You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence-based lawsuit against defendant residential nursing facility stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19 was precluded by the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082, repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1) (EDTPA). The repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive:

The EDTPA, as effective August 3, 2020, to April 5, 2021, provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of providing health care services,” if: (a) the health care facility “is providing health care services in accordance with applicable law, or where appropriate pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule”; (b) the act or omission occurs in the course of providing health care services and the treatment of the individual is impacted by the health care facility’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and (c) the health care facility “is providing health care services in good faith” (Public Health Law former § 3082[1][a]-[c]). …

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of immunity … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive … . Lara v S&J Operational, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02582, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Although the EDTPA has been repealed. the repeal is not applied retroactively. The COVID-19-related immunity conferred by the act precluded the lawsuit here.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL 15 TO 20 FEET SUFFERING A FRACTURED RIB AND A FRACTURED FEMUR WHICH REQUIRED AN OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURGERY; THE VERDICT AWARDING $1.5 MILLION FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING, $2.5 MILLION FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $800,000 FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict as excessive should not have been granted:

The plaintiff was injured when, while standing on a beam performing demolition work, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning duct fell and struck him, causing him to fall approximately 15 to 20 feet to the floor. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a fractured rib and a fractured femur that required open reduction internal fixation surgery. A metal rod and screws were inserted into the plaintiff’s left leg. The plaintiff later underwent a surgical procedure to remove one of the screws. Furthermore, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff developed problems with both of his knees and his spine, requiring arthroscopic surgery on each knee and a laminotomy. The plaintiff walks with a limp, has limited motion of the hip and knees, and has developed arthritis that will worsen over time. Since the accident, the plaintiff has experienced constant pain despite having been administered numerous injections, including trigger-point injections and transforaminal injections, and having been prescribed several medications, including opioids. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff will continue to experience pain and will require future medical treatment, including pain management and, likely, a spinal fusion.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of 35 years, and $800,000 for future medical expenses over a period of 35 years. Thereafter, the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant separately moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as excessive, the jury verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. In an order dated June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the separate motions to the extent of directing a new trial on those categories of damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the damages awards to the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. …

* * * … [C]onsidering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the damages awards for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, as awarded by the jury, were appropriate and did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation … . Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02564, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A jury’s damages award for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses should not be set aside unless the award is demonstrated to “deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation,” not the case here.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT, AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL, AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA; THE CHILDREN APPEALED; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED AND AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, IN PART BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AGES 12 AND 15 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an appeal by the children, reversing Family Court’s order issued after a nonjury trial, determined the record did not support the award of sole custody to plaintiff father who resides in Florida and who indicated during the proceedings he was not seeking residential custody of the children. The Second Department awarded sole custody to defendant mother:

“The court’s paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child” … . “In determining an initial petition for child custody, the totality of the circumstances, includes, but is not limited to, (1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent’s relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child’s overall well being, and foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child’s desires” … . “Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and therefore, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings in this regard” … . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Supreme Court’s determination to award sole legal and residential custody of the children to the plaintiff lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. The plaintiff, who resides in Florida, represented during the proceedings that he was not seeking residential custody of the children. Moreover, while strict application of the factors relevant to relocation petitions … is not required in the context of an initial custody determination, the record does not indicate the court fully considered the impact of moving the children away from the defendant, and the only home they have known, to live with the plaintiff in Florida … . In addition, under the circumstances presented, the court failed to give sufficient weight to the expressed preference of the children, who were 12 and 15 years old, respectively, as of the conclusion of the trial, to reside with the defendant … . Joseph P. A. v Martha A., 2025 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here the appellate court reversed Family Court which had awarded sole custody to father after a nonjury trial. It appears that the main basis for the reversal was Family Court’s failure to consider the wishes of the children who were 12 and 15. The children appealed Family Court’s order.

 

, ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER EITHER THE “GOOD CAUSE” OR “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” CRITERIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been granted more time to serve the summons and complaint under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, “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” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . Such a showing is not required to obtain an extension of time under the interest of justice standard, which is a broader standard intended to “‘accommodate late service that might be due to mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “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” … . In reaching its determination, “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” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause to extend the time to serve [defendant], as no evidence was offered that she attempted to serve him with reasonable diligence. Further, … the plaintiff failed to establish that an extension of time to serve … was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the eight-month delay in filing the affidavit of service, the delay in moving, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment … , and the four-month delay in moving to extend the time to serve … after the defendants had cross-moved … to dismiss the complaint … for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence in the record that [defendant] had notice of the action during the 120-day period after the commencement of the action … . Druss v Scher, 2025 NY Slip Op 02318, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Even though the statute of limitations had passed. plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence precluded an extension of time to serve the defendant, under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH EYE-PROTECTION EQUIPMENT WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his eye when a discharge hose disconnected from a sandblaster. Plaintiff alleged the violation of two Industrial Code provisions requiring that he be provided with protective equipment:

The plaintiff alleged … violations of (1) 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3), which provides that “[a]ll safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged,” and (2) 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a), which provides that “[a]pproved eye protection equipment suitable for the hazard involved shall be provided for and shall be used by all persons . . . while engaged in any . . . operation which may endanger the eyes.” * * *

“Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers” … .. “‘To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the injuries allegedly sustained were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case'” … ,. “An owner or contractor may be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6) even if it did not have control of the site or notice of the allegedly dangerous condition” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 241(6) by failing to provide adequate eye protection equipment and to ensure that the plaintiff used safety equipment while working at the job site in accordance with 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-1.8(a), and that those violations were a proximate cause of the accident … . Castellon v 38 E. 85th St., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02311, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Owners and contractors have a nondelegable duty to provide their workers with adequate safety equipment and can be held liable even if they did not have control of the work site or notice of the dangerous condition.

 

IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether assumption of the risk doctrine precluded plaintiff from recovery in this all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident case. There was a question whether the driver unreasonably increased the risk to plaintiff-passenger:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity ‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . Participants, however, are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of the motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether the manner in which the decedent was operating the ATV unreasonably enhanced the risk of injury and whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to this case … . Bulfamante v Bulfamante, 2025 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Here there was no question that the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to plaintiff-passenger injured in an all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) accident.

Practice Point: Although the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to the plaintiff-passenger in this ATV accident case, there was a question of fact whether the doctrine was precluded because the driver unreasonably increased the risk.

 

, ,

THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The bank’s argument that the the foreclosure complaint filed in 2013 did not accelerate the debt was rejected. The 2013 action was dismissed in 2018 because the bank did not comply with the notice of default requirement in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. That dismissal did not constitute an express judicial finding that the debt had not been validly accelerated when the 2013 complaint was filed:

Deutsche Bank’s argument that the complaint in the 2013 action did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt is precluded by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) … . FAPA amended CPLR 213(4) to provide that in an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, “a defendant shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the instrument has not expired because the instrument was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated” … . Here, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint in the 2013 action upon a determination that Deutsche Bank failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The mailing of a RPAPL 1304 notice, while a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, is not a precondition for acceleration of the debt … , and thus, the 2013 action was not dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated. Brennan v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 2025 NY Slip Op 02308, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure action is time-barred six years after the debt was accelerated by the filing of the complaint, unless there is an express judicial determination that the filing of the complaint did not accelerate the debt. A dismissal of the foreclosure action based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the RPAPL 1304 notice of default requirements is not an express judicial determination that the foreclosure complaint did not validly accelerate the debt. Therefore, in this case, the 2013 foreclosure action, which was dismissed in 2018 for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, is time-barred.

 

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL AS HE WALKED THROUGH A “ROOM,” NOT A “PASSAGEWAY;” THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING OBSTRUCTIONS IN A “PASSAGEWAY” SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action based on an Industrial Code regulation requiring passageways be kept free of obstructions did not apply to the room where plaintiff tripped and fell:

… [P]laintiff testified that while he was walking through a room, he slipped upon and became tangled in a portion of a plastic tarp that was covering a pool table that extended past the table onto the floor, causing him to fall. * * *

… [D]efendants established, prima facie, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), which requires owners and general contractors, among other things, to keep all passageways free of obstructions that could cause tripping, is inapplicable, because the site where the plaintiff allegedly fell was not a passageway … . Bittrolff v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02307, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: For purposes of Labor Law 241(6) which bases liability on a violation of the Industrial Code, an Industrial Code provision prohibiting obstructions and tripping hazards in a “passageway” does not apply to obstructions and tripping hazards in a “room.”​

 

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