You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

IT IS PROPER TO MAKE PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING A COMPONENT OF A PARENTAL ACCESS ORDER, BUT IT IS IMPROPER TO CONDITION A FUTURE APPLICATION FOR PARENTAL ACCESS ON PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that the judge should not have conditioned any future application for parental access on father’s participation in counseling. It is proper to direct a party to participate in counseling as a component of a parental access order, but it is improper to make participation in counseling a prerequisite for a future parental access application:

“A court deciding a custody proceeding may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] or custody order” … . “However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights” … , and/or “successfully complete treatment or therapy as a condition to any future application” … . While it was acceptable to direct the father to participate in therapeutic services, so much of the order appealed from as, in effect, conditioned any future expansion of the father’s parental access with the children upon his participation in therapeutic services, leading to his understanding of the reasons for neglect findings entered against him … , and progress in his therapeutic visitation with the children, was improper … . Accordingly, we modify the order so as to eliminate those conditions. Matter of Badalyan v Antaplian, 2025 NY Slip Op 02769, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: This is a common appellate issue in Family Law. Counseling is an appropriate component of a parental access order, but future applications for parental access can not be conditioned upon participation in counseling.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action did not address all the proximate-cause issues railed by defendant’s expert, specifically the plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up visited after being treated in the emergency room at Elmhurst Hospital (the defendant). Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

At Elmhurst, the injured plaintiff’s forearm was X-rayed, and his wound was cleaned, sutured, and dressed. Later that same day, the injured plaintiff was discharged and instructed to return in two days for a follow-up appointment. The injured plaintiff did not return for the follow-up appointment but instead followed up with several physicians who were not associated with the defendant. The injured plaintiff allegedly required surgery later to repair several tendons in his forearm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently failed to properly diagnose and treat the injured plaintiff’s injuries during the initial emergency department visit at Elmhurst. * * *

… [T]he defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting … an affirmation of an expert physician, who opined that the physicians and employees of the defendant did not depart from the applicable standard of care and that any alleged departures were not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding proximate cause. The opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding proximate cause failed to address specific assertions made by the defendant’s expert regarding, among other things, the implications of the injured plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up appointment as instructed … . Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02806, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: In this med mal action, the defense expert’s affirmation submitted with defendant’s motion for summary judgment raised proximate-cause issues that were not addressed by plaintiffs’ expert. Therefore, defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant surgeon was not entitled to summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The defendant’s expert affidavit did not address specific allegations of negligence asserted by plaintiffs:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish .. that Ashraf [defendant] did not depart from the applicable standard of care in treating the injured plaintiff or that any such departure did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s injuries. An expert affidavit of Ashraf submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted by the plaintiffs, including whether Ashraf departed from the applicable standard of care in placing a 14-millimeter polyethylene component during the September 2016 surgery, as opposed to a smaller size, and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . Sanchez v Ashraf, 2025 NY Slip Op 02803, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action is dependent upon the defense expert’s affidavit. If the affidavit fails to address specific allegations of negligence made by the the plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted. This is a fairly common ground for reversal.

 

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant did not not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the slippery substance because no proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall was presented:

The defendant … failed to establish … that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery substance on the floor. “To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’ … . Evidence of general cleaning practices are inadequate to show “lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . Here, the managing member of the defendant testified only that all staff had a general responsibility for the upkeep and cleanliness of the restaurant. Outside these general statements, the defendant provided no further information on when the specific area of the plaintiff’s fall had last been inspected or cleaned … . Rhoden v 515 Rest., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02617, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of the failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. A lack of constructive notice is demonstrated by specific proof the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall, not by proof of general cleaning practices.

 

, ,

“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept the late answer should not have been granted:

A defendant seeking to compel the plaintiff to accept a late answer “must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Generally, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the court; however, reversal is warranted where the court improvidently exercises that discretion” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its defaults based upon law office failure. “[T]he movant must provide a detailed and credible explanation for the purported law office failure” … . “[A] conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel asserted in a conclusory and undetailed manner that the initial deadline to serve an answer and the extension consented to by the plaintiff’s former counsel were missed due to an office backlog and miscalendaring, and that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment was “misplaced” in the office … . Raphael v City of Peekskill, 2025 NY Slip Op 02616, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here allegations of “law office failure” did not warrant compelling the plaintiff to accept a late answer.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND A REPORT TO THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter and holding the appeal, determined the judge should have conducted an inquiry when defendant stated he wished to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant did not have a reasonable opportunity to present his reasons:

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … . “[O]ften a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … . “[W]hen a motion ‘is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry'” … . Nevertheless, “[t]he defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination” … .

Here, the defendant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions regarding his application to withdraw his plea of guilty and, consequently, the court was not able to make an informed determination of that application … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty, and thereafter a report to this Court limited to the County Court’s findings with respect to the application and whether the defendant established his entitlement to the withdrawal of his plea of guilty. People v Nesbitt, 2025 NY Slip Op 02611, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A defendant must be afforded a “reasonable opportunity” to explain any request to withdraw a guilty plea. The appellate court can hold the appeal and remit the case to afford the defendant that opportunity.

 

, ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have held a hearing before ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding. The proceeding was against respondent, the paramour of petitioner’s former husband. Whether Family Court has jurisdiction depends on whether the respondent is or has been in an “intimate relationship” with petitioner’s child:

“Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of ‘intimate relationship’ a ‘casual acquaintance’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … , “the [L]egislature left it to the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what qualifies as an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)” … . The factors that a court may consider while making such a determination are “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . “[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … .

Here, in light of the parties’ conflicting allegations as to whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the child and the respondent within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court, prior to determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, should have conducted a hearing on that issue … . Matter of De Phillips v Perez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Family Court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense petition against a person who is not a family member but has an “intimate relationship” with the child. Here Family Court should not have found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction without first holding a hearing to determine whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the respondent and petitioner’s child.​

 

,

GRANDFATHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” AFFORDING HIM STANDING TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandfather demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and therefore had standing to seek custody of the child. The matter was remitted for a custody award based on the best interests of the child:

“Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(2)(a), a grandparent has standing to seek custody of a child where the grandparent demonstrates the existence of extraordinary circumstances, such as ‘surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, and unfortunate or involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time,’ ‘or other like extraordinary circumstances'” … . An “extended disruption of custody” between the child and the parent “shall constitute an extraordinary circumstance” … . “The statute defines ‘extended disruption of custody’ as including, but not limited to, ‘a prolonged separation of the respondent parent and the child for at least twenty-four continuous months during which the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the petitioner grandparent or grandparents'” … . “However, the statute does not preclude a court from finding the existence of extraordinary circumstances even if the prolonged separation lasted less than 24 months” … . “Moreover, lack of contact is not a separate element under th[e] statute, ‘[r]ather, the quality and quantity of contact between the parent and child are simply factors to be considered in the context of the totality of the circumstances when determining whether the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child, and whether the child actually resided with the grandparents for the required “prolonged” period of time'” … . “‘Inasmuch as the Family Court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its determination should be set aside only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record'” … .

The evidence at the hearing established that, even though the father had regular contact and parental access with the child, the maternal grandparents have taken care of the child for most of her life and provided her with stability. Additionally, the father allowed the mother and the maternal grandparents to assume control over, and responsibility for the care of, the child while the father assumed the role of a noncustodial parent, the child has developed a close relationship with her half-siblings and extended family in New York, and the child expressed a desire to continue residing with the maternal grandfather … . Matter of Clifton C. v Tory P. R., 2025 NY Slip Op 02585, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here the maternal grandparents had cared for the child for most of her life and father had assumed the role of a noncustodial parent. These and other factors rose to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” affording grandfather standing to petition for custody.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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