You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

NEW THEORY PRESENTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s lack-of-informed-consent cause of action in this medical malpractice case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff had alleged a new theory in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment which should not have been considered because the theory was not discernable from the pleadings:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against him. The defendant made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against him through the affidavit of his expert, the deposition testimony, and the written consent form signed by the plaintiff, which demonstrated that the defendant disclosed to the plaintiff the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure … .

In opposition, the plaintiff alleged, for the first time, a new theory that the procedure performed by the defendant exceeded the scope of her consent in specific respects, a theory that was not referred to when the plaintiff’s counsel questioned the defendant at his deposition. The general rule is that ” [a] plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars'” … . If the theory is discernable from the pleadings, it may be considered … , especially if the theory is referred to in the depositions … . In this case, the assertion of the new theory was not discernable from the pleadings, nor alluded to by the plaintiff’s counsel when deposing the defendant … . Therefore, that theory should not have been considered. Larcy v Kamler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03652, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

,

THE PROMISSORY NOTE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (CPLR 3213) based upon a promissory note should not have been granted. The note was not demonstrated to be an instrument for the payment of money only:

Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a plaintiff demonstrates its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to a promissory note if it shows “the existence of a promissory note, executed by the defendant, containing an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to repay, and the failure by the defendant to pay in accordance with the note’s terms” … . “Where the instrument requires something in addition to defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable” … . Once the plaintiff has established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, “the burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject promissory note was an instrument for the payment of money only … . In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted the promissory note, which refers to the asset sale/purchase agreement and provides the defendants with “an absolute right of set-off against the entire unpaid principal balance of [the] Note based upon any and all provisions of the Asset Sale/Purchase Agreement.” Under the circumstances, “outside proof” was required, “other than simple proof of nonpayment,” to establish the plaintiffs’ prima facie case … . Express Valentine Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v New York Taxi 2, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03644, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE/BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this architectural malpractice/breach of contract action. Defendant’s decedent was hired by plaintiff to construct a four-story condominium. Although the work was completed in 2008 there were problems getting approval by the city and new architectural services contracts were entered in 2015 and 2018. The court noted that, where a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is made on statute-of-limitations grounds, a plaintiff may remedy any defects in the pleadings in an affidavit:

“[A]n action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort” is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[6] … ). Such an action, founded upon “defective design or construction accrues upon the actual completion of the work to be performed and the consequent termination of the professional relationship” … . However, “a professional malpractice cause of action asserted against an architect or engineer may be tolled under the continuous representation’ doctrine if the plaintiff shows its reliance upon a continued course of services related to the original professional services provided” … . * * *

Even if the defendant had met her prima facie burden, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation toll applied. Specifically, the plaintiff averred in an affidavit in opposition to the motion that [defendant’s decedent] continued to work on the project from 2008 through the time that the parties entered into the 2015 agreement, including by continuing to revise the plans so as to subdivide the property, regularly meeting with the plaintiff, renewing building permits with the plaintiff, meeting with a “commissioner” at the DOB [NYC Department of Buildings] to discuss revised plans, and filing an application concerning the project with the DOB in 2014. Anderson v Pinn, 2020 NY Slip Op 03636, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

, ,

MOTHER CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR INJURY IN UTERO WHERE, AS HERE, THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff-mother’s action for damages for emotional harm stemming from the birth of her child was properly dismissed. A mother cannot recover for emotional distress for injury in utero if the child is born alive:

A mother cannot recover damages for emotional harm where the alleged malpractice causes in utero injury to a fetus that is born alive … . New York State Public Health Law defines a “live birth” as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother or a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart”  … . According to the defendants’ submissions, the plaintiff’s infant was born with a spontaneous heartbeat of less than 60 beats per minute and was given an Apgar score of “1” at 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes after delivery based on a heartbeat of less than 100 beats per minute. The hospital records submitted with the defendants’ motions show that respiratory effort was absent, the infant’s muscle tone was flaccid, her color was “blue/pale,” and there were no reflex responses. The records also show that resuscitative efforts were initiated, but the infant’s heart rate remained at less than 60 beats per minute with no respiratory effort, and the infant died in the delivery room that same day, less than 20 minutes after she was born. …

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a medical expert in pediatric neurology who conceded that the infant was born with a heartbeat and who never opined that the infant was stillborn. Although the plaintiff’s expert attested that the infant did not show signs of brain activity, was never conscious, was not viable, and was “clinically and legally dead at the time of delivery,” the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the infant was stillborn … . Inasmuch as the plaintiff contends that she should be able to recover for emotional injuries because a wrongful death cause of action on behalf of the infant would not have a viable accompanying cause of action for conscious pain and suffering since the records show that the infant was never conscious, “we conclude that this is an inherent aspect of wrongful death actions rather than a specific problem with prenatal medical malpractice actions” … . Waring v Matalon, 2020 NY Slip Op 03686, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss this personal injury case on the ground of forum non conveniens grounds (CPLR 327) should have been granted:

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 327 to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate the relevant private or public interest factors that militate against a New York court’s acceptance of the litigation. “Among the factors the court must weigh are the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the actionable events, and the burden which will be imposed upon the New York courts, with no one single factor controlling” … . …

… New York courts need not entertain causes of action lacking a substantial nexus with New York … . In this case, the accident occurred in New Jersey, the decedent was a resident of New Jersey and, as a result of the accident, received medical treatment in New Jersey before her death; the plaintiff is a resident of Georgia, and none of the potential witnesses are believed to be residents of New York. Although the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a statutory resident of New York … , and the defendant Champlain Enterprises, Inc., is a New York corporation, when taking into consideration all of the relevant factors , we find that the defendants established that New York is an inconvenient forum in which to prosecute this action … .

However, in order to assure the availability of a forum for the action, our reversal and granting of the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 327 is conditioned on the defendants stipulating to waive jurisdictional and statute of limitations defenses as indicated herein\ … . Sikinyi v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03683, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted in this action against NYC Health & Hospitals Corp (HHP) alleging a failure to timely diagnose breast cancer. The medical records did not alert HHP to injury from malpractice and petitioner failed to show the HHP was not prejudiced by the delay in serving a notice of claim:

Petitioner failed to show that HHC had actual notice of her claim within 90 days of accrual of the claim, or a reasonable time thereafter. HHC’s “mere possession or creation of medical records does not ipso facto establish that it had actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on plaintiff'” … . Here, HHC records of petitioner’s treatment do not on their face show any negligence, malpractice or injury to plaintiff, and plaintiff did not submit a physician’s affirmation to make such a showing … .

Likewise, petitioner failed to demonstrate the lack of any prejudice to HHC from the delay, as HHC’s “possession of medical records that could not alert it to a claim of malpractice obviously cannot, ipso facto, establish a lack of prejudice” … . Because petitioner offered no other basis for the lack of prejudice to HHC, the burden never shifted to HHC to show prejudice from the delay … . Matter of Atkinson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03609, First Dept 6-25-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the disclosure of tax returns is disfavored, but agreed with Supreme Court that disclosure of the redacted returns in this Labor-Law/employment-law dispute was warranted:

Plaintiffs claim that between 2010 and 2016 defendant employed them as a caretaker for her ailing aunt and that defendant violated, inter alia, several sections of the Department of Labor Regulations (12 NYCRR) requiring overtime pay, a minimum wage, and additional pay for split shifts. Defendant denies that she was plaintiffs’ employer for purposes of the regulations and provisions of the Labor Law, but admits that she paid plaintiffs by check from 2014 to 2016, albeit on her aunt’s behalf. Plaintiffs claim they were paid in cash by defendant between 2010 and 2013. Defendant, who denies that she was the source of the cash payments, seeks plaintiffs’ federal and state tax returns for 2010 to 2013, claiming she needs the returns to verify the cash amounts, as well as plaintiffs’ assertion that they were employees, and not independent contractors.

… [D]efendant demonstrated both that the specific information ordered disclosed was necessary to defend the action, and unavailable from other sources … . Since plaintiffs were paid in cash between 2010 and 2013 and there is no other evidence in the record establishing who paid their wages and how much they were paid during those years, defendant showed a specific need for the production of the three years of tax returns, which might show the amounts claimed by plaintiffs as income from the caretaker work, as well as whether they claimed the income as wages or as money earned through self-employment. Defendant demonstrated that investigating plaintiffs’ bank accounts would be inconclusive, since pay deposited in the accounts could have been commingled with other amounts, and because one of the plaintiffs claimed that she used several banking institutions and did not make deposits on a predictable basis. We note that the court already inspected the tax returns in camera and deemed them relevant. Currid v Valea, 2020 NY Slip Op 03590, First Dept 6-25-20

 

, ,

THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL; DESPITE THE AFFIRMANCE OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION ON APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE THE APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his depraved-indifference murder conviction should have been granted. The Court of Appeals opinion which changed the proof requirements for the depraved indifference mens rea was issued before defendant’s conviction became final. The proof at defendant’s trial demonstrated defendant acted intentionally as opposed acting with “depraved indifference:”

… [T]he defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate so much of the judgment as convicted him of depraved indifference murder, arguing that, in light of People v Payne (3 NY3d 266), which was decided 15 days after this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on his direct appeal but before his conviction became final (see Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 593), the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea for depraved indifference murder. The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, as both procedurally barred by CPL 440.10(2)(a) and meritless. The court reasoned that the defendant’s legal sufficiency argument based on the change of law set forth in People v Payne had been addressed and rejected by this Court in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to reargue his direct appeal, by the Court of Appeals in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, and by the federal court in denying the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. With respect to the merits of the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of depraved indifference murder (see People v Payne, 3 NY3d at 272; People v Hernandez, 167 AD3d at 940). People v Illis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03535, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

DEFENSE ‘FALSE CONFESSION’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, CONVICTION REVERSED; RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES NOT VIOLATED BY STATEMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTERROGATION THAT NONTESTIFYING WITNESSES HAD IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the defense “false confession” expert should have been allowed to testify. The defendant was 15 when arrested. He maintained his innocence for two hours and 45 minutes of interrogation before confessing. The Second Department rejected defendant’s argument that he was denied his right to confront witnesses by statements in the video interrogation that nontestifying witnesses had implicated the defendant:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his right to confrontation was not violated when the Supreme Court allowed into evidence portions of his videotaped statement to law enforcement officials that contained statements that nontestifying witnesses had implicated him in the crime. The statements were not received for their truth, but to explain the defendant’s reaction to hearing them … . Further, the court properly instructed the jury that it was not to consider any of the statements as evidence against the defendant, and the jury is presumed to have followed this admonition … . * * *

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to permit testimony from his expert witness on the issue of false confessions. We have previously determined that “it cannot be said that psychological studies bearing on the reliability of a confession are, as a general matter, within the ken of the typical juror'” … . Thus, here, the court should not have precluded the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness on this ground.

Further, “[w]ith regard to expert testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions, in order to be admissible, the expert’s proffer must be relevant to the [particular] defendant and interrogation before the court'” … . Here, the report of the defendant’s expert was sufficiently detailed so that it was relevant to this particular defendant, including discussing characteristics that heightened his vulnerability to manipulation, and the interrogation conducted by the detectives, such as the techniques that were utilized and the improper participation of the defendant’s mother during the interview. People v Churaman, 2020 NY Slip Op 03526, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DEFECT IN THIS SIDEWALK/TREE-WELL SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk/tree-well slip and fall case should not have been granted. The Village demonstrated it did not have the required written notice of the defect, but did not demonstrate it did not create the defect:

” A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies'” … . “Two exceptions to the prior written notice requirement have been recognized, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a special use confers a special benefit upon the locality” … .

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged in her complaint and bill of particulars that the Village affirmatively created the defect that caused the accident. Therefore, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Village had to demonstrate both that it did not have prior written notice of the defect and that it did not create the defect … . The Village established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, but it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not affirmatively create the alleged defect … . Nigro v Village of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03518, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

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