You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE BUS DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, setting aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case, determined the bus driver was negligent as a matter of law. To avoid a stopped vehicle the driver (Barreto) crossed a double yellow line and lost control of the bus which crashed into a store. The plaintiffs were bus passengers:

This Court has held that “a driver who crosses over a double yellow line into opposing traffic, unless justified by an emergency not of the driver’s own making, violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law and is guilty of negligence as a matter of law” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126[a] …). Here, although the evidence demonstrated that there was snow or slush on the surface of the subject road, the adverse weather conditions, as well as the fact that the road sloped downhill, were foreseeable and known to Barreto and did not provide a nonnegligent explanation for Barreto’s violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Although the evidence demonstrated that there was a vehicle stopped in the bus’s lane of travel, thereby obstructing its path, the evidence also demonstrated that the stopped vehicle was observable from a far distance, that the bus did not slow down after the stopped vehicle came into Barreto’s view, and that Barreto crossed over the double-yellow line without slowing down. Under the circumstances, Barreto’s loss of control over the bus was the result of his own negligent driving in adverse weather conditions, rather than the result of an emergency not of his own making. The absence of an emergency was recognized by the Supreme Court in its refusal to grant the defendant’s request that the jury be given an instruction on the emergency doctrine.

Barreto’s operation of the bus under the circumstances here violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120(a). Such violation constitutes negligence as a matter of law and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Hodnett v Westchester County Dept. of Pub. Works & Transp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01603, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the motion to dismiss for failure to name a necessary party should not have been granted. Rather the court should have ordered the party summoned:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to join the estate … as a defendant. “When a [necesssary party] has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned” (CPLR 1001[b]). Accordingly, we remit the matter … for the joinder of the administrator of the estate … and for further proceedings consistent herewith … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Gedeon, 2020 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE RETURNS THE CASE TO THE PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE DISCOVERY STAGE, NO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE TRIAL CALENDAR; THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF ISSUE, CITING LAW OFFICE FAILURE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that vacating the note of issue automatically removes the case from the trial calendar and restores the action to the pre-note of issue discovery stage. The Second Department also determined the motion to extend the time to file a note of issue, citing law office failure, should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have denied, as unnecessary, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar … . Since the note of issue … was vacated, thereafter, the action was restored to the pre-note of issue discovery stage … . Because no note of issue had been filed, the action was not on the trial calendar. Therefore, the court’s action of marking the action “disposed” … , after the plaintiff failed to file and serve a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, did not dismiss the action … . For the same reason, contrary to the defendant’s contention, CPLR 3404 was inapplicable … . As “this action was never properly dismissed, there was no need for a motion to restore” … .

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to extend his time to file a note of issue. CPLR 2004 allows a court to “extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown.” Here, the plaintiff established good cause for his delay in completing discovery and filing a note of issue based on law office failure, among other things … . Ryskin v Corniel, 2020 NY Slip Op 01658, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a letter agreement regarding a lease was not an enforceable contract but rather was an agreement to agree:

In a document dated June 27, 2012 (hereinafter the 2012 letter agreement), the parties “consolidate[d] all existing letter agreements to the same expiration date” of February 28, 2015. The 2012 letter agreement also stated that the terms of the lease were “extended to now terminate on Feb. 28, 2030,” with “terms to be determined at the expiration of this initial lease consolidation period.” The 2012 letter agreement further stated that any annual percentage increase in rent will not be less than five percent and will not exceed eight percent. …

A “mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . “This is especially true of the amount to be paid for the sale or lease of real property” … . An agreement is not enforceable as a lease unless all of the essential terms are agreed upon, and if “any of these essential terms are missing and are not otherwise discernible by objective means, a lease has not been created” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a copy of the 2012 letter agreement, which demonstrated that the renewal provision was an unenforceable agreement to agree … . Reis v J.B. Kaufman Realty Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01657, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall because abutting property owners are not responsible for the condition of tree wells in a sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 places the duty to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition on the owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, and provides for civil liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to so maintain the sidewalk. However, the statute does not extend that duty of maintenance to City-owned tree wells or provide for civil liability for injuries occurring in City-owned tree wells … . Thus, liability may be imposed on the abutting landowner for injuries caused by a dangerous condition in a tree well only where the landowner has “affirmatively created the dangerous condition, negligently made repairs to the area, [or] caused the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of that area” … .

Here, [defendant] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had no duty to maintain the City-owned tree well, did not create the allegedly dangerous condition, did not negligently repair the sidewalk abutting the tree well, and did not cause the condition to occur through any special use of the tree well. Powroznik v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01655, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND THE NEED TO REFRAIN FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE OTHER ROBBERY; THE MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion the sever the trials of two distinct robberies should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated the need to testify about his defense of duress re: one of the robberies, and his need to refrain from testifying re: the other robbery due to  the Sandoval ruling:

The affirmative defense of duress requires the defendant to establish coercion by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force (Penal Law § 40.00[1]). Since the defendant’s written statement did not explain why the defendant did not abandon the Lopez robbery once he was given a gun, the written statement was insufficient to establish that there was a threat of imminent use of physical force … . Indeed, the People argued to the jury that the defendant’s duress defense should be rejected since, once the defendant was given the gun, he could have left the scene without committing the robbery. Thus, the record convincingly established that the defendant had important testimony to give about his duress defense in order to, inter alia, rebut the People’s argument that the defendant was not under duress … . …

… [T]he defendant convincingly showed that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying in regards to the Pratt robbery. In the event that the defendant testified, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling permitted the People to introduce evidence of the underlying facts of two prior youthful offender adjudications involving robberies that were similar to the Pratt robbery … . Thus, if the defendant elected to testify, he would expose himself to the “risk of serious impeachment” with the underlying facts of two robberies bearing similarities to the Pratt robbery … . However, if he refrained from testifying, he was prejudiced in his ability to present his duress defense to the Lopez robbery counts. People v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 01645, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

LINEUP IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive:

… [W]e agree with the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in finding that the pretrial identification procedure, a lineup, was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was the only person in the lineup with dreadlocks, and dreadlocks featured prominently in the description of one of the assailants that the complainant gave to the police. In addition, the dreadlocks were distinctive and visible despite the fact that the defendant and the fillers all wore hats … . Accordingly, the lineup identification should have been suppressed. The error was not harmless as it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction … . Therefore, we reverse the judgment of conviction and order a new trial. People v Colsen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01514, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRAVELY INJURED AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH HIS EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTE, INDEMNIFY OR INSURE; THE EMPLOYER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured while acting within the scope of his employment. Workers’ Compensation, therefore, was his exclusive remedy unless he was gravely injured or there was agreement with the employer:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 prohibits third-party claims for contribution or indemnification against an employer unless the employee has sustained a “grave injury” or there is a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the third-party claimant … .

Here, in support of its motion, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that there was no written agreement between the parties that required it to contribute, indemnify, or procure insurance … . Further, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and that the plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 … . McIntosh v Ronit Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01485, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

,

THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank should have been allowed to restore a 2009 foreclosure action which had been administratively, but not formally, dismissed. The court noted that the bank’s prior statement of its intention to discontinue the 2009 action did not trigger the judicial estoppel doctrine:

While, in an effort to successfully prosecute the 2015 foreclosure action, the Bank represented that it would seek to discontinue the 2009 action, it is not judicially estopped from changing its position. ” [A] party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … . The Bank did not obtain a favorable judgment in the 2015 foreclosure action.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Bank’s motion which was to restore the 2009 action to the active calendar. The 2009 action was never formally dismissed, as the marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one … . Since the 2009 action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Bank was not required to move to restore within any specified time frame and was not obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious claim … . Further, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … . Finally, [defendant] does not contend that the 2009 action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gambino, 2020 NY Slip Op 01476, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF LEAVES ON THE STAIRWAY; THE CONDITION WAS NOT BOTH “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AND “NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IN DESCENDING THE STAIRWAY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the verdict in this slip and fall case was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff descended a stairway which had leaves on it:

The plaintiff’s testimony sufficiently identified the condition that caused her to fall … . The evidence at trial failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the condition at issue was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . …

A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . Here, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the plaintiff was negligent in choosing to descend the stairway despite the presence of leaves, but that her negligence merely furnished the occasion for the accident … . Accordingly, the jury’s determination that the plaintiff’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Brennan v Gormley, 2020 NY Slip Op 01473, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

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