You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal should have been granted because the conditions in CPLR 3216 were not met by the order:

“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” … . As relevant here, 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 … . “While a conditional order of dismissal may have the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order of dismissal here “‘was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute'” … . The Supreme Court should not have administratively dismissed the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Henry, 2020 NY Slip Op 07863, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

A WALKWAY WET FROM RAIN WHICH WAS FALLING AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate the slip and fall was caused by a dangerous condition. The walkway where plaintiff fell was wet from rain, which was falling at the time:

The mere fact that an outdoor walkway or stairway becomes wet from precipitation is insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff’s slip and fall on the landing of a stairway leading to the entrance of the restaurant occurred solely because that area was wet due to precipitation. Among other things, in support of their motions, the defendants submitted the transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which indicates that the location where the plaintiff slipped and fell was wet due to the rain that had fallen and was falling at the time of his accident … . Derosa v Zaliv, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07862, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the decretal paragraph in the appellate decision remitting the matter to Supreme Court did not impose restrictions on the issues to be retried:

“‘A trial court, upon remittitur, lacks the power to deviate from the mandate of the higher court”‘ … . “An order or judgment entered by the lower court on a remittitur ‘must conform strictly to the remittitur'” … . The language in the decretal paragraph controls the extent of the remittitur … .

Here, there is no limiting language in the decretal paragraph of our prior decision and order that would indicate that the new trial would be on issues of apportionment of liability among the defendants. Further, there is no language in that decretal paragraph indicating that the damages awards remain undisturbed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have limited the new trial to issues of apportionment of liability among the defendants. Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is., 2020 NY Slip Op 07860, Second Dept  12-23-20

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, imposed an injunction on defendant and determined issues of fact without a motion before the court and without holding a hearing:

The Supreme Court, after a status conference … , issued an order, sua sponte, … which, … directed the defendant … to take all steps necessary to obtain a permit from the Department of Buildings to complete the work on one of the subject properties and expedite repairs to that property, including the submission of new plans by the defendant … .

Since no motion was pending before it, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, and without a hearing, imposed an injunction on the defendant and determined issues of fact … . “A court is generally limited to noticed issues that are the subject of the motion before it” … . … The plaintiffs did not move for an injunction … and the court did not hold a hearing … . City of New York v Quadrozzi, 2020 NY Slip Op 07857, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge, sua sponte, should not have increased a penalty to which the parties had stipulated:

“A so-ordered stipulation is a contract between the parties thereto and as such, is binding on them and will be construed in accordance with contract principles and the parties’ intent” … . “When an agreement between parties is clear and unambiguous on its face, it will be enforced according to its terms and without resort to extrinsic evidence” … . Accordingly, a court “should not, under the guise of contract interpretation, ‘imply a term which the parties themselves failed to insert’ or otherwise rewrite the contract” … .

Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination to change the $1,000 per week penalty set forth in the 2013 stipulation … . Although the New York City Landmarks Preservation Law authorizes a penalty of up to $5,000 per day … ,  the parties expressly agreed to a different penalty in their 2013 stipulation. Thus, the court should not have “rewritten” the terms of the 2013 stipulation by changing the amount of the penalty agreed to by the parties. City of New York v Quadrozzi, 2020 NY Slip Op 07856, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because compliance with the notice requirements of RPAP 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit of a business operations analyst employed by the plaintiff, together with copies of 90-day notices sent to the defendants and proof of filing statements from the New York State Department of Financial Services. Although some of the copies of the 90-day notices contain what appear to be bar codes with 22-digit numbers that include the words “USPS CERTIFIED MAIL,” the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that the mailings were sent by first-class mail in addition to certified mail … . The plaintiff also failed to submit evidence of a standard office mailing procedure or an affidavit of the individual(s) who effected the service … . The submission by the plaintiff of evidence that it filed statements with the New York State Department of Financial Services, without more, is insufficient to establish that the mailing was accomplished pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v McGregor, 2020 NY Slip Op 07855, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action on the ground the bank did not comply with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304. The defendants defaulted and failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore it must be raised as a defense before a judge can rule on it:

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, in which the defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference, and should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint based on its determination that the plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, a plaintiff is not required to disprove the defense unless it is raised by defendants, and in this case the defendants failed to appear in the action or answer the complaint … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Guido, 2020 NY Slip Op 07854, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

ONCE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS PROPERLY SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PURCHASE, THE LANDLORD, WHO IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO HONOR THE OPTION, NO LONGER HAD A RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ cause of action for return of the rent paid to defendant after the plaintiffs exercised their option to purchase the property should have been granted. Plaintiffs were defendant landlord’s tenants. Plaintiffs sought to exercise an option to purchase the property which was in the lease. Once the plaintiffs properly exercised the option to purchase, the landlord, who refused to honor the option, could no longer seek payment for plaintiffs’ use and occupancy:

… “[I]t is well settled that the legal owner of real property is not entitled to an award for use and occupancy from a contract vendee in possession unless there also exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties” … . Under the merger doctrine, “execution of a contract of sale [for real property] between landlord and tenant serves to merge the landlord-tenant relationship into the vendor-vendee relationship and thus effectively terminates the former, unless the parties clearly intend the contrary result” … . “An intention to deviate from the general rule and to avoid a merger may be directly expressed in the agreement or may be inferred from a medley of factors such as the terms of the agreement, the circumstances of its making, and the subsequent behavior of the parties” … .

Here … the parties did not express an intention to deviate from the general rule or to avoid a merger upon the exercise of the purchase option. To the contrary, the terms of the rider provided, in relevant part, that “[i]n the event that Tenant decides not to exercise its option to purchase, all provisions herein remain in full force and effect and Tenant remains liable for all payments hereunder, including but not limited to rent” … . Since the plaintiffs validly exercised their option to purchase on July 21, 2015, and became a contract vendee in possession, it follows that the landlord-tenant relationship terminated on that date by application of the merger doctrine … . Blackburn Food Corp. v Ardi, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07850, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY (AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND THE FAILURE TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, GAVE RISE TO THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against one of two groups of attorney-defendants should not have been dismissed. The first group of attorneys (the Schneider defendants) failed to file a timely notice of claim against the New York Transit Authority (NYTA) in this slip and fall case. Then plaintiff retained the second group of attorneys (the Kletzkin defendants) and the action was dismissed with prejudice. Then plaintiff sued both groups of attorneys for legal malpractice and for violations of Judiciary Law 487. Supreme Court granted the Kletzkin defendants motion to dismiss and denied the Schneider defendants’ motion to dismiss. The facts were not discussed, but the court noted the difference between a legal malpractice and a Judiciary Law 487 cause of action:

… [T]he plaintiff adequately pleaded the cause of action alleging legal malpractice against the Kletzkin defendants and the Schneider defendants. Contrary to the contentions of those defendants, neither conclusively established that an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem the late notice of claim timely served upon the NYCTA nunc pro tunc would have been futile … .

Contrary to the Kletzkin defendants’ contention, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487. Contrary to the Schneider defendants’ contention, the cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 is not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. “A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive (see Judiciary Law § 487), whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct” … . Bianco v Law Offs. of Yuri Prakhin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07849, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ALLEGED HE WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED ON A LOOSE MANHOLE COVER OWNED BY DEFENDANT-TOWN; THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION BUT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-town’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he stepped on a loose manhole cover which swung out from under him crushing his leg. The town demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition, but did not demonstrate it did not create the condition:

Where, as here, the plaintiff alleged that the affirmative negligence exception applies, the defendant must show, prima facie, that the exception does not apply … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant created the alleged dangerous condition, inter alia, through its initial placement of the manhole and by the use of an ill-fitting manhole cover, and the defendant’s submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment do not address these allegations. Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged defect … . Dejesus v Town of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 07542, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

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