Insurance Fund to the extent that the State’s role in this instance is that of a garnishee. Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v New York State Ins. Fund, 2025 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here, under very complicated facts, Supreme Court was deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to enforce a money judgment against a state agency where the state’s role is that of a garnishee.

 

,

THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA), BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES TO THIS HOLDOVER ACTION WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE HSTPA WAS ENACTED BUT HAS NOT PROCEEDED TO JUDGMENT; THEREFORE THE ACT NEED NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO PRECLUDE THE HOLDOVER ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), which was enacted after the landlord brought the holdover proceedings but before judgment, applied to preclude the holdover action. The First Department did not need to determine whether the HSTPA applied retroactively. Under the terms of the statute, the Act applies to actions which were pending when it was enacted:

As of the date of the enactment of HSTPA, the petitioner had not yet obtained judgments of possession of the respondents’ respective apartments. The application of the subject provision of HSTPA, under these circumstances, does not expand the scope of the petitioner’s liability based on prior conduct, nor impair other rights the petitioner possessed in the past …  When HSTPA was enacted, the petitioner had no vested right to recover any units in the building for personal use … . Thus, application of HSTPA here has no potentially problematic retroactive effect … .

HSTPA unequivocally states that the subject amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 applied to matters pending as of the date of HSTPA’s enactment … . As there is no potentially problematic retroactive effect to the amended provision in this matter, and it is undisputed that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought pursuant to the amended provision, the respondents were entitled to dismissal of the respective petitions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Matter of Karpen v Andrade, 2025 NY Slip Op 03719, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Where there has not been a judgment in a holdover action which was pending whin the HSTPA was enacted, there is no need to determine whether the Act should be applied retroactively. The Act, by its terms, applied to the pending action.

 

, , ,

HERE THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYCHRL) BUT WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYSHRL) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital was not entitled to summary judgment in this disability discrimination case under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) but was entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL):

In order to prevail on a claim of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL, “an employer must demonstrate that it engage[d] in a good faith interactive process that assesse[d] the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … . Here, the hospital defendants failed to show that they engaged in an interactive process and reasonable accommodation analysis prior to terminating the plaintiff’s employment … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the hospital defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging disability discrimination under the NYSHRL insofar as asserted against them. “To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Executive Law, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that he or she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation” … . Here, the hospital defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the NYSHRL, the hospital defendants cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process where the employee has failed to provide evidence to the employer that he or she could perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . Makharadze v Ognibene, 2025 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a disability discrimination case where the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law but not under the New York City Human Rights Law.

 

,

HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required on whether defendant was properly served by “nail and mail.” The first affidavit from the process server did not mention the required mailing. A second affidavit which described the mailing was subsequently submitted. The second affidavit did not cure the flaw in the original affidavit:

… Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant’s cross-motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. The original affidavit of service sworn to on July 26, 2018, failed to aver that the process server mailed the summons and complaint as required by CPLR 308(4). The new affidavit of service sworn to on November 23, 2021, submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s cross-motion, could not be used to cure the apparent defect in the original affidavit of service … . Further, the defendant raised an issue of fact as to whether the summons and complaint were affixed to the door of the defendant’s dwelling place or usual place of abode … . Miller v Fuentes, 2025 NY Slip Op 03564, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: If the original affidavit by the process server does not describe the mailing requirement for “nail and mail” service, that flaw is not cured by submitting a second affidavit which describes the mailing. The flaw in the original affidavit mandates a hearing on the validity of the service of process.

 

,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not owe a duty of care to the cab driver injured (assaulted) by a patient (Barrio) who was just released, despite the fact that the cab fare was paid by the hospital:

… [T]he defendant Francis Barrios was taken by ambulance to the emergency department of the defendant John T. Mather Memorial Hospital (hereinafter the hospital). Barrios, who had a history of schizophrenia, complained of anxiety, tremors, and blurry vision. The hospital records indicated that Barrios did not have a history of threatening or attempting to hurt others, or of actually hurting others, and that Barrios did not display any signs of violent behavior. After consultation with the psychiatrist on call, it was determined that Barrios should be discharged and should seek outpatient treatment. * * *

“The elements of a cause of action alleging common-law negligence are a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and a showing that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “Without a duty running directly to the injured person, there can be no liability” … . “Generally, a defendant has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others” … . “A duty may arise, however, where there is a relationship either between defendant and a third-person tortfeasor that encompasses defendant’s actual control of the third person’s actions, or between defendant and plaintiff that requires defendant to protect plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the hospital owed the injured plaintiff a duty. There is no evidence that the hospital had sufficient authority and ability to control Barrios’s actions after he was discharged and left the hospital … . The hospital’s decision to pay for a taxi service for Barrios after his discharge did not make the hospital the injured plaintiff’s employer, make the hospital an agent for Barrios, or otherwise create a special duty … . Further, absent evidence in the record that the hospital knew or should have known that Barrios posed a threat to the injured plaintiff, she was a member of the general public and not of a class of people to whom the hospital owed a duty … . Melio v John T. Mather Mem. Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03562, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a discharged patient with schizophrenia assaulted the cab driver paid by the hospital to take the patent home. The hospital did not owe a duty of care to the cab driver.

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, who are the parents of plaintiffs’ decedent and the administrators of decedent’s estate, are not bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The decedent rented an electric moped from defendant Ravel by downloading an app with an arbitration clause. Decedent was killed when he was thrown from the moped and struck by a car. All agreed that the negligence causes of action were subject to the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs successfully argued the wrongful death action is distinct from the negligence actions and is not subject to the arbitration clause. The winning argument was first raised on appeal. The court heard the appeal because it “present[ed] a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” …:

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs, individually, did not enter into an agreement with Revel to arbitrate. However, the plaintiffs are the administrators of the decedent’s estate, and the causes of action arise from the same incident that caused the decedent’s death. The issue, therefore, turns on the nature of wrongful death causes of action and whether they are derivative of negligence causes of action or independent of negligence causes of action. * * *

The law of this State is clear that a wrongful death cause of action is a separate and distinct cause of action to redress the injuries suffered by a decedent’s distributees as a result of the decedent’s death. “‘A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death'” … . This is true even where no cause of action alleging negligence exists. * * * … [T]his Court [has] determined that a cause of action alleging wrongful death was not derivative of a negligence cause of action, but [is] an independent cause of action vested in the distributees. “… [T]he surviving personal injury action and the wrongful death cause of action … are different in many respects. The two causes of action exist in order to protect the rights of different classes of persons, and the measure of damages is entirely different” … . “Wrongful death actions are brought not to compensate the decedent or his [or her] estate for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury, but rather to recover, on behalf of decedent’s distributees, the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life” … . Further, the different causes of action accrue at different times. A negligence cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, while a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue until the decedent’s death, which can occur after the injury is sustained … . Marinos v Brahaj, 2025 NY Slip Op 03561, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Negligence and wrongful death causes of action are distinct and address different injuries. Here an arbitration clause in a moped rental contract executed to by plaintiffs’ decedent was deemed to apply to the negligence causes of action stemming from the moped accident, but not to the related wrongful death cause of action.​

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an example of when an issue raised for the first time on appeal will be considered by the appellate court.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because a proper foundation for the admissibility of the records relied upon by the referee was not provided by the accompanying affidavit:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan, the referee relied upon the affidavit of Frank Rosas, a vice president of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the servicer of the mortgage loan. Rosas stated in his affidavit that Nationstar’s records pertaining to the mortgage loan included records of PHH Mortgage, a prior servicer. However, Rosas did not state when Nationstar began servicing the loan, did not state that “[he] was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” of PHH Mortgage … , and did not “establish that the records provided by [PHH Mortgage] were incorporated into [Nationstar’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Nationstar] in its own business” … . Thus, Rosas’s affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Coxall, 2025 NY Slip Op 03557, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: An affiant’s failure to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records in a foreclosure action results in reversal.

 

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