Second Department – Page 236 – New York Appellate Digest

THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE TENANT-ROBBERY-VICTIM’S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by a tenant stemming from a robbery by another tenant and others. Defendant landlord demonstrated it did not have notice of any prior similar criminal activity in the building:

A landlord is not required to insure the safety of tenants or visitors … . However, “[l]andlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . “To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” … . In the absence of evidentiary proof of notice of prior criminal activity, the owner’s duty reasonably to protect those using the premises from such activity never arises … . “The question of the scope of an alleged tort-feasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal issue for the court to resolve” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they lacked notice of the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject premises … . Markov v Grecian Gardens Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06771, Second Dept 11-18-20

November 18, 2020

Civil Procedure, Negligence

THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the traffic accident action to active status in 2019 after the note of issue had been vacated in 2012 should have been granted. The doctrine of laches does not apply where there has been not service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216:

CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action … . Further, there was neither a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .

Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” … . “The procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)” … . In the absence of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status should have been granted … . Guillebeaux v Parrott, 2020 NY Slip Op 06762, Second Dept 11-18-20

November 18, 2020

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case should have been granted because defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying:

“[T]o be admissible, opinion evidence must be based on,” inter alia, (1) “personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests,” or, (2) “where the expert does not have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests, the opinion may be based upon facts and material in evidence, real or testimonial” … . Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the defendants’ medical expert, Edward Weiland, from testifying regarding records and testimony that were in evidence and from testifying on the issue of causation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Weiland should have been permitted to testify regarding the records and testimony in evidence even if he lacked personal knowledge as to the specific injuries addressed therein … . Furthermore, Weiland should have been permitted to testify on the issue of causation, despite not having addressed this issue in his expert report, because “the issue of causation was implicit on the question of damages” … . The court’s errors in limiting Weiland’s testimony were not harmless … . Therefore, the court should have granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict, to vacate the judgment entered thereon, and for a new trial on the issue of damages. Gubitosi v Hyppolite, 2020 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 11-18-20

November 18, 2020

Negligence, Trusts and Estates

THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this wrongful death case, determined the Dram Shop Act cause of action was properly dismissed because the act does not create a cause of action in favor of the intoxicated person. Here the complaint alleged defendant Bombace Wine & Spirits, Inc. was liable for selling alcohol to plaintiff’s decedent, who died of alcohol poisoning and was referred to as a habitual drunkard. Although plaintiff’s decedent’s family members could sue under the Dram Shop Act for “means of support” damages, there no were allegations of “means of support” damages in the complaint:

The Dram Shop Act “creates a cause of action in favor of a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person, but it does not create a cause of action in favor of the intoxicated person” … or his or her estate … . Thus, the first cause of action to recover damages under the Dram Shop Act fails to state a cause of action insofar as it is asserted on behalf of the decedent’s estate, notwithstanding the addition in the amended complaint of the allegation that the decedent’s intoxication at the time of the alleged illegal alcohol sale was “involuntary” … . Further, because the decedent, were she alive, would not possess a viable cause of action against the Bombace defendants to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of her own intoxication, her estate possesses no viable cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death (see EPTL 5-4.1 …). Estate of Tammy Colleen Feenin v Bombace Wine & Spirits, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06755, Second Dept 11-18-20

November 18, 2020

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Foreclosure

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS ALLEGEDLY REVIEWED BY THE AFFIANT; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS HEARSAY AND THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 the evidence of standing to bring the action was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence the action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Elizabeth Gonzales, an employee of the loan servicer. Gonzales averred that the plaintiff had been in possession of the note, which was endorsed in blank, since July 1, 2007, prior to the commencement of the action. Gonzales indicated that she had personal knowledge of the assertions set forth in her affidavit based upon, inter alia, her review of various business records. However, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which Gonzales relied in her affidavit, her assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Moreover, the plaintiff did not attach a copy of the note to the complaint when commencing the action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gulati, 2020 NY Slip Op 06754, Second Dept 11-18-20

November 18, 2020

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Judges, Labor Law-Construction Law

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 scaffold-fall case should have been granted. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were granted because the court found defendants exempt pursuant to the homeowner exemption. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the jury found the defendant homeowner (Nielson) was negligent in striking the scaffold with a Bobcat, but also illogically found the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we conclude that different inferences could be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether Nielson had authority to or exercised authority to direct or control the work. Affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a rational process by which a jury could find that the defendants were not exempt from liability by reason of the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and could find that they were liable under Labor Law § 200 … .

We note that, in the interest of judicial economy, the better practice would have been for the Supreme Court to reserve determination on the motion for a directed verdict on the Labor Law causes of action, and allow those causes of action to go to the jury. “There is little to gain and much to lose by granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law after . . . the evidence has been submitted to the jury and before the jury has rendered a verdict. If the appellate court disagrees, there is no verdict to reinstate and the trial must be repeated” … . …

Assuming that Nielson struck the scaffold with the Bobcat, which was the only theory of common-law negligence presented by the plaintiff, then it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Thus, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find Nielson negligent without also finding proximate cause. Brewer v Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 11-12-20

November 12, 2020

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND KILL HER BROTHER; SHE ALLEGED SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA; DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE DEMANDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND INSTRAGRAM ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s disclosure demand for the Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram accounts of infant plaintiff, as well and the last known addresses and phone numbers of infant plaintiff’s friends should have been granted. Infant plaintiff was crossing the street with her brother when he was struck and killed by a truck allegedly owned by defendant. Infant plaintiff claimed psychological injuries based upon her being in the zone of danger and witnessing her brother’s death:

… [T]he defendant demonstrated that records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts were “reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence” regarding the alleged emotional and mental trauma that the infant plaintiff suffered from as a result of the subject accident, which allegedly was, in part, evidenced by her social isolation and withdrawal … . In addition, the defendant demonstrated that its request for the last known addresses and phone numbers of three of the infant plaintiff’s friends was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the infant plaintiff’s claimed mental and emotional trauma. In response, the plaintiffs do not contend that the requested disclosure was unduly burdensome, overbroad, or otherwise improper. The Supreme Court erred in finding that disclosure of the last known addresses and phone numbers of the infant plaintiff’s three friends was improper because they would provide evidence that was cumulative of other evidence previously exchanged during discovery. Therefore, under the circumstances, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to produce the last known addresses and phone numbers of three friends of the infant plaintiff, and authorizations to obtain records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts. Abedin v Osorio, 2020 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 11-12-20

November 12, 2020

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant should have been granted in the interest of justice. The court described the difference between the “good cause” and “interest of justice” analyses and indicated that if a court finds relief is not warranted for good cause, the interest of justice analysis should then be considered:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “‘Good cause’ and ‘interest of justice’ are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b … . In considering the interest of justice standard, ‘the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statutes of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant'” … .

Although the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b, it established that an extension of time to serve the defendant was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established, among other things, that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action, that it promptly moved for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective, and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay in service … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ciafone, 2020 NY Slip Op 06580, Second Dept 11-12-20

November 12, 2020

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute should have been granted because the conditions required by CPLR 3216 were not met:

A court may not dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216 on its own initiative unless certain conditions precedent have been complied with, including the requirement that “where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court . . . ‘the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, to vacate the … order, as that order failed to set forth the specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 06576, Second Dept 11-12-20

November 12, 2020

Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (1), WHICH IMPOSES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE, DOES NOT PERMIT A NEGLIGENT DRIVER TO SUE THE VEHICLE OWNER FOR THE DRIVER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined defendant vehicle-owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The deceased driver’s estate sued the owner of the car under the vicarious liability statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 (1). The Second Department held that the statute does not permit a negligent driver to recover against the vehicle-owner for the driver’s own negligence:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” The predecessor of this provision—section 282-e of the Highway Law, which was enacted in 1924 …—was intended to alleviate the harshness of the common law rule whereby the owner of a vehicle who merely permitted another to drive it could not be held liable for the driver’s negligence unless the driver was the owner’s employee or agent and was using the vehicle as part of the owner’s business … . Thus, the purpose of the new legislation was to ensure that persons injured by a negligent driver had access to “a financially responsible insured person against whom to recover for injuries” … . In other words, while the driver’s own negligence remained grounded in common law, the new statute simply made owners vicariously liable for injuries caused by the driver’s negligence, so long as the driver was operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission … . The Legislature “did not otherwise change any of the rules of liability,” and “may not be presumed to make any innovation upon the common law further than is required by the mischief to be remedied” … .

In light of the history and purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, we hold that the statute does not permit a negligent driver (or, in this case, the driver’s estate) to recover damages against the owner for injuries resulting from the driver’s own negligence … . Shepard v Power, 2020 NY Slip Op 06568, Second Dept 11-12-20

November 12, 2020

Tag Archive for: Second Department

THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE TENANT-ROBBERY-VICTIM’S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS ALLEGEDLY REVIEWED BY THE AFFIANT; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS HEARSAY AND THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (1), WHICH IMPOSES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE, DOES NOT PERMIT A NEGLIGENT DRIVER TO SUE THE VEHICLE OWNER FOR THE DRIVER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.