You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE PERFORMED PROCEDURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THEREBY NEGATING THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant established he did not depart from good and accepted practice and the procedure he performed was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was speculative and conclusory. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact in support of the “lack of informed consent” cause of action:

… [M]ere conclusory allegations of malpractice, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the elements of the cause of action at issue, are insufficient to defeat summary judgment … .

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action [which] requir[es] proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . “To establish a cause of action [to recover damages] for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, [a] plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . “The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury” … .

The defendant established, prima facie, that his care and treatment did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a lack of informed consent proximately caused his injuries … . Kelapire v Kale, 2020 NY Slip Op 07553, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the A-frame ladder he was standing when positioning a concrete slab shifted causing the slab to fall on his hand. In addition the Second Department determined defendant (Cappy’s) did not demonstrate it was not an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

The defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not involve an injury caused by the failure to provide a safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, within the meaning of the statute. In particular, the plaintiff’s work entailed attempting to move or lift a heavy slab of cement at ceiling or roof level, while standing on a ladder. The plaintiff testified that the ladder “moved” while he was reaching for the slab, causing the slab to fall or drop. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that a sling or other device should have been provided to secure the slab. Under these circumstances, the defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not result from the failure to provide such safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, and the evidence also raised issues of fact as to that matter … .

Further, [defendant] Cappy’s failed to show, prima facie, that it cannot be deemed an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), “those parties with a property interest who hire the general contractor” are deemed “owners” … . “Lessees who hire a contractor and have the right to control the work being done are considered ‘owners’ within the meaning of the statutes” … . Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07549, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

,

SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined service on an unauthorized foreign (Paraguayan) corporation (Dahava) did not comply with Business Corporation Law 307 which is a jurisdictional defect:

Business Corporation Law § 307 provides for service of process on unauthorized foreign corporations. Process against a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York may be served upon the Secretary of State as its agent (see Business Corporation Law § 307[a]). “Such service shall be sufficient if notice therefor and a copy of the process are” delivered personally to the foreign corporation in the manner by which service of process is authorized by the law of the jurisdiction where the service is made, or “[s]ent by . . . registered mail with return receipt requested, at the post office address specified for the purpose of mailing process, on file in the department of state, or with any official . . . in the jurisdiction of its incorporation, or if no such address is there specified, to its registered or other office there specified, or if no such office is there specified, to the last address . . . known to the plaintiff” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that he properly served Dahava, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 307 … . An affidavit of service indicated that Dahava was served on June 5, 2015, by delivery of the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State. A separate affidavit of service stated that on June 11, 2015, a copy of the summons and complaint was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Dahava at the address listed at the top of the [investment] agreement [between the parties]. The plaintiff, however, did not establish that he attempted to ascertain whether an address was on file with the Paraguayan equivalent of the Secretary of State before resorting to mailing the summons and complaint to Dahava’s last known address set forth in the October 2012 agreement … . Friedman v Goldstein, 2020 NY Slip Op 07548, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiff Colantonio, an attorney and physician representing himself, should not have been granted. Plaintiffs brought a fraud an breach of contract action arising from the lease/purchase of a liposuction laser unit. Defendants moved to disqualify arguing Colantonio may be called as a witness:

“In order to disqualify counsel on the ground that he or she may be called as a witness, the party moving for disqualification has the burden of demonstrating that ‘(1) the testimony of the opposing party’s counsel is necessary to his or her case, and (2) such testimony would be prejudicial to the opposing party'” … . In turn, “[a] finding of necessity takes into account such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence” … .

… [T]he defendants each failed to make the requisite showing that Colantonio should be disqualified as counsel for Empire Medical and Cestari. The defendants failed to specify the facts about which they expect Colantonio to testify or to establish how such testimony would be necessary to their defense … . They also failed to allege that Colantonio’s testimony would be prejudicial to plaintiffs Cestari or Empire Medical … . Indeed, Colantonio and Cestari both attested to the opposite. At this early stage in the litigation, discovery has not established the substance and necessity of Colantonio’s testimony in the action … . Moreover, in opposition to the motions, plaintiff Cestari averred that disqualification of Colantonio would cause a substantial hardship on him, which constitutes an exception to the rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) advocate-witness disqualification … . Empire Med. Servs. of Long Is., P.C. v Sharma, 2020 NY Slip Op 07545, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

The plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence establishing that the plaintiff or its counsel was in possession of the note at the time of commencement of the action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Howard R. Handville, a senior loan analyst at Ocwen Financial Corporation whose indirect subsidiary is Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Handville attested that he reviewed the servicing records maintained by Ocwen in its ordinary course of business, that prior servicers’ records were integrated into Ocwen’s records and relied upon by Ocwen and that “[b]ased on [his] review of the Servicing Records, the original Note and Mortgage for the Loan were physically delivered to Plaintiff’s custodian on April 25, 2007, prior to the commencement of this foreclosure action.” Handville further averred that “[s]ince that date, the original Note and Mortgage have remained in the physical possession of Plaintiff or its counsel.” Even if Handville’s affidavit was sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the “Servicing Records,” the affidavit was insufficient to establish standing because the records themselves were not submitted by the plaintiff. “‘[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted’ … , and ‘a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay’ … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Schmelzinger, 2020 NY Slip Op 07543, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED WITH; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were not demonstrated and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing by either certified mail or first-class mail, “or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … , it failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to RPAPL 1304, those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike their answer, and for an order of reference should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . US Bank N.A. v McQueen, 2020 NY Slip Op 07423, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEDENT; DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE HERSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s estate was a necessary party in this foreclosure action and defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute herself as administrator should have been granted:

In a mortgage foreclosure action, “[t]he rule is that a mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all his [or her] interest in the mortgaged premises, including his equity of redemption, is not a necessary party to foreclosure, unless a deficiency judgment is sought” … . Here, the judgment of foreclosure and sale contains language providing for a potential deficiency judgment against the decedent if the sale of the property does not cover the amount due to the plaintiff. Consequently, the decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the action … . Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v Kalinin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07417, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) the motion court should not have decided the suppression motion on a ground not raised by the parties and the appellate court is powerless to review that issue (search valid pursuant to the automobile exception); (2) the other ground for upholding suppression argued by the People on appeal was decided in defendant’s favor and therefore the appellate court cannot review it (search valid as an inventory search). The denial of the suppression motion was reversed and the matter was sent back for review of the inventory search issue should the People be so advised:

The People’s current contention that the search of the defendant’s SUV was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the police had probable cause to believe that the SUV contained a weapon is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … . … [T]he hearing record reveals … the People were relying solely on the theory that the gun was recovered pursuant to a lawful inventory search after the SUV was removed from the location. This Court “cannot uphold conduct of the police, and thereby affirm a trial court’s denial of suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such conduct, on a factual theory not argued by the People before the trial court” … . …

As an alternative ground for upholding the suppression ruling, the People argue, as they did in the Supreme Court, that the recovery of the gun was lawful pursuant to a valid inventory search. However, because the Supreme Court decided the inventory search issue in the defendant’s favor, this Court is precluded from reviewing that issue on the defendant’s appeal … . …  Under the circumstances presented here, where we lack statutory authority to review an issue resolved in the appellant’s favor at a suppression hearing, the Court of Appeals has instructed that the required remedy is to “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to [the] Supreme Court for further proceedings” with respect to that issue … . People v Tates, 2020 NY Slip Op 07405, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE SUGGESTED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL; THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT ON THE STREET WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REACHING FOR AN OBJECT IN DEFENDANT’S SWEATSHIRT POCKET; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT AND DISCARDING OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER’S UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, finding the waiver of appeal invalid, granted defendant’s suppression motion and dismissed the indictment. The officer who approached defendant saw the shape of something heavy in defendant’s sweatshirt pocket, said “what’s this” and reached for it. At that point defendant ran and discarded a weapon:

When explaining the waiver of the right to appeal, the Supreme Court stated, inter alia, that as a result of the waiver, the defendant was “giving up [his] independent right to appeal [his] case to a higher court,” and that the case “ends here” upon sentencing. These statements incorrectly suggested that the waiver may be an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal … . …

The officer was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, and the officer was permitted to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon … . However, the officer was not justified in attempting to touch the defendant’s sweatshirt pocket as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure, since the defendant did not engage in any conduct justifying such an intrusion … . The defendant’s response of fleeing and discarding the gun was not “an independent act involving a calculated risk attenuated from the underlying [illegal] police conduct” … . People v Soler, 2020 NY Slip Op 07404, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts:

… [B]ecause the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the charge of criminal possession of firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Nicoletti, 2020 NY Slip Op 07401, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

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