You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Judicial Hearing Officer (J.H.O)/Referee did not have the authority to grant defendants motion to strike the complaint on the ground the amended bill of particulars did not comply with prior court orders. A bill of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure which CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise. Because this is question of law could not have been avoided if brought up below, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal:

“Since a bill of particulars is not a disclosure device but a means of amplifying a pleading, the present dispute over the contents of the [plaintiffs’ amended] bill[s] of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise” … . Since CPLR 3104 did not authorize the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ separate motions, among other things, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them based upon the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ amended bills of particulars, and there exists no order of reference authorizing the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ motions, the J.H.O./Referee was without authority to determine the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them … . Kramarenko v New York Community Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PROPERLY INSTRUCTED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE USE OF THE ZIP LINE FROM WHICH SHE ALLEGEDY FELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligence supervision case should not have been granted. The infant plaintiff, C.G., allegedly was injured when she fell of a zip line. The were questions of fact about whether C.G. was properly instructed on the use of zip line:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … “A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent” … . The duty to provide adequate supervision includes the duty to instruct students as to the safe use of playground equipment …

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether C. G. was adequately instructed on the safe use of the zip line prior to her fall and whether the instruction that students were allowed to have another student “give them a head start push” across the zip line was appropriate. Genova v Town of Clarkstown, 2021 NY Slip Op 03444, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS SUSPENDING OR MODIFYING THE LAW IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 TOLLED THE TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNTIL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2020 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Executive Orders suspending or modifying laws to accommodate the disruption caused by COVID-19 tolled the time limitation for the taking of an appeal until within 30 days of November 2, 2020:

The respondents contend that even though Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 … purported to toll the limitations periods, Governor Cuomo did not have the statutory authority to do so, as Executive Law § 29-a, while expressly granting the Governor the authority to suspend statutes, does not expressly grant the Governor the authority to “toll” them. This contention is unpersuasive. … Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) provides that an order issued pursuant thereto “may provide for the alteration or modification of the requirements of such statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation suspended, and may include other terms and conditions.” This language in Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) indicates that the Governor is authorized to do more than just “suspend” statutes during a state disaster emergency; he or she may “alter[ ]” or “modif[y]” the requirements of a statute, and a tolling of time limitations contained in such statute is within that authority … .

Furthermore, although the seven executive orders issued after Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 … did not use the word “toll,” those executive orders all either stated that the Governor “hereby continue[s] the suspensions, and modifications of law, and any directives, not superseded by a subsequent directive,” made in the prior executive orders … or contained nearly identical language to that effect … . Since the tolling of a time limitation contained in a statute constitutes a modification of the requirements of such statute within the meaning of Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d), these subsequent executive orders continued the toll that was put in place by Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8). Brash v Richards, 2021 NY Slip Op 03436, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, ,

THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its notice of claim was properly denied. The original demanded only an extension of time to complete the plumbing work plaintiff was hired to do by the NYC School Construction Authority. The proposed amended notice of claim included a demand for nearly $2.5 million in damages:

Public Authorities Law § 1744(2) requires the plaintiff to serve a notice of claim upon the defendant within three months after the accrual of such claim … . Under Public Authorities Law § 1744(3), a notice of claim “must set forth in detail . . . (i) the amount of the claim; (ii) a specific and detailed description of the grounds for the claim, relating the dollar amount claimed to the event purportedly giving rise to the claim and indicating how the dollar amount is arrived at; and (iii) the date of the event allegedly underlying the claim.” Here, the original notice of claim filed by the plaintiff failed to comply with Public Authorities Law § 1744(3) … .

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the original notice of claim, inter alia, to include damages in the total principal sum of $2,455,740.63. “A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the .. .claim or the theory of liability” . Here, the proposed amendments to the original notice of claim were not technical in nature, and thus, are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to explain the inordinate delay in seeking leave to amend the original notice of claim. BG Natl. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 03435, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the note was lost and did not present sufficient evidence to warrant correction of the legal description of the premises in the mortgage:

“Pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method of recovery on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit ‘due proof of [the plaintiff’s] ownership, the facts which prevent [its] production of [the note,] and its terms'” … . Here, the copy of the note annexed to the lost note affidavit provided sufficient evidence of the terms of the note … . However, the lost note affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note, as it “failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or how or when the note was lost” … .Thus, the affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note at the time the action was commenced. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [plaintiff’s] ]motion which was for summary judgment … to reform the mortgage to correct the legal description of the premises. “A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zolotnitsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-2-21, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION ALLEGING INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF IN THE BUILDING LOBBY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff security guard’s third-party assault action stemming from an assault by young persons who entered the lobby where plaintiff was working through an unlocked door should not have been dismissed. There was evidence the assault was foreseeable:

… [T]he defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they provided reasonable minimal security precautions at the building, given the evidence of prior incidents of criminal activity. The submissions on the defendants’ motion included, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of their property manager and the plaintiff, as well as evidence of a report indicating that several days prior to the subject incident, a group of “skateboarders” entered the lobby during the evening and refused to leave. The record also contained evidence of other prior crimes in the building, including an incident approximately seven months earlier, when an individual became belligerent and damaged a front door in the lobby. Against this backdrop of prior criminal activity, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they provided reasonable minimal security precautions at the building under the circumstances … . In this regard, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the actions of the assailants were so unforeseeable as to sever any causal nexus between the defendants’ alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries. Vilsaint v SL Green Realty Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03481, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

,

DEFENDANT NEVER CONSENTED TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SERVED ON THE PURPORTED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE NULLIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determine the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action was not properly served and therefore must be reversed. The papers were served on an attorney but defendant had not consented to the substitution of thst attorney:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the plaintiff served its motion, inter alia, for an order of reference and its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, on [attorney] Elo, not [defendant] Nakash or CAMBA [legal services]. Nakash retained CAMBA in July 2011 to appear on her behalf at the settlement conferences. Although in April 2013, CAMBA and Elo signed a substitution of counsel, Nakash never acknowledged or signed this substitution, nor was a substitution ordered by the Supreme Court. Moreover, Nakash attested that she did not know Elo, never authorized him to represent her, and never received the plaintiff’s motion papers or any orders from the court. Since the substitution was improper under CPLR 321(b), CAMBA, not Elo, was Nakash’s attorney of record when the plaintiff made its motions, and thus, the plaintiff failed to properly serve Nakash with these motions, depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain these motions and rendering so much of the resulting order dated March 17, 2014, and the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale as are in favor of the plaintiff and against Nakash nullities that must be vacated … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Nakash, 2021 NY Slip Op 03479, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER WAS NEGLIGENT; THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY DID NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment by Ellis, the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, should have been denied. And the cross motion for summary judgment by plaintiff should have been denied. The defendant driver’s description of the accident raised a question of fact whether Ellis was negligent. The fact that the defendant driver submitted an out-of-state affidavit without a certificate of conformity was not a fatal defect:

… [T]he … defendants raised a triable issue of fact through the affidavit of John Koranteng, the alleged operator of the … defendants’ vehicle. Koranteng averred that he checked to make sure that the left side of his vehicle was clear before he began to initiate a right turn onto Brooklyn Avenue. Koranteng claimed that, while he was turning right, the collision occurred when Ellis’s vehicle attempted to aggressively pass him on his driver’s side … . Ellis’s contention that Koranteng’s affidavit was not in admissible form and, therefore, should not have been considered, is without merit, since the absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit is not a fatal defect … .

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the … defendants. … [T]he … defendants raised a triable issue of fact through the submission of … Koranteng’s affidavit … . ” … [I]f triable issues of fact are raised by the defendants . . . summary judgment on the issue of liability must be denied, even if the moving plaintiff was an innocent passenger” … . Wise v Boyd Bros. Transp., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03345, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Generally, in order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default … . Where the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, ]to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained an additional page, entitled “Allonge to Note,” which contained a special indorsement from the original lender to the plaintiff. However, … the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Maleno-Fowler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03344, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS CAUSED THE INJURY TO PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert raised questions of fact about whether exposure to asbestos injured plaintiff:

“In toxic tort cases, an expert opinion on causation must set forth (1) a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, (2) that the toxin is capable of causing the particular injuries plaintiff suffered ](general causation) and (3) that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause such injuries (specific causation)” … . “[T]here must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of the agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . “[I]t is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted in the scientific community” … .

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted expert affidavits raising triable issues of fact as to both general and specific causation … . The conclusions of the plaintiffs’ experts were sufficiently supported by studies and medical literature, and demonstrated specific causation through a scientific method … . The experts’ conflicting interpretations of the underlying studies and literature presented a credibility battle between the parties’ experts, which is properly left to a jury for its resolution … . Pistone v American Biltrite, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03341, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

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