You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH A DEFENSE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff stated a cause of action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract based on an alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the parties’ contract . The plaintiff alleged, in effect, that there was an implied understanding that the defendant would cooperate with the plaintiff’s efforts to legally change the usage of the rental space, which would require approval by the DOB, and, therefore, the defendant’s…  failure to cooperate in legalizing the premises constitutes a breach of contract.

“A party seeking dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that its defense is based on documentary evidence must submit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant either was not “documentary” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) or failed to conclusively establish a defense to the third cause of action as a matter of law … . Twinkle Play Corp. v Alimar Props., Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 04987, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE STATE WITH TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10(6) in this medical malpractice action should have been granted, primarily because the state had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim and was not prejudiced by the 14 week delay:

… [T]he claimants demonstrated that the State had timely notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries arising from the alleged malpractice, by virtue of the medical records from Southampton Hospital as well as the medical records from Stony Brook University Hospital (hereinafter University Hospital), also owned by the State, to which the claimants’ infant son was transferred and where he later died … . The medical records evidence the medical care received by the claimant and the infant. The records show that during the claimant’s labor, no sonogram of the fetus was taken to determine the fetus’ head size. The records also show that, after approximately nine hours of unsuccessful labor at Southampton Hospital, which included the administration of pitocin, a birth-facilitating drug, and an epidural, the claimant was counseled about using forceps to deliver the fetus. After the claimant agreed to try a forceps-assisted delivery and declined to consent to an episiotomy, the infant was delivered via forceps-assistance and was diagnosed immediately with a hemorrhage below his scalp as a result of “birth trauma.” Thereafter, the infant was transferred to University Hospital, where he died a week later. The autopsy report in University Hospital’s medical records indicates that the infant suffered, inter alia, an injury during the forceps-assisted delivery which separated the infant’s brain stem from his upper cervical spinal cord region, and the infant’s overly large head was noted to be a factor in this injury. Although the treating physician noted in his report—which was created after the delivery—that the claimant did not want a cesarean section, the claimant’s medical record contains a form signed by the claimant on admission consenting to a cesarean section. There is no documentation in the record to show that the claimant was advised that a cesarean section should be performed. In addition, the claimant’s medical records, postdelivery, demonstrate that she experienced perineal lacerations and vaginal tears, which were deep and penetrated the perirectal tissue, as a result of the delivery. Stirnweiss v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04986, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss claims that were not in the notice of claim was properly granted, and plaintiffs’ motions to amend the notice of claim and for leave to file a late notice of claim were properly denied. The Second Department noted that the loss of services claim should not have been dismissed (sua sponte) because that relief was not requested. The action alleged negligent supervision by the school. Plaintiff student was allegedly pushed into a wall during gym class by another student who had been bullying her for some time:

The plaintiffs’ new claims of other purported bullying incidents and Dupper’s [plaintiff-student’s father’s] claim that he suffered stress, anxiety, and depression as a result of the … incident constitute new theories of liability which were not included in the notice of claim and should be dismissed … . …

The plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the notice of claim add substantive new facts and new theories of liability not set forth in the original notice of claim and which are not permitted as late filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs’ failure to include a proposed notice of claim with their cross motion alone was a sufficient basis for denying that branch of the cross motion … . C.D. v Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 04916, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPEL A JUDGE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT TO CREATE AN APPEALABLE PAPER IS A MANDAMUS ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78; THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING PRECLUDED APPEAL IN THIS CASE; THE OPINION INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEALABLE PAPER ARE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE ON THE TOPIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence, determined the plaintiffs’ only option when the judge refused to sign the transcript of the oral decision (CPLR 2219) and, in the alternative, refused to sign the proposed order with notice of settlement (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]), was a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to sign. Without the judge’s signature, there was no appealable paper and plaintiffs could not appeal the decision disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 (mandamus) action had long passed, the plaintiffs could not bring the appeal. The opinion includes a clear and comprehensive explanation of what constitutes appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] which should be saved as a reference resource:

… [T]he Justice failed or refused to later sign the transcript of the proceedings, and therefore, the transcript never qualified as an order for purposes of its enforcement or for an appeal … . While the transcript bears the signature of the court reporter who certified its truth and accuracy, the court reporter’s certification does not substitute for the plain and separate obligation set forth in CPLR 2219(a) that a judge or justice sign his or her name or initials to the document (see CPLR 5512[a] …). The absence of the Justice’s signature on the transcript had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from directly appealing the adverse determination to the Appellate Division.

Likewise, the Justice failed or refused to sign the proposed order that was submitted to him, with a copy of the transcript and with notice of settlement. Such an order, if signed with or without modification of its proposed language, would have become an enforceable order and subject to appeal. Parties are entitled to orders that are both enforceable and appealable, and those fundamental rights should not be thwarted by any jurists’ unwitting failure to abide by the requirements of CPLR 2219(a) … . * * *

Absent a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs can receive no relief on this appeal. This Court cannot compel under the guise of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.48 relief that can only be properly accomplished by mandamus, which is now untimely. Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04913, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have dismissed defendants’ summary judgment motion in this car accident case because defendants apparently did not serve an order scheduling a conference on the plaintiffs. Apparently the defendants appeared at the conference but the plaintiffs did not:

22 NYCRR 202.27 governs what a court may do in the event that the plaintiff, the defendant, or both parties fail to appear at a scheduled calendar call or conference. Specifically, where the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not, the court may grant judgment by default or order an inquest … . Where the defendant appears but the plaintiff does not, the court may dismiss the action and order a severance of counterclaims or cross claims … . If no party appears, the court may make such order as appears just … .

Here, since the defendants apparently appeared at the conference … , but the plaintiffs did not appear, the sanction available to the Supreme Court was the dismissal of the action and the severance of any counterclaims or cross claims. Clearly, the denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion as a sanction for not serving the plaintiffs with a copy of the order … , was not a penalty authorized under the plain language of 22 NYCRR 202.27(b). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendants’ motion was fully submitted and ready to be decided several months prior to the court’s issuance of the … order scheduling a conference, the court should not have denied the motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 and should have decided the motion on its merits …  Indeed, even if neither party had appeared for the scheduled settlement conference, in which case the court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(c), was authorized to make “such order as appears just,” under the circumstances present here, it would have been an improvident exercise of discretion to sanction the defendants by denying their fully submitted summary judgment motion without regard to an evaluation of its merit … . Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04912, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK PROVED THE DE-ACCELERATION NOTICE WAS PROPERLY TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF, RENDERING THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in plaintiff’s action to discharge and cancel a mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4), determined defendant bank demonstrated that the de-acceleration notice were properly transmitted to plaintiff, rendering the defendant bank’s underlying foreclosure action timely:

Wells Fargo’s vice president of loan documentation averred that she was familiar with the mailing practices for such notices; that Wells Fargo followed its practices in this instance; that it was Wells Fargo’s practice to generate and mail such notices to borrowers on the date indicated on the notice; that Wells Fargo’s practice also included keeping a copy of any notice in the corresponding mortgage loan file as a record that the notice was mailed; that the de-acceleration notice was sent on March 11, 2015, by both certified mail and regular mail to the property address and the plaintiff’s address; and that a copy of the de-acceleration notice for each of the two addresses was in the plaintiff’s loan file in accordance with Wells Fargo’s mailing procedures. Contemporaneous business records were attached to the affidavit, showing that a de-acceleration letter was “mailed to property address on 31115.” Through the submission of that evidence, Wells Fargo established that de-acceleration letters were, in fact, sent by regular mail in compliance with the expressed terms of the mortgage … . The mailing procedures described in this case appear identical to those that this Court recognized as satisfactory in Pennymac Holdings, LLC v Lane (171 AD3d 774, 775). Indeed, it is difficult to identify what additional evidence could be expected or required for Wells Fargo to demonstrate that it had transmitted the de-acceleration notice to the proper addresses by regular mail on the date indicated. The de-acceleration notice dated March 11, 2015, was mailed within six years from the debt acceleration occurring upon the commencement of the first action on March 24, 2009. Wells Fargo, in moving for summary judgment, therefore met its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . Assyag v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 NY Slip Op 04908, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING IN BAD FAITH IN SEEKING THE TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s scheme to defraud conviction, determined defendant should not have been precluded from calling witnesses in good faith:

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 155.15(1) [i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith'” … . In this case, the defendant claimed that the money from the grant from OCFS [Office of Children & Family Service] was appropriated mistakenly but in good faith as reimbursement for expenses he personally paid for events occurring in 2008 and 2009, after the grant was awarded but in a time period not covered by the grant. The defendant intended to call as witnesses, a videographer who would attest to the fact that he “got paid” for services at a 2009 event, and others who would testify as to other expenses at that event. …

The record does not establish that the defendant was acting in bad faith in seeking to present the testimony of these witnesses at the trial. The proposed testimony did not deal with a collateral issue … , but, rather, went to the heart of the defendant’s claim of right defense. Thus, it was error for the Supreme Court to have prospectively precluded the defendant’s witnesses from testifying, and, under the facts of this case, that error cannot be deemed harmless. People v Wills, 2020 NY Slip Op 04976, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

THREE OF THE FOUR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE COUNTS WERE MULTIPLICITOUS EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVED DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192; THE DWI AND DWAI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined three counts of vehicular homicide were multiplicitous and the DWI and DWAI counts were inclusory concurrent counts of vehicular homicide second degree:

While the People contend that each count of vehicular manslaughter required them to prove additional facts that the others did not, in fact, the People were only required to prove that the defendant violated one subdivision of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 in order to prove his guilt under Penal Law § 125.12(1). The People’s election to proceed on a theory that the defendant had violated more than one such subdivision by presenting evidence of his multiple, distinct manners of intoxication was not necessary to establish his guilt … . Thus, a conviction on one count of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree would have been inconsistent with an acquittal on any other count charging the same offense predicated upon a different manner of intoxication … . Accordingly, we agree with the defendant that counts 5, 6, and 7 of the indictment were multiplicitous of count 4 … . Although the dismissal of the multiplicitous counts will not affect the duration of the defendant’s sentence of imprisonment, it is nevertheless appropriate to dismiss these counts in consideration of the stigma attached to the redundant convictions  … .

As the People concede, the defendant’s convictions of driving while intoxicated in violation of subdivisions (2) and (3) of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 and driving while ability impaired under subdivisions (4) and (4-a) of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 are inclusory concurrent counts of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree … . Accordingly, those convictions must also be reversed … . People v O’Brien 2020 NY Slip Op 04971, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB PRECLUDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from his being struck by an unsecured heating duct during demolition; and (2) defendants (appellants) were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action premised on plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat:

With respect to falling objects, liability is not limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured … . Rather, “a plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . “To succeed on a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated its duty and that the violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries” … . The burden then shifts to the defendant to raise a triable issue of fact … . A worker’s comparative negligence is not a defense to a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Rather, only where the worker’s own conduct is the sole proximate cause of the accident is recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) unavailable … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the owner and the general contractor by submitting evidence that while he was engaged in demolition work, he was injured when an unsecured HVAC duct fell and hit him, causing him to fall to the ground … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his injury” … . Here, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that this was not a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection did not play a role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck by the falling object. Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04906, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute because issue was never joined:

CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. ” A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met'” … . Here, none of the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met, the Supreme Court was without power to issue an order conditionally dismissing the action pursuant to that statute … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Singh, 2020 NY Slip Op 04957, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

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