You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; MOTHER AND CHILD WERE IN CONNECTICUT, FATHER RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required inquiries before finding New York did not have jurisdiction over this neglect proceeding. Mother and child lived in Connecticut and father resided in Westchester County:

The Family Court’s jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act … . Nevertheless, the court failed to make any determination as to whether, despite the child’s Connecticut residence at the time of the filing of the petition, it had jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 on the basis that New York was the child’s “home state” … . The court further failed to determine whether it had temporary emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76-c … .. In addition, although a criminal proceeding was allegedly pending in Connecticut, the court failed to determine whether a “proceeding concerning the custody of the child [had] been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction,” in which case the court would have been required to stay the proceedings and communicate with the court of the other state (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1] …). Finally, in the event that the court determined that it was an inconvenient forum and that Connecticut was the more appropriate forum, there is no indication that the court considered the required factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2][a]-[h]). Moreover, upon such a finding, the court is required to “stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[3]). Matter of Jenny M. (Thomas M.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05701, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a board which fell off a forklift. The boards were part of a fence which was being dismantled. Dismantling the fence constituted “demolition” and “altering” within the meaning of the statute. And the accident involved an elevation-related risk:

… [T]he disassembly and removal of the boards from the soccer field was a partial dismantling of a structure (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[16]), and constituted “demolition” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the disassembly and removal of the boards was also a significant physical change to the configuration of the structure … , and constituted “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s role in hauling away the boards after they had been removed by the defendant was an act “ancillary” to the demolition and alteration of the field structure, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff established that the forklift was being used to lift heavy soccer boards. The boards were stacked on top of the forks of the forklift, and lifted into the air so they could be transferred and stacked in the back of the box truck. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that a portion of the forklift had been removed so that it could fit through a certain doorway on the premises. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff and his coworkers were attempting to slide one of the boards from a stack on the raised forklift into the back of the truck. The stack was raised to a height of approximately 8 or 9 feet at the time of the accident. The plaintiff was struck in the head by a board, weighing approximately 200 pounds, when it slid sideways off the stack and over the cab of the forklift while the plaintiff stood at ground level. The plaintiff’s submissions … demonstrated that the forklift had been modified and lacked certain safety devices, including “load guides and/or guide rails,” which could have been used to “constrain the boards as they were moved from the elevated forks into the truck.” Hensel v Aviator FSC, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05697, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

DURING THE FUNERAL PLAINTIFF (ALLEGEDLY) LEARNED DECEDENT’S BODY WAS NOT IN THE CASKET; THE LOSS OF SEPULCHER ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s loss of sepulcher action properly survived summary judgment. During the funeral plaintiff learned the casket was empty:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, during the funeral service and burial intended for the decedent, the plaintiff became aware that the decedent’s body was not in the casket and the decedent’s body was not located for some period of time. Accordingly, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged actions or inactions did not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the decedent’s body and her right to find “solace and comfort in the ritual of burial” … . Gutnick v Hebrew Free Burial Socy. for the Poor of the City of Brooklyn, 2021 NY Slip Op 05696, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the hazard which caused plaintiff to trip was inherent in his job. A sheet of plastic had been placed over a pipe:

Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. “Owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a common-law duty to provide employees with a safe place to work,” and Labor Law § 200 “merely codified that duty” … . The duty does not extend “to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the placement of the plastic sheet on top of, as opposed to underneath, the installed pipe was a hazard that was part of, or inherent in, the work the injured plaintiff was hired to perform … . Fonck v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The affidavit of the loan servicer’s vice president (Lee) was deficient in content and did not identify or attach the records referenced:

Lee failed to aver to familiarity with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the records or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business … .

… [E]ven if Lee’s affidavit set forth a proper foundation for the admissibility of the unspecified records he relied on … , Lee “failed to identify the records upon which [ ]he relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves” … . It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 05690, Second Dept 10-20-21

Similar issues and result in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 2021 NY Slip Op 05694, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ late motion for summary judgment should not have been considered on the merits:

CPLR 3212(a) provides, inter alia, that the court may set a date after which no motion for summary judgment may be made, and “[i]f no such date is set by the court, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown.” “‘[G]ood cause’ in CPLR 3212(a) requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ motion was, in effect, for summary judgment. The plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not file their motion within the period specified by CPLR 3212(a), and no good cause for the delay was shown. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in considering the motion on the merits … , and should have denied the motion. Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05687, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (CPLR 3012-B) CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a partial dissent, determined deficiencies in the certificate of merit filed by plaintiff’s counsel in this foreclosure action (pursuant to CPLR 3012-b) cannot be the basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss alleging plaintiff’s lack of standing:

This appeal implicates the extent to which there is interplay between a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss in the context of a residential mortgage foreclosure action, the attorney certification requirements of CPLR 3012-b, and the moving party’s burden of proof. For reasons analyzed below, we hold that a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing does not meet the affirmative burden of proof by merely relying upon any defects that might exist with the certificate of merit submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney under CPLR 3012-b, or otherwise, if the certificate of merit fails to address all potential aspects of standing. * * *

… [I]n a mortgage foreclosure action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing is not necessarily determined based on the adequacy or inadequacy of the certificate of merit filed by the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to CPLR 3012-b. … The complaint serves the legal purpose of giving notice to defendants of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved, and the material elements of each cause of action … . The certificate of merit serves the ministerial and ethical purpose of requiring counsel to take good faith steps to assure that the action has merit, and to certify to the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief that a reasonable basis exists for commencing the action and that the plaintiff has standing to recover on the note underlying the action.

Counsel’s reasonable beliefs contained in a certificate of merit are irrelevant to whether defendants, in moving to dismiss a complaint under CPLR 3211(a), establish their own defined burden of proof for the dispositive relief of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro, 2021 NY Slip Op 05741, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

,

IN HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS, DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPONS, WHICH BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE, WERE STORED AT HIS MOTHER’S HOUSE, WHERE HE DID NOT RESIDE; THIS CLAIM OF INNOCENCE (POSSESSION WAS NOT “VOLUNTARY”) WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant was charged with possession of weapons found in his mother’s house. In his motion to withdraw his plea he explained he did not reside in his mother’s house and the weapons, which belonged to someone else, were stored in the house without his knowledge or consent:

The defendant contended, in essence, that he did not voluntarily possess the weapons at issue. * * *

… [T]he defendant’s claim of innocence was “supported” by evidentiary submissions … , which “raised the possibility of a . . . defense” … . The defendant’s submissions provided “tenable support” … for his assertion that he did not voluntarily possess the weapons at issue because he was not “aware of his physical possession or control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it” (Penal Law § 15.00[2]). * * *

Regardless of … the strength of the People’s case, the defendant was not required to affirmatively demonstrate his actual innocence in this procedural posture … . It is clear that “an arguable claim of innocence” … may alone provide a basis for granting a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, even where the evidence of innocence is “far from conclusive” … . People v Amos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05577, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a piece of the facade of a brownstone which came loose. Plaintiff sued Keyspan Energy Delivery and Harris Water Main and Sewer Contractors alleging excavation work done by the defendants near the building loosened the facade:

Keyspan established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … by demonstrating, through the submission of … an affidavit of a professional engineer, that its work in the roadway did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting … an affidavit from a professional engineer that rebutted the opinion of Keyspan’s expert. …

Harris contracted with the building owners to complete work on a broken pipe connecting the building to the sewer line in the middle of the street. A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). “[A]n exception to this rule applies where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of contractual duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, such as by creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition” … . The plaintiffs alleged that the vibrations from Harris’s work in the roadway created or exacerbated the alleged dangerous condition on the facade of the subject building. Harris’s submissions, which did not include an expert affidavit from a professional engineer, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that its work in the roadway did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition … . Payne v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 05576, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine plaintiff police officer’s petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted and his complaint against two fellow police officers should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the two officers negligently tased him. Plaintiff cannot sue the fellow officers in tort, and his exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation:

While a police officer can assert a common-law tort cause of action against the general public pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106(1), “liability against a fellow officer or employer can only be based on the statutory right of action in General Municipal Law § 205-e” … . General Municipal Law § 205-e(1) specifies that “nothing in this section shall be deemed to expand or restrict any right afforded to or limitation imposed upon an employer, an employee or his or her representative by virtue of any provisions of the workers’ compensation law” … .

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee . . . when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” … . Thus, the Workers’ Compensation Law “offers the only remedy for injuries caused by [a] coemployee’s negligence” in the course of employment … . “[A] defendant, to have the protection of the exclusivity provision, must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Walsh v Knudsen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05607, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

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