You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF; BUT THE AFFIANT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THOSE RECORDS IN EVIDENCE; JUDGMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action was not supported by the record. The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff did not provide a foundation for the admissibility of the business records relied upon by the referee:

“[A]s a general rule, the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records” … . “However, such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, 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” … .  …

[The affiant] failed to aver to familiarity with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entities that generated the records or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records and routinely relied upon by the plaintiff in its own business … . Since the plaintiff did not lay the proper foundation for the admission of the records into evidence, those records do not constitute admissible evidence … . PS Funding, Inc. v 1641 Park Place, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03349, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, an affidavit which describes business records relied on by the referee must lay a proper foundation for the admission of those records. The absence of a proper foundation renders the referee’s report unsupported by the record.​

 

, , , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A SCHOOL JANITOR, THE NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against defendant school for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the demand for punitive damages, should have been dismissed. This Child Victims Act case alleged plaintiff-student was sexually abused by a janitor:

… Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress insofar as asserted against each of the school defendants, as it is duplicative of the remaining negligence causes of action … . A cause of action is properly dismissed as duplicative when it is “based on the same facts and seek[s] essentially identical damages” … .

Furthermore, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. “The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) the intent to cause, or the disregard of a substantial likelihood of causing, severe emotional distress; (3) causation; and (4) severe emotional distress” … . “The subject conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” … . Furthermore, conclusory assertions are insufficient to set forth a cause of action sounding in the intentional infliction of emotional distress … . Here, even accepting the conclusory allegations in the amended complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff failed to allege conduct by the school defendants that was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree,” as to qualify as intentional infliction of emotional distress … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress insofar as asserted against each of the school defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).

… Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against each of the school defendants. “[P]unitive damages are available for the purpose of vindicating a public right only where the actions of the alleged tort-feasor constitute gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally or are activated by evil or reprehensible motives” … . Here, the plaintiff’s allegations against the school defendants amount to “nothing more than allegations of mere negligence and do not rise to the level of moral culpability necessary to support a claim for punitive damages” … . Redd v Brooklyn Friends Sch., 2025 NY Slip Op 03214, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for sufficiently alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action, as well as the criteria for a demand for punitive damages against a school in a Child Victims Act case​.

 

,

IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE ACTION IN AN IMPROPER VENUE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS SIX DAYS LATE; SUPREME COURT IMPROVIDENTLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had brought the action in an improper venue. Although the defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late, Supreme Court had the discretion to grant it:

CPLR 510 sets forth grounds on which a motion to change venue may be made. When a defendant moves to change venue on the ground that the venue selected by the plaintiff is not proper … , the defendant must serve a timely demand on the plaintiff prior to making the motion … . When a motion to change venue on this ground is untimely, the motion is addressed to the court’s discretion rather than based on right … . Here, the defendants acknowledge that, after serving a demand to change venue with their answer, they moved to change the venue of the action six days late. Thus, their motion “became one addressed to the court’s discretion” … .

Under the circumstances present here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County. Venue is proper “in the county in which one of the parties resided when [the action] was commenced; [or] the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ” … . Here, there is no dispute that none of the parties resided in Kings County and that the accident did not occur in Kings County. By selecting an improper venue in the first instance, the plaintiff forfeited the right to choose venue … . Further, the plaintiff failed to show that the county specified by the defendants was improper and did not cross-move to retain venue in Kings County or to transfer venue to a county other than that urged by the defendants … . Moreover, although the defendants’ motion was untimely, they promptly moved to change the venue of the action after confirming the true location of the accident … . Pujals v Haitidis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03213, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Plaintiff brought the action in an improper venue. Defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late. Under the facts, Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied defendants’ motion.

 

, , ,

MOTHER BROUGHT A MANDAMUS-TO-COMPEL PROCEEDING TO REQUIRE THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TO HOLD A SUPPORT-ORDER-VIOLATION HEARING WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES FOR FAMILY COURT; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS LIKELY TO RECUR; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ADJOURN THE MATTER BEYOND THE DEADLINE SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES, DESPITE THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE IN THE RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined an exception to the mootness doctrine applied (to allow the appeal to be heard) and the mandamus-to-compel proceeding should have been denied on the merits. Petitioner mother sought to compel the support magistrate to hold a hearing on father’s alleged support-order violation within the time allowed by the Uniform Rules for Family Court. The Appellate Division held that, although the relevant rule setting a deadline for a hearing used mandatory language, a judge has the discretion the adjourn matters beyond a deadline set in the Uniform Rules:

… [W]e conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The petitioner has demonstrated that the issue is “capable of repetition” in other cases … . It also involves a phenomenon that will typically evade appellate review, since a Family Court can render any challenge to an alleged failure to adhere to the provisions of the rule academic by advancing a hearing date or completing a hearing in its entirety … , as occurred in this case … . Further, the argument raised by the petitioner presents “a substantial and novel issue of statewide importance regarding the rights of [custodial] parents” to resolve child support disputes in a timely manner … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel judicial officers to comply with the deadlines set forth in 22 NYCRR 205.43(b) and (e). As our colleagues in the First Department recognized, “[t]he timely completion of [child support] hearings depends on discretionary determinations made by individual Family Court judges and support magistrates as to whether good cause exists for adjournments” … . Indeed, the decision of a Family Court judge or support magistrate to grant an adjournment in a support proceeding is discretionary in nature (see Family Ct Act § 435 …). This Court, for example, has reversed orders in circumstances where a court’s denial of an adjournment request constituted an abuse or improvident exercise of discretion … . Further, the rule expressly states that judges and support magistrates may grant adjournments for various reasons, including to permit a party to secure counsel, in circumstances where a party’s counsel establishes actual engagement, due to the illness of a party, or for other good cause shown … . Therefore, “[a]lthough the 90-day limit” of 22 NYCRR 205.43(b) “is written in mandatory terms,” as is the 7-day limit of 22 NYCRR 205.43(e), these provisions do “not impose . . . nondiscretionary ministerial dut[ies]” upon judges or support magistrates that may be subject to mandamus … . In reaching this determination, we express no opinion as to whether a judicial officer’s alleged failure to adhere to the relevant provisions of 22 NYCRR 205.43 may be successfully challenged under provisions of CPLR article 78 that are not at issue here … . Matter of Santman v Satterthwaite, 2025 NY Slip Op 03196, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation for when a moot issue can be heard on appeal.

Practice Point: Although the Uniform Rules for Family Court use mandatory language in setting a deadline for holding a hearing on an alleged violation of a support order, the support magistrate had the discretion to adjourn the hearing beyond the deadline set in the Rules.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial in this “reckless disregard” action against the Nassau County Police Department stemming from a fatal traffic accident during a police chase, determined several evidentiary errors deprived plaintiff’s decedent of a fair trial. The vehicle which the police were chasing, driven by defendant Daley, collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle:

Supreme Court erred in declining to admit the Nassau County Police Department Rules and Regulations (hereinafter the rules) into evidence. An officer’s alleged violation of internal guidelines, although not dispositive, may be some evidence of whether an officer acted with reckless disregard … . The court compounded this error when it charged the jury pursuant to PJI 2:79A, specifically charging the jury that it may consider the rules when determining whether the police officers acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. To the extent necessary, the rules could have been admitted with a limiting instruction that they may considered only as some evidence of recklessness, along with other factors … .

Further, the Supreme Court erred in admitting the full decision from a Dunaway/Huntley/Mapp hearing in the defendant driver’s criminal proceeding, as its subject matter was collateral and merely served to bolster the testimony of the police officers … and was therefore prejudicial. The court also erred in entirely precluding cross-examination of Detective Peter Ellison with respect to prior bad acts. Under the circumstances of this case, these errors were not harmless (see CPLR 2002), as the evidence related directly to issues to be determined by the jury … , i.e., the officers’ credibility, the nature of the police stop, and the question of when the officers activated their emergency lights. Yun v Daley, 2025 NY Slip Op 03224, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: In the “reckless disregard” action against the police stemming from a high-speed chase, the police department rules should have been admitted in evidence because a violation of the rules is some evidence of negligence.

Practice Point: Here the defendant driver who collided with plaintiff’s decedent during the police chase was charged criminally. It was prejudicial error to allow a decision in the criminal matter in evidence in this “reckless disregard” action against the police. It was also error to preclude the cross-examination of a detective about prior bad acts.

 

, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this intersection-accident case was entitled to summary judgment on liability and dismissal of defendants’ comparative negligence affirmative defense:

“‘A driver who enters an intersection against a red traffic light in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) is negligent as a matter of law'” … . “A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey traffic laws that require them to yield” … . Moreover, “a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield cannot be comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

“[T]he issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence” … . Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by demonstrating that the plaintiff driver entered the intersection with a green traffic light and had the right-of-way and that Mendez’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff driver was comparatively negligent in causing the accident … . Ederi v Mendez, 2025 NY Slip Op 03041, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: A driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent and is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the comparative negligence affirmative defense.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE AVERMENTS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WERE BASED UPON THE AFFIANT’S REVIEW OF BUSINESS RECORDS; BECAUSE THE RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not prove defendant’s default because the relevant business records were not attached to the affidavit describing the default:

“Among other things, a plaintiff can establish a default by submission of an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or other evidence in admissible form” … . Here, the affidavit of Trey Cook, a document execution specialist for the plaintiff’s servicing agent, failed to provide proof of the defendant’s default in payment of the note in admissible form. Although Cook averred that he had personal knowledge of how the servicing agent’s business records were kept and maintained and that, based on his review of those business records, the defendant “failed to make the payment that was due for July 1, 2014 under the Loan Documents and . . . failed to make subsequent payments to bring the loan current,” the business records on which Cook relied were not annexed to his affidavit. Thus, Cook’s assertions regarding the defendant’s alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Tagor, 2025 NY Slip Op 03040, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: An affidavit which avers facts drawn from the affiant’s review of business records is inadmissible hearsay if the records are not attached.

 

,

WHERE RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE IN A CUSTODY MATTER, A HEARING IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this custody proceeding and remitting the matter for a hearing, noted that a custody ruling should only rarely be issued in the absence of a hearing:

“Custody and parental access determinations should ‘[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “While the general right to a hearing in custody and visitation cases is not absolute, where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … . “[A] court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … . Matter of Horoshko v Pasieshvili, 2025 NY Slip Op 03064, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Although there is no hard and fast rule that a custody matter requires a hearing before a ruling, whenever relevant facts are in dispute, a hearing is necessary.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT AND THE PETITIONER’S INJURIES, IT DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS THAT UNDERLIE THE LEGAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY; THEREFORE THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a nurse hired to care for M.C., an infant, was not entitled to leave to file a late notice of claim against the school district for injuries allegedly suffered when M.C. struck her in a stairway at M.C.’s elementary school. Although there was an incident report and a police report, the school district’s timely actual knowledge of the incident and the injuries did not demonstrate knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim:

… [T]he petition failed to establish that the District acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “Actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim means knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the [proposed] notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves” … . “[K]nowledge of the accident itself and the seriousness of the injury does not satisfy this enumerated factor where those facts do not also provide the public corporation with knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” … .

Here, while an employee incident report, a police incident report, and the involvement of an employee of the District in the incident may have established the District’s actual knowledge of the incident, they did not provide the District with actual knowledge of all of the essential facts underlying the claim … . Among other things, although the District was presumably aware that M. C.’s individualized education program (hereinafter IEP) allegedly required him to have an aide with him at all times due to aggression, and that no such aide had been assigned to him at the time of the incident, neither the IEP nor the incident reports described the incident while making a connection between [petitioner’s] injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the District … . Matter of Cooke v Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03062, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: One of the criteria for leave to file a late notice of claim against a school district is that the district have had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim. Timely knowledge of the incident and injuries is not sufficient. The district must have had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the theory or theories of liability.

 

,

HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conclusory affidavit by defendants’ mother, alleging she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground in front of her front door, was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit demonstrating proper service upon a person identified as “aunt:”

… [T]he process server’s affidavits constituted prima facie evidence that the defendants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the process server’s affidavits because it was conclusory and not substantiated by specific facts … . The defendants’ mother’s conclusory averment that she did not receive service was insufficient to rebut the statement in the process server’s affidavits that an “AUNT” had accepted service. Furthermore, the defendants’ mother did not assert that there was no one else present at the premises who could have accepted service.

Therefore, because the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service, a hearing was not warranted … . … Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … . Harvey v Usukumah, 2025 NY Slip Op 03050, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here defendants’ mother’s affidavit claiming she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground outside the front door was deemed insufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit. Therefore no hearing about the propriety of service should have been held and the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been denied.​

 

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