You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging that the corporate veil should be pierced should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds:

“To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine is asserted (1) exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) through such domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court in equity will intervene” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or LLC form include the failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds” … . “Additionally, the corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . “[A] fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . Goldberg v KOSL Bldg. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01790, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations in the complaint that defendant failed to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequately capitalized the corporate entities, commingled assets, and personally used LLC funds sufficiently supported plaintiff’s seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

 

,

THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the court, in rendering its verdict, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

… Supreme Court, in rendering its verdict, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant asserted at trial that he had been framed by the police. In delivering its verdict, the court ruled that “the credible testimony before me does not persuade this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant was in fact framed. And that being so . . . I find [the] defendant guilty.” The court’s finding “reverses the constitutionally required principles that the defense bears no burden and that it is the prosecution that must introduce evidence sufficient to persuade the fact finder, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt” … . People v Steward, 2025 NY Slip Op 01825, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the judge, in rendering the verdict, stated the defendant was found guilty because the defendant had not proven he was framed. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant required reversal and a new trial.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a reconstruction hearing on the defendant’s competence to stand trial, determined that the judge had not followed the procedures mandated by Criminal Procedure Law article 730:

“Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures courts of this State must follow in order to prevent the criminal trial of [an incompetent] defendant” … . The CPL expressly provides that “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous in their opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not an incapacitated person . . . the court must conduct a hearing to determine the issue of capacity” (CPL 730.30[4] …).. “That section is mandatory and not discretionary” … .

Here, once the Supreme Court made a threshold determination that the defendant’s conduct warranted an examination, it should have followed the procedures mandated by CPL article 730. The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial … . We find, however, that the requirements of CPL article 730 can be satisfied by a reconstruction hearing … .  People v Petty, 2025 NY Slip Op 01824, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: If the court orders a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person and the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous, the court must conduct a hearing on the issue of capacity.​

 

, ,

THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormick, determined the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was not entitled to unseal the record of a criminal action which had resulted in the acquittal of an off-duty police officer (the defendant) who shot and killed a man during a road rage incident:

At his criminal trial, the defendant presented a justification defense … [and] the jury acquitted him of all charges. As a result, the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution were sealed (see CPL 160.50). * * *

The CCRB charged the defendant with three counts of intentionally using force without police necessity, rising to the level of assault in the second degree, in violation of the NYPD’s Patrol Guide. * * *

… [T]he CCRB moved herein to unseal the record of this criminal action … in order to conduct its disciplinary trial … . * * *

Although the New York City Charter authorizes the CCRB to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for its investigations of police misconduct, and further requires the NYPD, inter alia, to provide records and other materials that are necessary for the CCRB’s investigations, the Charter specifically exempts from such disclosure “such records or materials that cannot be disclosed by law” (NY City Charter § 440[d][1]). As such, it cannot be said that the CCRB has been given a specific grant of power that would allow it to access the sealed records … . People v Isaacs, 2025 NY Slip Op 01818, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board cannon unseal the record of the criminal prosecution of a police officer which resulted in an acquittal.

 

,

WHERE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE BEFORE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; HERE THE FAILURE TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE RENDERED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined it had been more than a year since defendant Callahan had failed to answer the complaint and, therefore, Callahan was entitled to notice before a default judgment could be entered. No notice was given:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), ‘whenever application [for judgment by default] is made to the court or to the clerk, any defendant who has appeared is entitled to at least five days’ notice of the time and place of the application, and if more than one year has elapsed since the default any defendant who has not appeared is entitled to the same notice unless the court orders otherwise'” … . “[T]he failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment” … . As such, “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities'” … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Powers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01610, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Where it has been more than a year since defendant failed to answer a complaint, the defendant is entitled to notice before entry of a default judgment. Failure to provide notice renders the judgment a nullity.

 

, , ,

THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month statute of limitations in the employment contract with plaintiff was reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s action, which was commenced one day after the six-month limitation period had expired, was time-barred:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to [*2]commence an action is enforceable provided it is in writing'” … . CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement.”

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), “‘a moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired'” … . Once this threshold showing is met, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to “‘raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period'” … .

Here, the defendants produced the employment application, which contained the provision regarding the six-month limitations period and which was signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute that her employment was terminated on November 23, 2021. The defendants therefore established … that the limitations period expired on May 23, 2022. The plaintiff commenced this action on May 24, 2022, one day after the expiration of the limitations period. Salati v Northwell Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here the six-month statute of limitations in plaintiff’s employment contract was deemed reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s employment discrimination action, commenced six months and one day after her employment was terminated, was time-barred.

 

, ,

THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined the not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence used by Marcus, the Torah reader, and his family:​

This appeal provides this Court with an opportunity to clarify the standards courts should consider when deciding whether a covered not-for-profit corporation is entitled to a full tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for property allegedly utilized primarily in furtherance of exempt purposes. The circumstances presented here involve an Orthodox Jewish religious corporation seeking an exemption for a residential property used, inter alia, to house its Torah reader and his family. … [W]e conclude … that the petitioner demonstrated that the subject property was used primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes during the 2015 tax year. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition to review the real property tax assessment for that year. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions established that it offered Marcus housing within walking distance of the synagogue in order to continue to retain his expert services as a Torah reader, as his religious beliefs prohibited him from driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on Jewish holy days, and he had a growing family which made walking from his prior apartment impractical … . The petitioner’s rabbi also stated that, upon learning that Marcus could not continue in his role as Torah reader without residing closer to the synagogue, “[t]he congregation was unable to identify any qualified Torah [r]eader within walking distance [thereof].” Considering … that “[t]he requirement of reading from the Torah” during services “is absolute and cannot be waived,” as explained by the rabbi, the petitioner’s religious “goal[s]” were “advance[d]” by providing Marcus with housing closer to the synagogue … . Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01634, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence provided to the Torah reader and his family because the residence was used “primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes” during the relevant tax year.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment against the owner of the vehicle in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although summary judgment against the driver, Patel, was properly granted, there was a question of fact whether the driver had exceeded the scope of the permission granted by the owner, Paragon, a car dealership. There was evidence the sales rep told Patel he could drive around the block and return in five or ten minutes. Patel had taken the car on the expressway and called the dealership 35 minutes after leaving to say he had accident:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that, with the exception of bona fide commercial lessors of motor vehicles, which are exempt from vicarious liability under federal law, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of one who operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent” … . “The strong presumption of permissive use afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, can only be rebutted by substantial evidence sufficient to show that the driver of the vehicle was not operating the vehicle with the owner’s consent” … . “An owner may place limitations on a driver’s permission to use a vehicle, such as granting consent to drive only to a particular area or for a specific purpose, and use outside the scope of permission negates the owner’s liability under the statute” … . “Thus, an owner may avoid liability under the statute if the driver exceeded the time, place[,] and purpose of the use permitted by the owner” … . Madrigal v Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01620, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: The owner of a vehicle may impose limits on the permissive use of the vehicle by another. If the driver exceeds the scope of the permission to use the vehicle, the owner may not be vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STAYED; NEITHER PROCEDURE FOR LIFTING THE STAY WAS INVOKED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a stay of the foreclosure action was in effect because of the suspension of defendant McGrath’s attorney. Because plaintiff never served McGrath with the required notice to lift the stay, the summary judgment order should have been vacated:

When an attorney is suspended from the practice of law, “as with an attorney’s death, incapacitation, removal from an action, or other disability, CPLR 321(c) protects the client by automatically staying the action from the date of the disabling event” … . “The express language of CPLR 321(c) sets no particular time limit to the stay of proceedings that is automatically triggered by a qualifying event” … .

“[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … .

“[T]here are actually two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se” … . “The second way is by means of [a] notice procedure pursuant to CPLR 321(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not serve McGrath with the notice to appoint “either personally or in such manner as the court direct[ed]” (CPLR 321[c]). It is undisputed that no attempt was made to personally serve the required notice, nor is it alleged that the Supreme Court directed that service of the notice be made in some other manner … . Moreover, it is undisputed that McGrath did not communicate an intention to proceed pro se … . Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until McGrath opposed the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and cross-moved to vacate the summary judgment order … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v McGrath, 2025 NY Slip Op 01614, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: When a party’s attorney is suspended, the proceedings are automatically stayed. There are two statutory procedures for lifting the stay, neither of which was invoked here.

 

,

THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND JOIN AN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and to join another action should have been granted. The proposed amendment was not time-barred because the original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences upon which the amendment is based. The motion to join another action should have been granted because there were common questions of law or fact and defendants would not be prejudiced:

While a proposed amendment generally is considered patently devoid of merit if it is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations” … , here, the proposed amendment relates back to the original complaint and is deemed to have been timely interposed because the original complaint gave “notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” on which the claims in the proposed amended complaint were based (CPLR 203[f] …). [Defendants] failed to establish that they were prejudiced or surprised by the plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, as discovery was still ongoing at the time the plaintiff’s motion was made … , the proposed amended complaint was “premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences” alleged in the original complaint … , and the proposed amendment merely elaborated on the same theory of liability alleged in the original complaint … . …

The Supreme Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 602(a) to join Action No. 2 with Action No. 1 for purposes of trial. “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … . Here, Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 both arise from the project, concern the same parties, and involve common questions of law and fact … , and a failure to try the two actions jointly would result in a “duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions” … . Contrary to the contentions of KGD and OLA, the possibility of prejudice resulting from a joint trial can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions … , and any potential prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … .  Great Neck Lib. v Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01613, Second Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for amending a complaint, including a determination whether the amendment is time-barred (it is not if the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences referenced in the amendment).

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for consolidating two actions which involve common questions of law or fact.

 

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