You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THE 91-YEAR-OLD PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUOUS CARE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) finding that the 91-year-old petitioner was not entitled to continuous care was not supported by the evidence:

“In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record as a whole to determine if the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law”… . Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . Here, since the subject determination was made after a quasi-judicial fair hearing, the substantial evidence standard applies, and not the arbitrary and capricious standard … .

The DOH’s determination that the petitioner failed to establish that she met the criteria for continuous personal care services was not supported by substantial evidence (see 18 NYCRR 505.14[a][2]). “Continuous personal care services means the provision of uninterrupted care, by more than one personal care aide, for more than 16 hours in a calendar day for a patient who, because of the patient’s medical condition, needs assistance during such calendar day with toileting, walking, transferring, turning and positioning, or feeding and needs assistance with such frequency that a live-in 24-hour personal care aide would be unlikely to obtain, on a regular basis, five hours daily of uninterrupted sleep during the aide’s eight hour period of sleep” … . Matter of Gurariy v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 04356, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the judge should not have ordered relief not requested by the plaintiff:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred by, in effect, sua sponte, directing dismissal of all of [defendants’] affirmative defenses to the complaint … . The plaintiff did not move for summary judgment dismissing any of [defendant’s] affirmative defenses, and the court erred in awarding this unrequested relief … .  MacKay v Paliotta, 2021 NY Slip Op 04348, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse for failure to take steps to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure action within one year of the default:

The plaintiff’s … argument … [is] that, by moving for summary judgment and leave to enter a default judgment … , the plaintiff had “manifest[ed] its intent not to abandon this case.” However, while “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … , and a plaintiff is not even required to specifically seek a default judgment within a year, but may take “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving . . . for an order of reference pursuant to RPAPL 1321” … that preliminary step still must be taken “within one year of [a defendant’s] default” … . Here, since the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and an order of reference almost two years after the default, when the statutory time within which to enter a default had long since expired, it was too late for the plaintiff to “manifest an intent not to abandon the case” … so as to avoid dismissal of the complaint … . US Bank N..A.. v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04251, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY PROPERLY WITHDREW ON IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES GROUNDS AND WAS ENTITLED TO 95% OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT TIME RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s attorney, Greenberg, properly withdrew from representing the plaintiffs on the ground of irreconcilable differences and was entitled to 95% of the contingency fee:

Greenberg demonstrated its entitlement to an award of 95% of the contingency fee. “In fixing an award of legal fees in quantum meruit, a court should consider evidence of the time and skill required in the case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the client’s benefit derived from the services, and the fee usually charged by attorneys for similar services” … . “‘Quantum meruit compensation is not limited to a calculation based on the numbers of hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate'” … . “The calculation of an award of legal fees as a portion of a contingent fee and based on an hourly rate are both properly fixed as quantum meruit determinations” … . Here, the record demonstrates, inter alia, the extensive work performed on the case by Greenberg over a period of 4½ years, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions made by Greenberg, entitling it to 95% of the contingency fee. While Greenberg failed to submit time records in support of the services it rendered, the value of its services could still be ascertained … . Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 04250, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE GRASSY AREA BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff allegedly tripped over a decorative fence located in the grassy area between the curb and the sidewalk abutting defendants’ home. The defendants argued the fence was open and obvious:

“The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the homeowner defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the decorative fence was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the circumstances at the time of the accident, including the lighting conditions and color of the fence … . Rosenman v Siwiec, 2021 NY Slip Op 04248, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate it didn’t have constructive notice of the liquid on the floor in this slip and fall case. Proof of general cleaning and inspection practices is not enough:

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct it … . In that respect, the deposition testimony of the defendant’s witnesses as to their general cleaning and inspection practices, as well as the deposition testimony of a security supervisor surmising, based upon such general practices, when another security officer would have inspected the subject stairwell prior to the accident, was insufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the defendant lacked constructive notice of the hazardous condition … . Roland v Jackson Terrace Apts., 2021 NY Slip Op 04247, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, SOME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY WAS REJECTED AS INCREDIBLE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEVEL THREE ENCOUNTER WAS JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the level three encounter with the defendant in the street stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. Some of the police officers’ testimony was rejected as incredible:

Officer Washington’s pursuit of the defendant and her attempt to grab him with her right hand were both level three actions requiring reasonable suspicion … . Setting aside those portions of Officer Washington’s account the Supreme Court properly disregarded as incredible, her testimony indicates that she began chasing and grabbing at the defendant in response to his flight. She did not, however, credibly describe anything more than equivocal circumstances in conjunction with the defendant’s flight, meaning her testimony was insufficient to justify police pursuit … . Officer Montano testified that the defendant dropped the gun before he fled, which in turn could justify Officer Washington’s pursuit … . But he also testified that Officer Washington was “trying to take her shield out as she [was] approaching [the defendant] to try to grab him” before the defendant dropped the gun or started to run. Officer Montano thus observed the defendant drop the gun and flee as a result of Officer Washington’s attempt to grab him before she had the reasonable suspicion necessary to do so. “Since this level three intrusion was not justified, it cannot be validated by the officer’s subsequent observation of the firearm” … . People v Rhames, 2021 NY Slip Op 04242, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

INDICTMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES RELATED TO THE SAME CONTINUOUS CONDUCT AND THE SAME VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA IN NASSAU COUNTY AFTER A GUILTY PLEA IN SUFFOLK COUNTY VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, on double-jeopardy grounds, reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea in Nassau County because he had already pled guilty to the same conduct in Suffolk County:

The charges in Suffolk County and Nassau County related to the same alleged victim. The Suffolk County indictment alleged that the defendant committed acts constituting course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree between approximately April 2015 and March 1, 2016, whereas the Nassau County indictment alleged that the defendant committed acts constituting course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree between approximately March 1, 2016, and September 1, 2016.

As the indictments in both counties, viewed together, alleged a single continuing and uninterrupted offense against the same alleged victim, constitutional double jeopardy principles precluded a second conviction, in Nassau County, after the Suffolk County criminal action terminated in a conviction by plea of guilty … . People v Kattis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04240, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

, ,

THE VAGUE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the identification evidence was too weak to support a conviction, i.e., the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Witnesses saw a man toss a bag of drugs over a fence and run away:

Both women saw the man holding what appeared to be a white shopping bag with red circles on it, which he threw over a chain-link fence nearby. The man continued running through the parking lot toward Grand Street.

One of the women described the man she saw as a black man with short, dark hair, wearing a dark baseball cap, a T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. The man was “a little taller, somewhat taller” than five feet, two inches, but she was not sure. She estimated his weight to be 175 to 185 pounds, but she was not sure. She did not remember if he wore glasses. She could not describe the color of his clothing or give any description of the sneakers he wore. The other woman described the man as a young black male, approximately five feet, seven inches tall, but she could not say for sure, and “guesstimat[ed]” that he may have weighed 170 pounds. She testified that he wore a baseball cap and might have been wearing dark pants and dark sneakers. Neither woman was able to identify the defendant as the man they saw. …

… [N]either of the police witnesses observed the defendant carrying a bag, neither of the bystander witnesses was able to identify the defendant as the man carrying the bag, and no forensic evidence linked the defendant to the bag. … [T]he rational inferences that can be drawn from the trial evidence do not support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the vague description provided by the bystander witnesses was not inconsistent with the defendant’s general appearance, we find that such evidence, coupled with nothing more than the defendant’s proximity to the crime scene, is insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator … . People v Hawkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04238, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant assault and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined the complainant’s hearsay statement should not have been admitted as excited utterances:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from two police officers on the content of certain hearsay statements made to them by the complainant when they encountered her at a deli a few hours after the alleged assault. …

“An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance exception when made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication” … . “The essential element of this hearsay exception is that the declarant spoke while under the stress or influence of the excitement caused by the event, so that his [or her] reflective capacity was stilled” … . “[T]he time for reflection is not measured in minutes or seconds, but rather is measured by facts” … . …

… [I]n light of the amount of time that elapsed between the incident and the statements … , and the lack of evidence as to what transpired in the interim … , the People did not establish that the complainant’s capacity for reflection and deliberation remained stilled by the time she spoke to the police officers at the deli … . People v Germosen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04237, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

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