You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING TEMPORARY SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING WITHOUT MAKING A FINDING THAT USING THE FORMULA WOULD RESULT IN AN UNFAIR AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this divorce proceeding, determined Supreme Court should not have deviated form the temporary spousal maintenance formula without making a finding the formula resulted in an unjust or inappropriate amount:

“The formula to determine temporary spousal maintenance that is outlined in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a)(c) is intended to cover all of a payee spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs, the costs of food and clothing, and other usual expenses” … . Here, the Supreme Court’s directive that the defendant pay pendente lite maintenance in the sum of $6,940 per month plus real estate taxes, homeowner’s insurance, and homeowner’s association fees on the marital residence resulted in a double shelter allowance, since the formula used to calculate the presumptive temporary maintenance award is intended to cover all of the plaintiff’s basic living expenses, including housing costs … . It was error to deviate in this manner from the guideline amount of temporary maintenance without making a finding that such amount was unjust or inappropriate based upon the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a)(h) … . Capozzoli v Capozzoli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05715, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

DEFENDANTS’ DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF’S USE OF DEFENDANTS’ HOVER BOARD IN DEFENDANTS’ DRIVEWAY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate as a matter of law that  the assumption of the risk doctrine applied to plaintiff’s use of defendants’ hover board in defendants’ driveway. Plaintiff was injured falling off the hover board:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks [that] are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “As a general rule, application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases appropriate for absolution of duty, such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, the plaintiff was operating the hover board in the defendants’ driveway, not a designated athletic or recreational venue; nor did the defendants actively sponsor or promote the activity … . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied to the circumstances of this case … . Scally v J.B., 2020 NY Slip Op 05791, Second Dept 10-14-29

 

, ,

THE DRIVER OF THE STATE DUMP TRUCK WHO SIDESWIPED PLAINTIFF’S MOPED IN THE BICYCLE LANE WHILE LOOKING FOR DEAD DEER DID NOT ACT RECKLESSLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the driver of a Department of Transportation (DOT) dump truck did not act recklessly within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic law 1103 [b]. The driver was traveling partially in the bicycle lane looking for dead deer and didn’t see the plaintiff on a moped in the bicycle lane:

A State vehicle “actually engaged in work on a highway” is exempt from the rules of the road and may be held liable only for damages caused by an act done in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103[b] … ). “Reckless disregard . . . requires more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … . In order to meet the standard required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b), a claimant must show that “the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome”… .

… [T]he evidence was insufficient to establish that the DOT workers exhibited a “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1103[b]). The claimant failed to establish that the DOT workers acted in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probably that harm would follow … . Rascelles v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05788, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY FIRST CONVICTIONS REDUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reducing defendants’ convictions, determined the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The complainant stated that her injuries consisted of a laceration on her neck from the defendant pulling off her necklace and scratches on her wrist from the defendant pulling off her bracelets. She did not go to the hospital and testified that her neck was sore and her wrist felt a little sore and afterwards she had pain in her neck and wrist, although she did not specify when the pain began or as to its duration. The officer who responded to the scene testified that the complainant had a scratch on her neck. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of her physical condition … . Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree should be reduced to burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, respectively, which lesser crimes were proven at trial … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05782, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

,

THE FACT THAT PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED DID NOT PRECLUDE MOTHER’S GUARDIANSHIP PETITION OR FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petition to have the child’s mother appointed guardian and to make findings necessary for the child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) should have been granted:

The Family Court should not have dismissed the guardianship petition on the ground that paternity had not been established. A natural parent may be appointed guardian of his or her own child (see Family Ct Act § 661 [a] …), and the mere fact that paternity has not been established for the putative father does not preclude the guardianship petition or the issuance of an order making specific findings enabling the subject child to petition for SIJS … . …

Here, the subject child is under the age of 21 and unmarried, and since we have found that the mother should have been appointed as the subject child’s guardian, a finding also should have been made that the child is dependent on a juvenile court within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) …. Further, based upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the subject child with his father is not a viable option due to parental abandonment  …. Lastly, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the subject child to return to Guatemala … . Matter of Mardin A. M.-I. (Reyna E. M.-I.–Mardin H.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05754, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, , ,

THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a detailed, fact-specific opinion by Justice Scheinkman, criticized the piecemeal approach to the decisions made by Supreme Court in this divorce proceeding, which resulted in an inadequate record for the appellate court. The Second Department took it upon itself to resolve the factual issues which could be gleaned from the record. The factual discussion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. With respect to the piecemeal decision-making and the inadequate record on appeal the court wrote:

These appeals and cross appeal, as well as the two other appeals in the same case also decided today, are a graphic illustration of the prolixity that may ensue when a complicated matrimonial case is cabined into constituent parts which are heard and decided piecemeal by the Supreme Court. The court bifurcated the trial into phases but, in the end, only conducted one of the two promised phases of the trial. Because some of the issues did not lend themselves to a neat division, the issues, and the court’s seriatim determination of them, overlap. As a consequence of the incremental approach to the serial determination of the significant issues raised, which were followed by sequential appeals and cross appeals from the various orders and the final judgment, which appeals are prosecuted on voluminous appendices and supplemental appendices, this Court has not been provided with either a clear, comprehensible, and accessible record or a unified, comprehensive analysis by each party as to what determinations were made by the Supreme Court and which of those decisions each party accepts or challenges. Moreover, with respect to equitable distribution of the parties’ substantial investment assets, the judgment of divorce entered by the court merely incorporated by reference its prior decisions, without specifying what is actually ordered, adjudged, and decreed, except that it set forth certain deviations from those prior decisions. Since the decisions conflict with each other in important respects, it is unclear what the court actually directed as to the equitable distribution of major and valuable assets. Kaufman v Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05732, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have restricted the release of the names of complainants and their parents for their protection:

… [T]he application by the People pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) is granted to the extent that the order … is modified by directing that the disclosure of the names of complainants 1, 2, and 3 shall be delayed until the commencement of the trial and shall be provided to defense counsel only, and that the disclosure of the names of the parents of complainants 1, 2, and 3 shall be delayed until 15 days prior to the commencement of the trial and shall be provided to defense counsel only … . People v Harrigan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05612, Second Dept 10-8-20

 

DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “BAD FAITH” COMPLAINT–ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION STEMMING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT–SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer demonstrated it did not act in bad faith when it refused to settle a personal injury action. Plaintiff VanNostrand sued Froelich in an action stemming from a traffic accident and recovered a $300,000 verdict. Froelich’s insurer, defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, had refused to settle. Froelich assigned his rights in the policy to VanNostrand and they sued the insurer alleging a bad faith failure to settle. The Second Department held the insurer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

” … [A] bad-faith plaintiff must establish that the defendant insurer engaged in a pattern of behavior evincing a conscious or knowing indifference to the probability that an insured would be held personally accountable for a large judgment if a settlement offer within the policy limits were not accepted” … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment established … the defendant had a rational basis for concluding that a jury in the underlying action could find that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, which would preclude her from recovery in the underlying action (see Insurance Law § 5104[a]). Specifically, the defendant monitored the plaintiff’s claim in the underlying action and, among other things, retained expert physicians to examine the plaintiff and review the MRI films of her spine. One of the defendant’s experts concluded, inter alia, that the alleged disc herniation at L5-S1 did not involve any root impingement. As far as the alleged disc herniation at C3-C4 was concerned, the defendant’s expert found no herniation and, at most, a bulge. Moreover, it was undisputed that the plaintiff returned to work within one month of the accident and did not seek recovery for lost wages. It was further undisputed that as of November 2001, two years after the accident, and at the time of trial in April 2013, the plaintiff was not taking any medication or undergoing any further treatment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. VanNostrand v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendant should have been granted and explained the criteria:

CPLR 306-b provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action. . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.”

“The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute 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”… . CPLR 306-b “empowers a court faced with the dismissal of a viable claim to consider any factor relevant to the exercise of its discretion. No one factor is determinative—the calculus of the court’s decision is dependent on the competing interests of the litigants and a clearly expressed desire by the Legislature that the interests of justice be served” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, considering, inter alia, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff’s prompt request for the extension, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice to the defendant … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Viera, 2020 NY Slip Op 05549, Second Dept 10-7-2

 

,

A SINGLE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND CONVICTION FOUR YEARS BEFORE DID NOT SUPPORT A TEN POINT ASSESSMENT FOR UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT; RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the 10 point assessment for unsatisfactory conduct was not supported and reduced defendant’s risk level from two to one:

… [T]he record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13, for “unsatisfactory” conduct while confined, based upon his conviction of the class A misdemeanor of promoting prison contraband in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.20). This conviction constituted the sole act of misconduct while confined cited by the People, and it occurred approximately four years before the SORA hearing, prior to the defendant’s transfer to State prison. Since the defendant’s misconduct was neither recent nor repeated, the assessment of points for that misdemeanor was not supported by the record … . People v Hernandez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05540, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

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