You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this stairway slip and fall case. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall and handrails were not required:

In a premises liability case, a defendant moving for summary judgment can establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of negligent maintenance by showing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her accident … . “Although proximate cause can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation [and] . . . may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury, [m]ere speculation as to the cause of a fall, where there can be many causes, is fatal to a cause of action” … . Where it is just as likely that some factor other than a dangerous or defective condition, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused an accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Based upon the plaintiff’s testimony that she did not know what caused her to lose her footing, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the issue of negligent maintenance … . Gaither-Angus v Adelphi Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op 01147, Second Dept 2-19-20​

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS LEANING INSIDE THE OPEN DOOR OF A VAN WHEN THE VAN SUDDENLY MOVED FORWARD; THE RELATED VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this vehicle-injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff was leaning into the open sliding door of a van when the van suddenly moved forward. Plaintiff sued the owner of the van (J & D) and the driver. The related violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constituted negligence per se:

A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting uncontroverted evidence that the driver stepped on the gas pedal while she was leaning into the vehicle, causing the vehicle to move forward and her to be injured by the sliding of the minivan’s door into her back (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162 … ). This negligence can be imputed to J & D, which was the owner of the vehicle, through the presumption that the operator was driving the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1]). Edwards v J&D Express Serv. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01145, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

,

NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff was injured falling off a forklift platform. Plaintiff alleged defendants negligently destroyed or failed to preserve the forklift platform, thereby making it impossible to sue the manufacturer. The Second Department held that there is no such tort:

Here, the plaintiff’s sole purported cause of action seeks to recover for the negligent impairment of an employee’s right to sue, which is, in effect, an allegation of spoliation … , and New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort. Lopez-Lobo v U.S. Nonwovens Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01053, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

MOTIONS FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for severance should have been granted. The lawsuit was brought by healthcare employers against several insurance brokers to recover assessments levied by the Workers’ Compensation Board for a $220 million shortfall in a Workers’ Compensation trust:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the appellants’ motions which were pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the action insofar as asserted against them. While all of the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages pursuant to the same theories of liability, each separate plaintiff is asserting causes of action only against its respective broker with which it had a client-broker relationship. The appellants have persuasively argued that individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each plaintiff and to each appellant … . In addition, a single trial of all the causes of action would prove unwieldy and confuse the trier of fact … . Accordingly, in the interests of convenience and avoidance of prejudice, the court should have granted … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01040, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although plaintiff bank did not prove compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, defendant did not prove plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“Even in the face of a plaintiff’s failure to establish, prima facie, that a notice was properly mailed on a motion for summary judgment on the complaint, . . . a defendant still has to meet its burden, on a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, of establishing that the condition precedent was not fulfilled” … . …

… [W]hile RPAPL 1304 provides that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent . . . to the last known address of the borrower, and to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage” (RPAPL 1304[2]), the defendant did not allege, or provide any evidence, that the lender knew her address had changed. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Tricario, 2020 NY Slip Op 01112, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

,

MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Leventhal, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant pursuant to CPLR 306-b, despite the facts that the action had been dismissed and the statute of limitations had run. The action had been dismissed after a hearing to determine whether defendant had been served in this foreclosure action. At the time of the hearing the process server had died and plaintiff could not, therefore, meet its burden of proof:

… [W]e agree with the plaintiff that an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint was warranted in the interest of justice. The action was timely commenced in December 2009, based on the defendant’s alleged default that year in paying his indebtedness that was secured by the mortgage. The statute of limitations, however, had expired by the time the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time for service … . The defendant had actual notice of the controversy. The Supreme Court, in its order dated December 17, 2013, wrote, among other things, that the defendant “is prepared to say anything and to conceal anything to stave off a foreclosure sale” and that “[i]t is clear that [the defendant] has been well-aware that a foreclosure action was pending. (The day before a previously-scheduled foreclosure sale, [the defendant] filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition).” The plaintiff also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, and the lack of identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Moreover, as the interest of justice standard permits consideration of “any other relevant factor” … , we take into account that the process server’s death prior to the hearing on the issue of service hampered the plaintiff’s ability to meet its burden of proof at that hearing. State of New York Mtge. Agency v Braun, 2020 NY Slip Op 01107, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

WIFE’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HER DECEASED HUSBAND TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT IN HER HUSBAND’S SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s wife’s (Jesenia’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute herself for her deceased husband in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendant had settled the case and Jesenia was seeking payment:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the settlement of the action did not preclude the granting of a motion for substitution (see CPLR 1015[a]; 1021 …). “The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . Without substitution as a party plaintiff, Jesenia may not seek relief pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. CPLR 5003-a provides that if a settling defendant fails to pay the sum due under a settlement agreement within 21 days of tender of a duly executed release and a stipulation discontinuing the action, the settling plaintiff may, without further notice, pursue the entry of a judgment in the amount of the settlement, plus interest, costs, and disbursements … . Rivera v Skeen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01100, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND IRRELEVANT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of irrelevant evidence of another crime required reversal:

“[O]n summation, a prosecutor may not improperly encourage[ ] inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence'” …  As we determined in People v Ramirez (150 AD3d at 899-900), the prosecutor here improperly suggested that the jury should disregard the grand jury testimony of one of the People’s main witnesses, and invited the jury to speculate that a missing witness would have given supporting testimony if he had been called to testify. …

“The rule of Molineux is familiar: Evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible where its only purpose is to show bad character or propensity towards crime” … . However, “evidence of other crimes may be admitted to show motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan or the identity of the guilty party” … . “In addition, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted as necessary background material when relevant to a contested issue in the case, or to complete the narrative of the events if such evidence is inextricably interwoven with the crime charged” … . “Still, even if technically relevant for one of these or some other legitimate purpose, Molineux evidence will not be admitted if it is actually of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to the accused'” … .

The fact that the defendant allegedly resisted arrest six months after the incident in question after violating an order of protection against him held by one of the complainants was not relevant in this matter. The defendant was not resisting arrest for the crimes charged at trial, and resisting arrest in this instance was too far removed from the underlying incident to be deemed admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt … . People v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 01087, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

DEFENDANT, ALTHOUGH CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant should have been accorded youthful offender status, despite the armed felony conviction:

As the defendant was convicted of an armed felony (see CPL 1.20[41]), he was eligible to have this conviction replaced with a youthful offender adjudication only if, inter alia, there were “mitigating circumstances that [bore] directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” (CPL 720.10[3][i]). Mitigating circumstances include “[f]actors directly’ flowing from and relating to [the] defendant’s personal conduct while committing the crime,” but generally, do not include the “defendant’s age, background, criminal history and drug habit” … . Here, while there is no question that the defendant stands convicted of a serious crime, no physical harm or injury resulted to the complainant from the incident … , and the defendant was an “eligible youth” under CPL 720.10(2) for purposes of youthful offender treatment.

Moreover, in the exercise of our discretion, we determine that the defendant should be granted youthful offender treatment … . In making such a determination, factors to be considered by the court include “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . Here, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was only 16 years old when he participated in the subject robbery, using a BB gun. The defendant has no prior criminal record or violent history. He has strong family support. The presentence report recommended that the defendant be adjudicated a youthful offender and be sentenced to a term of probation supervision. Indeed, the recommendation in the presentence report was that “the defendant be given another chance to change his behavior and do better for himself and not let this one bad choice as a 16 year old determine the path for his adult life.” Moreover, the presentence report indicated that the defendant expressed genuine remorse and a sincere desire to make better choices in the future. Under all these circumstances, the interest of justice would be served by “relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record” … . People v Carlos M.-A., 2020 NY Slip Op 01083, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

CONDEMNEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES (ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS) BASED UPON THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION BETWEEN THAT OFFERED BY THE VILLAGE AND THE AWARD BY THE COURT IN THIS EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING; THE STATUTORY INTEREST RATE OF 6%, NOT 9%, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that some of the additional allowances for fees and costs (pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 701) should not have been granted and the statutory interest rate of 6%, not 9%, should have been applied. The additional allowances were sought based upon because the court awarded more compensation to the condemnees (Ferguson and Executive) than that offered by the condemnor (the Village):

Pursuant to EDPL 701, where a court’s award to a claimant in a condemnation proceeding is “substantially in excess of the amount of the condemnor’s proof” and where the court deems it necessary to “achieve just and adequate compensation,” the court may award the claimant an additional sum for costs including attorneys’ and other fees. The goal of this statute is to ” assure[ ] that a condemnee receives a fair recovery by providing an opportunity for condemnees whose property has been substantially undervalued to recover the costs of litigation establishing the inadequacy of the condemnor’s offer'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court’s award of $721,671 exceeded the Village’s advance payment of $575,000. While the difference is not insignificant, we find that it does not substantially exceed the Village’s advance payment within the meaning of EDPL 701 … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . Matter of Village of Haverstraw, 2020 NY Slip Op 01068,  Second Dept 2-13-20

 

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