You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court’s handling of jury notes constituted reversible error:

… [I]n a note marked as court exhibit 8, the jury posited a question about the elements of resisting arrest. When reading that note into the record, the Supreme Court substituted the word “initially” in place of the word “intentionally,” forming a substantively different question than that posed by the jury. The court again substituted the word “initially” in place of the word “intentionally” when it read the note aloud later in the proceedings. Since there is no indication in the record that court exhibit 8 was shown to the parties, the court’s erroneous use of a substantively different word than that used by the jury when it read the note into the record, and its repetition of that same error later in the proceedings, constituted mode of proceedings errors. In addition, although the jury submitted to the court a note marked as court exhibit 10 to clarify which portions of the testimony of certain witnesses the jury wished to have read back, the court did not read court exhibit 10 into the record at any point, and the record does not show that the court ever informed the parties that this note had been received. As a result of the errors regarding these jury notes, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest … . People v Petrizzo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03251, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ALLOWED THE SELLER TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT IF SELLER COULD NOT CONVEY TITLE, THAT PROVISION REQUIRES THE SELLER TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SELLER FALSELY CLAIMED TO BE THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IN FACT SHE OWNED 50%; THE SELLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Although the contract allowed the seller to refund the down payment and cancel the contract if the seller is unable to convey title, the seller must do so only in good faith and only if the buyers reject the defective title. Here the complaint alleged the seller fraudulently claimed she was the sole owner of the property, when in fact she owned only 50%:

“Where, as here, a contract for the sale of real property provides that in the event the seller is unable to convey title in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may refund the buyer’s down payment and cancel the contract without incurring further liability, that limitation contemplates the existence of a situation beyond the parties’ control and implicitly requires the seller to act in good faith'” … . Contrary to the Surrogate’s Court’s determination, the … complaint set forth cognizable causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, among other things, upon allegations that the seller wilfully failed to supply good and marketable title and rescinded the contract of sale even though the buyer and the appellants did not reject the defective title … . Matter of Valderrama, 2020 NY Slip Op 03236, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A FATHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND OR PETITIONER’S ACQUIESCENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S PETITION FOR A DECLARATION OF PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been invoked to dismiss the petition for a declaration petitioner is the father of a child born in 2016. Mother did not deny petitioner was the father but claimed the child had developed a father-child relationship with her husband, Joseph T. The Second Department held that the evidence did not demonstrate a father-child relationship with Joseph T and did not demonstrate petitioner acquiesced in the creation of a father-child relationship with Joseph T:

The doctrine of equitable estoppel may “preclude a man who claims to be a child’s biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man” … . ” The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … , and has been applied “[i]n situations where an individual has assumed the role of a father and where the petitioner putative father has neglected to assume such a role” … . …

We agree with the petitioner that the respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an operative parent-child relationship between the child and Joseph T. The only evidence of such a relationship came from the child’s foster mother, with whom he has lived since he was one year old. The foster mother testified that the child called Joseph T. “daddy” during weekly supervised visits, and that they were affectionate with each other at the visits … . … Joseph T. never appeared in court on the petition and did not testify at the hearing. Further, we disagree with the Family Court that the petitioner acquiesced in the establishment of a relationship between the child and Joseph T. The petitioner testified at the hearing that, until the child was removed from the mother’s care, he did not know she married to Joseph T. Matter of Luis V. v Laisha P. T., 2020 NY Slip Op 03235, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

, ,

THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s assault and reckless endangerment convictions, over a dissent, determined the depraved-indifference element of the charges was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s 20-month-old foster child had second and third degree burns on his legs. Mother consistently explained she heard screaming coming from the bathroom where she saw the child trying to get out of the tub and the child’s three-year-old sister standing outside the tub as the tub was filling up with hot water. The People tried to prove, through an expert (Yurt), that the child had been held in hot water. But there were inconsistencies in the expert’s testimony. Defendant explained that she was afraid to take the child to the hospital and instead tried to treat the burns after talking to a pharmacist and going on line:

The inconsistencies in Yurt’s [the People’s expert’s] testimony undermined the People’s already tenuous theory that the defendant affirmatively caused the burns. …

Accordingly, to establish the “depraved indifference” element of the subject offenses, we are left with the defendant’s failure to obtain proper medical care for the child. This case is thus squarely controlled by Lewie and Matos. As in those cases, while the evidence in this case shows that the defendant “cared much too little about [the] child’s safety, it cannot support a finding that she did not care at all” (People v Lewie, 17 NY3d at 359; see People v Matos, 19 NY3d at 476). Like the defendant in Matos, the defendant in the present case took measures, “albeit woefully inadequate” ones, to care for the child, by inquiring about proper burn care at a pharmacy, purchasing ointments and bandages, and keeping the burns covered. Those measures are commensurate with the measures taken by the defendant in Matos who reacted to a beating that caused her child severe internal bleeding and multiple broken bones by making a homemade splint for her son’s leg and giving him ibuprofen (see id. at 476). People v Verneus, 2020 NY Slip Op 03256, Second Dept 6-10-2o

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION, BROUGHT AFTER CONVICTION BY A JURY, WAS UNTIMELY AND NOT WARRANTED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an appeal by the People, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal mischief count in the interest of justice, after conviction by a jury, should not have been granted. The motion was untimely and not warranted on the merits:

The People argue on appeal, as they did in opposition to the defendant’s motion, that the motion was untimely and therefore should have been denied on that basis. We agree. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied the branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPL 210.40(1), as he failed to show good cause for seeking that relief more than 45 days after his arraignment … .

In any event, we are not persuaded that the interest of justice was served by the dismissal of the criminal mischief in the third degree count of the indictment in this case. “The power to dismiss an indictment in furtherance of justice is to be exercised sparingly, in those cases where there is some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment . . . would constitute or result in injustice'” … . In this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in substituting its own judgment concerning the credibility of the trial witnesses and the culpability of the defendant for that of the jury … . Additionally, “[t]here is nothing in the record before us that marks the prosecution of this defendant as extraordinary or one which cries out for justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations” … . Accordingly, we reinstate the count of criminal mischief in the third degree, and remit the matter for sentencing. People v Pfail, 2020 NY Slip Op 03252, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE SCOPE OF THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BY NOT CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REMAIN APPEALABLE DESPITE THE WAIVER; WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court mischaracterized the scope of the waiver of appeal rendering the waiver invalid:

… [T]he court mischaracterized the effect of the waiver on the defendant’s right to appeal. In this regard, the court, after describing the function of an appellate court, concluded its explanation of the waiver by stating: “What all this means, though, is that this plea and the sentence I am going to impose are final and that higher court will not have a chance to review it.”

“The improper description of the scope of the appellate rights relinquished by the waiver is refuted by . . . precedent, whereby a defendant retains the right to appellate review of very selective fundamental issues, including the voluntariness of the plea and appeal waiver, legality of the sentence and the jurisdiction of the court” … . Accordingly, it was incorrect for the Supreme Court to convey to the defendant that an appellate court would have no authority to review the plea or the sentence under any circumstances.

Furthermore, the record in this case does not include any “clarifying language” indicating that “appellate review remained available for certain issues” or that “the right to take an appeal was retained” … . Although the People cite to a written waiver that was apparently signed by the defendant, the Supreme Court “failed to confirm that [the defendant] understood the contents of the written waiver[ ]” … . In any event, the written waiver does not indicate that appellate review remained for certain limited issues, but rather, merely stated that “[the] sentence and conviction will be final” … . People v Christopher B., 2020 NY Slip Op 03242, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LEASE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE AREA AND NO STATUTORY VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff allegedly slipped on ice which formed from a leak in a pipe in a walk-in freezer. The lease did not require the landlord to maintain the freezer. No statutory violation was alleged:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the plaintiff does not allege the violation of a statute, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly dangerous condition … . The lease in this case specified that the “Landlord’s Obligations do not include the performance nor the payment of the costs for . . . the maintenance, repair and/or replacement of Freezer System or the replacement of the Refrigeration System at any time.” Mallet v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03220, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not prove compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303:

“Proper service of the notice required by RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and it is the plaintiff’s burden to show compliance with that statute” … .

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the process server’s affidavit indicating that a notice was served with the summons and complaint. However, the plaintiff did not submit a copy of the RPAPL 1303 notice allegedly served, and the process server made no averments that the notice served complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1303 concerning content and form. The plaintiff, therefore, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1303 … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Hart, 2020 NY Slip Op 03217, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; SANCTIONS FOR THE LOSS OF THE LIGHT FIXTURE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE BENT PIPE TO WHICH THE FIXTURE WAS ATTACHED WAS PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff was injured when a light fixture fell on him. The pipe to which the fixture was attached was bent and was preserved by the defendant. The light fixture, which was same as several others at the site, was not preserved. Because contractors were working at the site, and the pipe securing the light fixture was bent. it could not be said defendant exercised exclusive control over the fixture. The Second Department went on to find that sanctions for the loss of the light fixture were not warranted because the bent pipe was saved and the light fixture itself was not crucial evidence:

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine which is submitted to the finder of fact when the accident arises out of an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and it was not due to a voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . The Court of Appeals has held that “only in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment or a directed verdict. That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Cantey v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03213, Second dept 6-10-20

 

, , ,

THE HOLDER OF A DEED INTENDED AS SECURITY IN THE NATURE OF A MORTGAGE MUST PROCEED BY FORECLOSURE TO EXTINGUISH THE MORTGAGOR’S INTEREST; HERE THE SUBSEQUENT GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE MORTGAGEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF THEIR DEED AND A DECLARATION THEIR DEED WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a deed which facially appears to evidence an absolute conveyance was actually intended as security in the nature of a mortgage. The holder of such a deed (here American Lending) must proceed by foreclosure to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest. The subsequent purchasers of the property (the Romond defendants) were good faith purchasers. Therefore the Romond defendants were entitled to dismissal of American Lending’s complaint seeking rescission of the Romond deed and a declaration the deed was null and void:

In 2009, the defendant Dana Grigg sought to purchase certain property … . When financing for the transaction fell through, Grigg entered into an … agreement with the plaintiff, American Lending Corp. … to borrow … $385,000. The terms of the loan, which were memorialized in a note, included a provision that after 90 days, if the loan had not been repaid in full, American Lending would be authorized to file a joint deed in the property records and to “seek a Summary Judgment instead of following a regular foreclosure proceedings [sic].” In June 2009, Grigg purchased the subject property and executed … a deed from himself to himself and American Lending (… the joint deed). Grigg subsequently defaulted under the terms of the loan. * * *

Real Property Law § 320 provides, in pertinent part, that a “deed conveying real property, which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage” … .  … “The holder of a deed given as security must proceed in the same manner as any other mortgagee—by foreclosure and sale—to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest” … .

… [T]he Romond defendants established … that the joint deed was given as security for the loan from American Lending to Grigg. Therefore, pursuant to Real Property Law § 320, the joint deed must be considered a mortgage, and American Lending’s sole remedy for Grigg’s breach of its terms was to commence an action sounding in foreclosure. Moreover, under the circumstances at bar, the Romond defendants established that they were good faith purchasers of the subject property (see Real Property Law § 290 …). American Lending Corp. v Grigg, 2020 NY Slip Op 03211, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

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