You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS FOLLOWING THE SHOOTER’S CAR, WAS AWARE THE SHOOTER INTENDED TO KILL A RIVAL GANG MEMBER, OR EVEN AWARE THE SHOOTER WAS ARMED; THEREFORE THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal should have been granted. Defendant was following the shooter’s car when the shooter shot and killed a member of a rival gang. There was no evidence defendant knew the shooter intended to kill or even that the shooter was armed. Therefore the evidence did not demonstrate that defendant shared the shooter’s intent to kill:

While the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, showed that the defendant conspired with others to retaliate against rival gang members, it failed to establish that the defendant entered into a conspiracy with the goal of committing murder in the second degree … . The People failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence establishing that the defendant was aware that Kelson or Oliveras were armed or had the intent to commit murder or that the defendant, in fact, joined a conspiracy with the goal of committing murder … . For the same reasons, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant believed that he was rendering aid to a person who intended to commit murder. People v Hewitt, 2026 NY Slip Op 03184, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary for a conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction. There must be evidence the defendant shared the killer’s intent, not the case here.

 

,

THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against the owner of a one or two-family dwelling should not have been dismissed on the ground that owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not control the work, are exempt form Labor Law liability. The exemption depends on whether the work serves a residential or commercial purpose. Here, without describing the facts, the Second Department held there was a question of fact about whether the work served a residential or commercial purpose:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose nondelegable duties upon property owners to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in certain activities. Both statutes exempt from liability “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (id. §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However “‘[r]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, “[a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here … the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), including whether the premises had a commercial purpose and whether the work the plaintiff performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … . Moreno v Hossain, 2026 NY Slip Op 03159, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: The exemption from Labor Law liability for owners of one and two-family homes does not apply when the purpose of the work is commercial, renovation for sale or rental, for example.

 

,

THE BANK SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304; FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should have been dismissed because the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was mailed to both borrowers in the same envelope:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … , and “the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “[T]he mailing of a 90-day notice jointly addressed to two or more borrowers in a single envelope is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of RPAPL 1304, and . . . the plaintiff must separately mail a 90-day notice to each borrower as a condition precedent to commencing the foreclosure action” …  * * *

… [T]he defendants established that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 since it is undisputed that a jointly addressed 90-day notice, rather than individually addressed notices in separate envelopes, was sent to the defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Palmore, 2026 NY Slip Op 03152, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: The bank’s strict compliance with the notice of foreclosure requirements in RPAPL 1304 is a condition precedent to any foreclosure action. Here, sending the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the two borrowers in the same envelope violated RPAPL 1304 requiring dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.

 

, ,

WHERE THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (CPLR 3216) ARE NOT MET, THE COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE ACTION; RATHER, THE ACTION MUST BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint for neglect to prosecute. At the time the purported 90-day notice was issued by the judge, issue had not yet been joined. In addition, the purported 90-day notice did not include all the information required by CPLR 3216(b):

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . “[A] court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met” … . Here, the Supreme Court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action … .

In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him [or her] for unreasonably neglecting to proceed” … . Here, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff was served with a written demand as required by CPLR 3216. Moreover, the conditional order of dismissal, which, in effect, served as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . Further, the record demonstrates that no such motion was ever made, nor was there entry of an order of dismissal. Therefore, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional order of dismissal … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Poyer, 2026 NY Slip Op 03145, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: An action cannot be dismissed by a judge, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute if (1) issue had not yet been joined, or (2) if all the statutory preconditions for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 have not been met. Rather, the action must be restored to the active calendar.

 

,

THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL HAD NO SAFETY RAILINGS AND THE SCAFFOLD WOBBLED AND COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THE KICKBACK FROM A HAMMER DRILL PLAINTIFF WAS USING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff demonstrated the scaffold from which he fell did not have safety railings and the scaffold wobbled and collapsed because of the kickback from a hammer drill he was using:

… [T]he plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) through his deposition testimony that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold that lacked safety rails and that he was not otherwise provided an appropriate safety device. The plaintiff further testified that the kickback from the hammer drill he was using caused the scaffolding to wobble and collapse, proximately causing both his fall and his subsequent injuries. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Correa v NY Developers & Mgt., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03143, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: A fall from a scaffold with no safety railings warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1); a fall from a scaffold which wobbles and collapses because of the kickback from a hammer drill similarly warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1).​

 

, ,

THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, FINDING THAT DEFENDANT UNDULY INFLUENCED DECEDENT TO NAME HIM AS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY OF TWO BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS; THE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE PROOF OF UNDUE INFLUENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant unduly influenced the decedent to remove plaintiff as a beneficiary of two brokerage accounts and name defendant as the sole beneficiary. The court explained the shifting burdens of proof:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial” … .

“Generally, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “Where, however, the existence of a confidential relationship is established, the burden shifts to the beneficiary of the transaction to show that the transaction is fair and free from undue influence” … . “‘In order to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship, there must be evidence of circumstances that demonstrate inequality or a controlling influence'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the defendant … . * * *

As a result, the burden of proving undue influence remained upon the plaintiff … . * * *

… [P]laintiff presented only conclusory and speculative evidence that the defendant exercised undue influence over the decedent … . “‘[A] mere showing of opportunity and even of a motive to exercise undue influence does not justify a submission of that issue to the jury, unless there is in addition evidence that such influence was actually utilized'” … . Collins v Denaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 03142, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into  the shifting burdens of proof applied to a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made by a defendant after a plaintiff’s verdict. Here the appellate court determined the conclusory and speculative evidence did not support the jury’s verdict.

 

, ,

THIS LAWSUIT BY A PENNSYLVANIA PENSION FUND AGAINST A LONDON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY TRIGGERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK’S CONFLICT-OF-LAW RULES (“PROCEDURAL” VS “SUBSTANTIVE”) AND THE “FORUM NON CONVENIENS” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, applying conflict-of-law rules, determined the complaint in this shareholder derivative action should not have been dismissed based on plaintiff’s lack of standing. But the complaint should have been conditionally dismissed on “forum non conveniens” grounds:

The plaintiff commenced this shareholder derivative action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The plaintiff, the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, is a shareholder in the nominal defendant Standard Chartered PLC (hereinafter SC). SC is a multinational banking and financial services company. SC is publicly owned, is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales, and is headquartered in London. The nominal defendant Standard Chartered Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter SC Holdings) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC. Nonparty Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter SC Bank) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC Holdings. SC Bank, an international bank, is licensed to operate a foreign bank branch in New York. * * *

Since the procedural law of the forum typically applies under our conflict-of-law rules, the plaintiff’s failure to commence the action in England and Wales or Northern Ireland does not bar it from relying on the UK Companies Act to establish derivative standing in New York … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff is the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, and SC is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales and is headquartered in London. None of the individual defendants reside in New York. Further, the central actionable events transpired in the United Kingdom, where SC’s directors and officers held their meetings. Although the plaintiff contends that SC presided over a money laundering scheme centered on SC Bank’s New York branch, its derivative claims center on management decisions made in the United Kingdom … . Further, it is undisputed that English substantive law governs the plaintiff’s claims. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have conditionally granted SC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 327 on the ground of forum non conveniens, as the burden which would be imposed upon the courts of this State if this action was retained would be substantial … . City of Philadelphia Bd. of Pensions & Retirement v Winters, 2026 NY Slip Op 03141, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of New York’s conflict-of-laws rules and the “forum non conveniens” doctrine in a lawsuit brought in New York by a Pennsylvanian pension fund against a London banking and financial services company.

 

, , ,

THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE, WHICH INCLUDED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED DEFENDANT, A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure was a nullity and the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the defendants died during the proceedings:

“‘Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent'” … . Ordinarily, any determination rendered without such a substitution is deemed a nullity … . However, under certain circumstances, where a party’s death does not affect the merits of a case, this Court has found that there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution … .

Here, the record demonstrates that as of July 2021, the plaintiff and the Supreme Court were on notice that [defendant] Trevor P. Williams had died. Nevertheless, the proceedings continued after that date, and in March 2022, the court issued the subject order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, which contains a deficiency provision applicable to Trevor P. Williams.

Given the deficiency provision contained in the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, the demise of Trevor P. Williams affects the merits of the case … . The contention of nonparty U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., that it waived the right to seek a deficiency against Trevor P. Williams is based on evidence dehors the record and, therefore, is not properly considered on this appeal … . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, since a proper substitution was not made as required by CPLR 1015(a), the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction, inter alia, to issue the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale appealed from is a nullity and must be vacated and the appeal must be dismissed, as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal . Champion Mtge. v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-13-28

Practice Point: If the death of a party doesn’t affect the merits of the case, sometimes the need to stay the proceeding and substitute a personal representative can be overlooked. Here, however, the judgment of foreclosure included a deficiency judgment against the deceased defendant. Therefore the death affected the merits and the proceedings were rendered a nullity.​

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT BOARD CERTIFIED IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, THE EXPERT SET FORTH A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s medical expert need not be board certified in emergency medicine to be qualified to offer an opinion. The hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for the care provided by an independent physician:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine. “‘A physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge . . . [or] expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony'” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert set forth a sufficient foundation for his or her opinion, based on his or her clinical experience and familiarity with the applicable standards of care … . …

… [G]enerally, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . “However, an exception to the rule that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the treatment provided by an independent physician applies where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing, or a nonemployee physician otherwise acted as an agent of the hospital or the hospital exercised control over the physician” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that [the hospital] was free from vicarious liability for [plaintiff’s] care and treatment in its emergency department as a matter of law … . Valitutto v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03020, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine.

Practice Point: Here the hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for treatment by an independent physician.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop for no apparent reason did not raise a question of fact in this rear-end collision case:

… [A] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability” … .

“An assertion that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle” … , although such an assertion may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of comparative fault … . * * *

[Defendant driver] asserted that the plaintiff brought his vehicle to a sudden stop for no apparent reason and “without any vehicle slowing or stopping ahead of plaintiff.” In essence, “this explanation amounts to nothing more than a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact” as to the defendants’ liability … .

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff, if any, which would offset the amount of damages, must abide the trial … . Brindisi v ARJ Transp., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02958, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: The allegation that plaintiff’s car stopped suddenly for no apparent reason will not defeat summary judgment in a rear-end collision case.

Practice Point: However if plaintiff is shown to be comparatively negligent at trial, the amount of damages could be offset.

 

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