You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

BECAUSE A LIBERTY INTEREST IS AT STAKE, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, reversing the revocation of the suspension of the order of commitment, determined respondent was entitled to an opportunity to be heard because a liberty interest is at stake:

“The court may suspend an order of commitment upon reasonable conditions and is also authorized to revoke such suspension at any time for good cause shown” … . However, given the liberty interest at stake, the Family Court, before revoking a suspension of an order of commitment, must provide to a respondent an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension … . Here, because the father was deprived of this opportunity, we must reverse the order of commitment appealed from and remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing and a determination thereafter of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension. Matter of Gast v Faria, 2021 NY Slip Op 04549, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL; PROOF OF A GENERAL INSPECTION ROUTINE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this black-ice slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological records submitted to demonstrate there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall were not certified as business records and were otherwise insufficient. The evidence of a routine inspection practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice:

… [T]he defendant relied upon, among other things, climatological data for Poughkeepsie Airport and Danbury Municipal Airport in Connecticut, as well as spotter reports of snowfall accumulation in neighboring towns. However, because these records were not certified as business records, they were inadmissible (see CPLR 4518[a] …). In any event, the climatological data and spotter reports gathered from nearby areas were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … . Moreover, the climatological data was inconsistent and contradicted the parties’ deposition testimony, transcripts of which the defendant also submitted in support of its motion, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the plaintiff’s accident … . * * *

… “[M]ere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, the testimony of the defendant’s witness, at best, established the defendant’s general inspection practices with respect to snow and ice on the defendant’s property … . Thus, absent specific evidence that this area was inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall, the defendant cannot rely on this testimony in meeting its prima facie burden … . Johnson v Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04543, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES SIGNALING FOR 100 FEET BEFORE MAKING A TURN, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUCK WHICH MADE THE TURN WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT; DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, overruling a City Court decision, reversing the jury verdict in this truck-bicycle traffic accident case, determined the jury should have been instructed on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision requiring that a turn signal be activated for 100 feet before turning. The truck was at a stop light and plaintiff testified the truck’s turn signal was not on when she pulled up to the stop light next to the truck. When she started riding straight through the intersection, the truck allegedly made a right turn and ran over her. The driver (Murphy) testified he put his signal on and then made the turn. The trial court instructed the jury on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision which applies to parked cars and which does not have the “100-foot” signaling requirement. The Second Department found that the truck was not “parked” within the meaning of that provision:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) provides that “[a] signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” Under Vehicle and Traffic § 1163(a), Murphy was required to signal his intention to turn right at the subject intersection. Thus, since a signal of intention to turn was required, the clear and unambiguous words used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) also required Murphy to give such signal “continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet” that he traveled before making the turn. The provision makes no exception for vehicles that are stopped at a red traffic light … .

… Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d), which applies … to vehicles moving from a parked position, and which does not require a vehicle to signal its turn 100 feet before making it, is inapplicable. Murphy’s truck was not parked within the meaning of “park or parking” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129. Rather, it was stopped at a red light … . To the extent that People v Brandt (60 Misc 3d 956, 961 [Poughkeepsie City Ct]) holds otherwise, we overrule it.

The precise and specific duty established in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) bore directly on the facts to which the parties testified, and, therefore, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give that charge … . The statute establishes a standard of care, the unexcused violation of which is negligence per se … .  Moore v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04483, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC WHICH OWNED THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITION SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS MEMBER STATUS; HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LLC COULD BE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this premises liability case, determined the sole member of the LLC (Romanoff) which owned the premises was not liable, but there was a question of fact whether the LLC had constructive knowledge of the defective railing which collapsed when plaintiff leaned on it:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Romanoff, as a member of the LLC, cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of that status alone … , and the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence as to the existence of circumstances that would entitle him to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability on Romanoff … .

… [T]he Romanoff defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the LLC did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . In support of their motion, the Romanoff defendants submitted … evidence that the porch railing that collapsed had not been physically inspected in the eight months following the purchase of the premises. They also failed to demonstrate that the alleged dangerous condition of the porch railing was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. … [T]he Romanoff defendants relied upon the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that, as he leaned onto the railing to shake dust out of a blanket, he felt the railing move as soon as he made contact with it, and it did not appear to be attached to anything. Hayden v 334 Dune Rd., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04481, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT ATTACHED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records referred in the affidavit of the banks servicing agent were not attached:

Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit made by the party'” … . Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit executed by a “Document Execution Specialist” who was employed by the plaintiff’s servicing agent … . The affiant asserted that she had personal knowledge of the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action based upon her review of various business records. However, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which the affiant relied in her affidavit, her factual assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay, and her affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate “proof of the facts constituting the claim” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hossain, 2021 NY Slip Op 04480, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological data presented to show there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall was not authenticated, related to a different county, and conflicted with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing:

… [T]he defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three pages of climatological data that it submitted in support of its motion should have been authenticated because these pages themselves did not indicate that the data contained therein was “taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau” (CPLR 4528). In any event, the climatological data was gathered from a neighboring county, and it was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that light snow fell about [*2]six hours prior to the accident. Under the circumstances, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the alleged slippery condition … . Beaton v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04477, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon,, determined the defendant in this foreclosure action waived any stay of proceedings under CPLR 321(c) triggered by her attorney’s suspension:

CPLR 321(c) … provides any adversary party with a mechanism for lifting a stay—by serving a notice upon the nonrepresented party to obtain a new attorney.  Thus there are … two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se … . The second way is by means of the above-described notice procedure … . …

… [T]he plaintiff moved … for summary judgment … and for an order of reference … at a time when no event allowing for the lifting of the CPLR 321(c) stay had yet occurred. No new attorney had yet appeared on behalf of the defendant, and there is no indication that the defendant had elected to proceed pro se … . Moreover, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment without having served a CPLR 321(c) notice demanding the appointment of new counsel and without abiding by the statutorily mandated 30-day waiting period that follows the notice.

Nevertheless, the defendant’s new counsel formally appeared in the action six days after the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was filed, submitted papers in opposition to that motion, and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, all within the original or adjusted briefing schedule. … The appearance and activities of the defendant’s new counsel operated, in effect, as a waiver of the protections otherwise afforded to the defendant by CPLR 321(c) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kurian, 2021 NY Slip Op 04509, Second Dept 7-31-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED BY A REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure in this statutory-rape SORA risk level proceeding. The issue was not preserved because defendant did not request a downward departure but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

“In cases of statutory rape, the Board has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … . The Guidelines provide that a downward departure may be appropriate where “(i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [for risk factor 2, sexual contact with the victim,] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … .

Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the County Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review … . However, under the circumstances of this case, we address those contentions in the interest of justice … .

Considering all of the circumstances presented here, including that the subject offense is the only sex-related crime in the defendant’s history, and that the defendant accepted responsibility for his crime, the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2 resulted in an overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety … . Accordingly, a downward departure is warranted, and the defendant should be designated a level one sex offender. People v Maldonado-Escobar, 2021 NY Slip Op 04502, Second Dept 7-2-21

 

,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, over two concurrences and a two-justice dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of the vehicle in which cocaine was found was not demonstrated to be valid under the fellow officer rule, was not demonstrated to be valid pursuant to the automobile exception, and was not demonstrated to be based on a valid inventory search. In a nutshell, the claimed exceptions to the warrant requirement were rejected because they were not supported by the evidence at the suppression hearing. The detailed factual and legal analyses cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinion should be consulted on the issues addressed, including the propriety of the stop of the vehicle, because of the extraordinary depth of the discussions. County Court’s denial of suppression was based on the following findings. All except the reason for the stop (an observed traffic violation) were rejected on appeal:

The [county] court first concluded that the State Troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle by virtue of “the fellow-officer rule.” … [T]he court cited to testimony that law enforcement officials had intercepted approximately 89,000 communications, and that some of these communications indicated that there would be a quantity of narcotics in the vehicle on the night in question.

… [T]he [county] court credited the testimony of one of the State Troopers who testified that he observed the subject vehicle exceed the maximum speed limit and fail to maintain its lane.

…[T]he [county] court concluded that the intercepted communications and the application of the fellow officer rule provided a lawful basis for the search of the vehicle at the outset of the traffic stop.

The [county court] concluded that the State Troopers were authorized to search the subject vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the court noted that one of the State Troopers had reportedly detected the odor of marihuana when he initially approached the vehicle after it was pulled over.

Finally, the County Court determined, as a third alternative ground, that the cocaine was properly recovered pursuant to a valid inventory search.  People v Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

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