You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT DRIVER ALLEGED PLAINTIFF DRIVER STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE LANE OF TRAFFIC FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER WAS SOLELY AT FAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this rear-end collision case were not entitled to summary judgment. Defendant raised a question of fact alleged plaintiff driver stopped suddenly in the middle lane of traffic for no apparent reason:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . Thus, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … .

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting an affidavit of the plaintiff driver, which demonstrated that the plaintiffs’ vehicle was stopped for a traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . However, an affidavit of the defendant driver … raised triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether the defendants had a nonnegligent explanation for their vehicle striking the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. According to the defendant driver, the plaintiff driver was solely at fault in causing the accident by making a sudden stop for no apparent reason in the middle of their lane of traffic on the highway … . Correa v Cannon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04157, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Unless the driver of the rear vehicle in a rear-end collision case raises a nonnegligent explanation for striking the car in front, summary judgment will be awarded to the front driver. Here the rear driver alleged the front driver stopped in the middle lane of traffic for no apparent reason. That allegation raised a question of fact whether the front driver was solely at fault.

 

,

ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD SAW OR HEARD THE INCIDENT AND NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (OF THE THEN UNBORN CHILD) FINDINGS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the findings that father neglected a child and derivatively neglected a child who was not yet born at the time of the incident. The findings were based on an incident in which father struck his girlfriend, who was pregnant, while a child, Jolie M., was in the house. However, the evidence did not demonstrate Jolie M. witnessed or heard the incident:

The testimony of the father’s girlfriend and an ACS child protective specialist established that the father struck his girlfriend in the mouth while Jolie M. was in her nearby bedroom down the hallway. However, the testimony also indicated that Jolie M. did not see the incident or any resulting injuries, did not hear the father’s girlfriend’s plea for the father to stop hitting her, and was otherwise unaware that a domestic violence incident, as opposed to a mere verbal argument, was occurring … . Moreover, no evidence was offered to suggest that Jolie M. was frightened or upset by the incident, and the testimony established that, when recounting the events in a subsequent interview, the child presented a calm demeanor, interacted normally and comfortably with the father, and reportedly felt safe with the father … . In the absence of evidence that Jolie M.’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in danger of becoming impaired by the father’s acts of violence against his girlfriend, the court’s finding that the father neglected that child is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … .

Consequently, the Family Court’s further finding that the father derivatively neglected Jose M. based on the same domestic violence incident was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . Matter of Jose M. (Jose M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04094, Second Dept 7-9-25

Practice Point: To prove neglect based upon domestic violence there must be proof the child saw or heard the incident and was upset by it.

 

,

TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, A DEFENDANT MUST PROVE WHEN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant hospital did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the water on the floor in front of the elevator. To warrant summary judgment the defendant must show that the area of the slip and fall was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Evidence of general cleaning practices is not enough:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s security manager and of another employee of the defendant merely referred to the general cleaning and inspection practices at the hospital. The defendant did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Delfino v Montefiore Nyack Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04082, Second Dept 7-9-25

Same issue and result in Freeman v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip op 04086, 7-9-25 Second Dept

Practice Point: A defendant seeking to prove it did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused a slip and fall must prove the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices will not suffice.

 

, ,

THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BEFORE FILING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner foster-care-agency in this termination of parental rights proceeding did not demonstrate it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship before filing the petition:

When a foster care agency brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, it must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship” ( … see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). “Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for parental access, providing assistance to the parents to resolve the problems preventing the child’s discharge, and advising the parents of the child’s progress and development” … . “An agency must always determine the particular problems facing a parent with respect to the return of his or her child and make affirmative, repeated, and meaningful efforts to assist the parent in overcoming these handicaps” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f]). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing failed to establish that the petitioner assisted the single, working mother with obtaining childcare services, followed up with her therapy progress for six months, or built a rapport with her in order to engage in cooperative dialogue…. . Matter of Syiah C.M. (Shatasia C.M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04095, Second Dept 7-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what a foster care agency must try to do to strengthen the parent-child relationship before filing a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

 

,

AN UNSECURED LADDER THAT SLIPS OUT FROM UNDER THE PLAINTIFF WARRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case should have been granted. The ladder was not secured and slipped out from under the plaintiff, who fell 10 to 12 feet:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Whether a device provides proper protection is a question of fact, except when the device collapses, moves, falls, or otherwise fails to support the plaintiff and his or her materials” … . “Specifically, with respect to accidents involving ladders, liability will be imposed when the evidence shows that the subject ladder was . . . inadequately secured and that . . . the failure to secure the ladder[ ] was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendant. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of a witness to his accident which showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder slipped out from under the plaintiff as he descended from the roof, that the ladder fell away from the wall, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts were the sole cause of the accident … . Ruiz v Ewan, 2025 NY Slip Op 04032, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Here evidence the ladder was tethered to the house after the accident did not raise a question of fact about whether the ladder was unsecured when it slipped out from under plaintiff.

 

, , ,

CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proper procedure was not followed to substitute the executor of defendant’s estate for defendant. Therefore Supreme Court lacked any jurisdiction over the matter and did not have the power to grant defense counsel’s motion to substitute the executor:

… [T]he former counsel for the defendant purportedly moved on the defendant’s behalf, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126. … Supreme Court, sua sponte, substituted Jared Pierre, as executor of the defendant’s estate, for the defendant nunc pro tunc and granted the motion purportedly made on the defendant’s behalf. The plaintiff appeals.

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . “[A]ny determination rendered without such a substitution is generally deemed a nullity” … . Further, “[t]he death of a party terminates the authority of the attorney for that person to act on his or her behalf” … .

“CPLR 1021 defines the procedural mechanisms for seeking a substitution of successor or representative parties, and for the dismissal of actions where substitutions are not timely sought” … . “A motion for substitution pursuant to CPLR 1021 is the method by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the deceased party’s personal representative, and such a motion is not a mere technicality” … . Pierre v King, 2025 NY Slip Op 04028, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction over the matter. The procedure for substitution of a representative is explained in CPLR 1021 and must be followed.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION OF A MENTALLY ILL PATIENT REQUIRES CERTIFICATION BY LICENSED PHYSICIANS, A NURSE PRACTITIONER IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE SUBSEQUENT RETENTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, determined that, at a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene law sections 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner can rely on the testimony of a nurse practitioner. The controlling statute does not require the testimony of a licensed physician:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 et seq. establishes the procedure for the involuntary admission and retention of patients alleged to be mentally ill in a hospital. Pursuant to that section, a patient may be initially involuntarily admitted to a hospital upon the certification of two examining physicians, which must then be confirmed by a third physician who is a member of the psychiatric staff of that hospital … . A question of first impression before this Court on this appeal is whether, at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner must furnish the testimony of a licensed physician rather than a nurse practitioner. * * *

There is no support in the statute or any related regulations for the proposition that the petitioner must establish its prima facie burden through physician testimony. Moreover, it reasonably can be argued that requiring the testimony of a physician, who may have comparably less knowledge of a specific patient’s mental condition compared to an experienced nurse practitioner who interacts extensively with that patient, would be a disservice to the court and the parties. The court, hearing the testimony and evidence in its totality, is in the best position to determine the value and credibility of a witness in determining these matters. Accordingly, we conclude that a nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31(c) and 9.33(c). Matter of Raymond E., 2025 NY Slip Op 04006, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: A nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a retention hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law section 9.31 and 9.33.

 

, ,

BY SUBMITTING A CLAIM TO THE “SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND” (VCF), PLAINTIFF, WHO ALLEGED HIS PROSTATE CANCER WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS PHYSICIAN FOR AN ALLEGED DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PROSTATE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the plaintiff’s submission of a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) precluded his medical malpractice action. Plaintiff submitted the claim to VCF alleging his prostate cancer was related to his work at the World Trade Center after September 11th. Years later, in 2021, plaintiff sued his physician alleging a delay in diagnosing and treating the prostate cancer. Apparently the VCF claim was made close in time to the filing of the lawsuit. By filing the VCF claim, plaintiff waived the right to bring a civil lawsuit based on the prostate cancer:

“… [T]he Air Stabilization Act * * * created the [VCF]  . . . to provide no-fault compensation to victims who were injured in the attacks and to personal representatives of victims killed in the attacks … ; and provided an election of remedies —all claimants who filed with the [VCF] waived the right to sue for injuries resulting from the attacks except for collateral benefits” … .

The Air Stabilization Act was amended by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act … . * * *  The waiver provision now provides:

“Upon the submission of a claim under this title, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or for damages arising from or related to debris removal. Brennan v MacDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 03994, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Submitting a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) waives the right to bring a civil suit based on the subject of the claim. Here plaintiff alleged his prostate cancer was related to work at the World Trade Center. Because he submitted a VCF claim for the prostate cancer, he cannot sue his physician for medical malpractice alleging a delay in diagnosis and treatment.

 

, ,

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 7003(1), which requires a judge to forfeit $1000 when a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief is improperly denied, is unconstitutional. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine:

… [W]hile CPLR 7003(c) is not a direct diminution of judicial compensation, the language of that provision explicitly “targets judges for disadvantageous treatment,” as it provides that a $1,000 forfeiture be paid personally by a judge who does not issue a writ of habeas corpus where one should have been issued … . CPLR 7003(c) is, thus, an indirect diminution of the salary of judges within the meaning of the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that “[b]y its nature, CPLR 7003(c) singles out judges for financially adverse treatment because of their exercise of their judicial functions and does so in a manner that discriminates based on how they decide an application for a writ. To impose a forfeiture on a judge based on which way they decide an application undermines the core objective of the [C]ompensation [C]lause of protecting judicial independence.” * * *

By imposing a penalty on a judge who refuses a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus [*14]relief where such relief should have been issued, the Legislature, through CPLR 7003(c), is interfering with judicial functions by incentivizing one specific outcome, namely, issuance of the writ, because a judge only faces a penalty if he or she refuses to issue a writ. Such influence is impermissible, as “‘the mere existence of the power to interfere with or to influence the exercise of judicial functions contravenes the fundamental principles of separation of powers embodied in our State constitution and cannot be sustained'” … . Poltorak v Clarke, 2025 NY Slip Op 04496, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: CPLR 7003(1) requires a judge to forfeit $1000 for an improper denial of habeas corpus relief. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine.

 

,

FAILURE TO REJECT A LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVES LATE SERVICE AND THE DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff waived any objection to late service of the answer by not rejecting it within 15 days:

Pursuant to CPLR 2101(f), “[t]he party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections” … . Here, the plaintiff’s undisputed failure to reject [the] answer within the 15-day statutory time frame constituted a waiver of the late service and the default … . Moreover, the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against [defendants] … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have rejected the answer … .Globalized Realty Group, LLC v Crossroad Realty NY, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: Failure to reject a late answer following the procedure in CPLR 2101(1) waives late service and the default.

 

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