You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined defendant should have been afforded a hearing on his motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. Defendant was charged with damaging his wife’s computer in a domestic incident. The charge was not brought for 22 months:

“[U]nder state due process principles, lengthy and unjustifiable delay in commencing the prosecution may require dismissal even though no actual prejudice to the defendant is shown'” … . However, ” a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons, will not deprive the defendant of due process of law even though the delay may cause some prejudice to the defense'” … .. “Where there has been extended delay, it is the People’s burden to establish good cause” … .

Here, the County Court failed to appropriately balance the requisite factors and improperly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of due process by the People’s unjustified delay in prosecution. Under the circumstances presented, which included a delay of approximately 22 months from the time of the incident to the filing of the indictment and arraignment, the People’s failure on the record to establish a good faith legitimate reason for the delay, and the defendant’s claim of prejudice, the County Court should have conducted a hearing before determining that the delay in prosecution was not in violation of the defendant’s due process rights … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

,

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department determined the jury should not have been instructed on the “combat by agreement” exception to the justification defense. Defendant was on a bus when rival gang members got on the bus. Defendant (14 years old) pulled out a gun and shot, killing an innocent passenger:

Supreme Court should not have charged the jury with respect to the combat by agreement exception to the justification defense. The court granted the People’s request for the instruction based upon generalized evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang which had a rivalry with other local gangs, including the gang with which the persons who approached the defendant were affiliated. However, any evidence of an alleged agreement in this case was tacit, open-ended as to time and place, and applicable to all members of the gangs of the parties involved as well as to all members of their affiliate gangs. The combat by agreement exception to justification is generally limited to agreements to combat between specific individuals or small groups on discrete occasions … . As there was no evidence of a combat agreement between the defendant and the specific persons who approached him on the bus, or among rival gang members during a discrete period of time or at a specific location, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the combat by agreement exception applied to negate a justification defense in this case … . People v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and disagreeing with the Third and Fourth Departments, determined Executive Law 259-c (14), which prohibits sex offenders from entering school grounds, applied to petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner had been designated a level three sex offender and was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for burglary. He was not released on parole for the burglary conviction when his sentence was complete because housing which complied with the school-grounds condition could not be found. Although the habeas corpus petition was moot because defendant had been released at the time of the appeal, the exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellate review:

Executive Law § 259-c(14) provides, in relevant part, that “where a person serving a sentence for an offense defined in [Penal Law articles 130, 135, or 263, or Penal Law §§ 255.25, 255.26, or 255.27] and the victim of such offense was under the age of [18] at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a level three sex offender pursuant to [Correction Law § 168-l(6)], is released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to [Executive Law § 259-c(1) or (2)], the [Board of Parole] shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds, as that term is defined in [Penal Law § 220.00(14)], . . . while one or more of such persons under the age of [18] are present.”

As a result of its inartful wording and use of the term “such person,” Executive Law § 259-c(14) has been interpreted in opposing fashion by the Appellate Division, Third Department (see People ex rel. Negron v Superintendent Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 170 AD3d 12) and the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see People ex rel. Garcia v Annucci, 167 AD3d 199). Inasmuch as the statute is amenable to competing interpretations, we agree with the appellants that the language of the statute is ambiguous and should be interpreted with reference to its legislative history and the purpose of the enactment of the 2005 amendment … . The legislative history clearly supports an interpretation that imposes the SARA [Sexual Assault Reform Act]-residency requirement based on either an offender’s conviction of a specifically enumerated offense against an underage victim or the offender’s status as a level three sex offender … . People ex rel. Rosario v Superintendent, Fishkill Corr. Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

,

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

 

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