You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS HOSTILE AND CONTINUOUS FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this prescriptive easement action should not have been granted. A fire escape on plaintiff’s building hovers over a portion of defendant’s land, which had been used as parking lot. The defendant argued the encroachment by the fire escape was permissive, not hostile, because the fire escape did not interfere with the use of the parking lot. The Second Department held that was question of fact whether a prescriptive easement had been created before the alleged permissive use:

The defendant, in moving, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff does not have a prescriptive easement, established, prima facie, that the fire escape on the rear of plaintiff’s building that encroaches several feet above the defendant’s property was not hostile, but permissive … . Specifically, the defendant submitted evidence that the fire escape did not interfere with the operation of a parking lot on its property from June 1, 1991, to October 15, 2014. In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the use of the subject fire escape, which hovers over a portion of the defendant’s property, has been adverse, open and notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period … . The plaintiff asserted that the subject fire escape has been in place since at least 1902, and that the period of prescription could have been satisfied and the easement created by the time of the alleged permissive use … . Barrett v A&P Pac. Owner, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00396, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

,

IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer’s (Unitrin’s) motion for summary judgment in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Apparently Sullivan was in one car and the injured party, Ciminello, was in another car when Sullivan allegedly attempted to throw liquid that was in a cup into Ciminello’s car. It was alleged that Sullivan unintentionally threw the entire cup, not just its contents, which injured Ciminello. So there was a question of fact whether Ciminello was injured by intentional conduct (not covered by insurance) or an accident (which would be covered):

Ciminello raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the harm was inherent in the intentional act committed … . Ciminello submitted evidence that, although Sullivan and his passenger intended to douse Ciminello with the liquid contained in the cup, there was no intent to throw the cup and strike Ciminello with it. As the instant case does not fall within the narrow class of cases in which the intentional act exclusion applies regardless of the insured’s subjective intent … , there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the event qualified as an “accident,” as defined by the policy … . Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. v Sullivan, 2020 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this class action seeking unpaid wages and overtime, determined Supreme Court should not have. sua sponte, declared certain opt-out statements (opting out of the class action settlement) invalid because the issue was not raised by the plaintiff’s motion and the opt-out statements were not properly before the court:

Pursuant to the February 2018 order, all class members who did not opt out were permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that were released pursuant to the settlement agreement. The February 2018 order also contained a handwritten provision declaring that “[t]he opt outs received on 1/26/18 from Lee Litigation Group are deemed invalid as they were dated prior to the Class Notice which was sent 12/27/17, and do not contain the required opt-out language pursuant to the Class-Notice ordered by this court on November 22, 2017.” Such relief was not sought in the motion filed by the plaintiffs nor was it contained in the proposed order submitted to the court by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  …

CPLR 908 provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court,” and that “[n]otice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, declared invalid certain opt-out statements that were not part of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and which relief was not requested in the motion. “[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the court strayed from this principle … . The relief awarded by the court, sua sponte, in the handwritten provision in the February 2018 order is “dramatically unlike” the relief sought by the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the appellants … . Moreover, the opt-out statements referred to in the February 2018 order were not among the exhibits submitted on the plaintiffs’ motion, and therefore were not properly before the court for consideration … . Robinson v Big City Yonkers, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, ,

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s application for an upward department was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence defendant was charged but not indicted or convicted does not meet the clear and convincing standard:

A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the People failed to prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence. In granting an upward departure, the court relied upon the defendant’s criminal history. However, the Guidelines account for an offender’s criminal history by assessing points under risk factor 9, and the defendant’s history here was not so extraordinary, extensive, or serious as to demonstrate that the assessment of those points was inadequate to capture his actual risk of reoffense and danger to the community . Further, an upward departure could not properly be based upon certain prior conduct of which the defendant was charged but either never indicted or never convicted, as the People’s evidence regarding that alleged conduct did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard … . People v Pittman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the over $1 million judgment in this negligence and Public-Health-Law-2801-d violation case, determined plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks in summation required a new trial. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was at risk for falling, fell after getting up from a wheelchair at defendant residential health care facility and ultimately died:

“[L]itigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . “The interest of justice thus requires a court to order a new trial where comments by an attorney for a party’s adversary deprived that party of a fair trial or unduly influenced a jury” … .

Here, during summation, the plaintiff’s counsel improperly appealed to the passion of the jurors by characterizing the defendant as a “corporation” that has “two lawyers,” a “tech person,” “general counsel,” and “video people.” Counsel also improperly accused the defendant of willfully depriving the plaintiff of evidence that would have been harmful to the defendant’s case, accused the defendant’s witnesses of having “changed” their testimony after their depositions or pretrial affirmations, which were not in evidence, “because they saw that they couldn’t win,” and improperly argued that the defendant failed to call certain witnesses, who were not under the defendant’s control. Thus, “the comments of the plaintiff[‘s] counsel . . . were not isolated, were inflammatory, and were unduly prejudicial. These prejudicial comments so tainted the proceedings as to have deprived the defendant . . . of a fair trial” … . Nieves v Clove Lakes Health Care & Rehabilitation, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00422, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action, by defaulting, had waived the statute of limitations defense:

CPLR 3211(e) provides that a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived if not asserted in an answer or in a timely motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a). Such a motion is timely if it is made before service of the answer is required (see CPLR 3211[e]). Here, the defendants never answered the complaint, and their cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint was served at least six months after service of the answer was required. Thus, unless the defendants’ default is vacated or excused, the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense, and in their cross motion, the defendants did not seek relief from that waiver. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred without first determining whether the defendants were properly held in default … . Nestor I, LLC v Moriarty-Gentile, 2020 NY Slip Op 00421, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , ,

STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statement by a New Jersey dentist offered by the plaintiff in this dental malpractice action was not admissible because it was not in the form of a sworn affidavit. Therefore plaintiff did not raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment:

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the unsworn affirmation of Martin, who was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of New Jersey. Consequently, the out-of-state dentist’s statement did not constitute admissible evidence in that CPLR 2106 only authorizes attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, or dentists licensed in this state to utilize an affirmation in lieu of a sworn affidavit … . …

While an otherwise qualified expert physician, osteopath, or dentist, who is not licensed in this state, may submit a statement in support of or in opposition to a party’s position in a case at bar, that statement must be in the form of a sworn affidavit. CPLR 2106(a), which permits such a statement to be in the form of an affirmation, only applies to attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, and dentists licensed to practice in the State of New York. Nelson v Lighter, 2020 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

,

IN PERHAPS THE FIRST APPELLATE-JUSTICE REVIEW OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 245.70, JUSTICE SCHEINKMAN FOUND THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING FROM THE DEFENSE THE IDENTITIES OF WITNESSES IN THIS RAPE/MURDER CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in one of the first decisions under the new discovery provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, after an expedited review by Justice Scheinkman pursuant to CPL 245.70, reversing Supreme Court, determined the protective order prohibiting defense access to the names, addresses and other identifying information of witnesses in this rape/murder case must be vacated without prejudice:

CPL 245.70(1) provides that, upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may order that disclosure and inspection be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such order as appropriate. The court is now specifically permitted to condition discovery on making the information available only to counsel for the defendant (see CPL 245.70[1]). Alternatively, the court is permitted to order defense counsel, or persons employed by the attorney or appointed by the court to assist in the defense, not to disclose physical copies of discoverable documents to the defendant or anyone else, subject to the defendant being able to access redacted copies at a supervised location … . Should the court restrict access to discovery by the defendant personally, the court is required to inform the defendant on the record that counsel is not permitted by law to disclose the material or information to the defendant … . * * *

This case is one of the first under this new review procedure. The threshold question is what standard is the intermediate appellate justice to apply in performing the expedited review. The statute is silent on that subject.

This Justice accepts the proposition that where a pure question of law is concerned, the reviewing justice decides the question de novo … . Where, however, the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion … .

… [T]he People’s affirmation was unaccompanied by any affidavit from anyone with personal or direct knowledge of the relevant circumstances. … [W]hile alleging that a witness had been approached in person and by use of social media by “associates” of the defendant, the People did not set forth the name of any such associate, the relationship between the defendant and any associate, the date or approximate date of the alleged improper approach, or even a general description of the incident. While the use of social media is alleged, no screen shot or other depiction of the communication was provided. Further, the four corners of the affirmation do not contain the identity of the witnesses subject to the contact that caused concern. In short, the sealed affirmation submitted to justify the issuance of the protective order is vague, speculative, and conclusory. Under these circumstances, the affirmation was legally insufficient to support the granting of the relief sought. People v Beaton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00372, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

ALTHOUGH THE TRUCK DRIVER WAS STEPPING OFF A RAMP ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF HIS TRACTOR TRAILER WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY A VAN, THE DRIVER WAS OCCUPYING THE TRUCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURER’S UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s (Utica’s) petition to permanently stay arbitration in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. A truck driver, Steward, was struck by a van when he was stepping down from a ramp attached to the back of the tractor trailer. Utica argued Steward was a pedestrian, not an occupant of the truck and therefore Steward was not covered:

The minivan that hit Steward had minimal insurance coverage, and Steward filed a Request for SUM Arbitration seeking coverage under the New York Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists (“SUM”) Endorsement of his employer’s Utica Mutual commercial automobile liability insurance policy … . …

The SUM endorsement in the petitioner’s policy, consistent with the statutory requirement, defines “occupying” as “in, upon, entering into, or exiting from a motor vehicle” (see Insurance Law § 3420[f][3]). In accordance with the liberal interpretation afforded the term “occupying” … , we find, as a matter of law, that Steward was “upon” the tractor-trailer at the time of the accident such that he was “occupying” the tractor-trailer within the meaning of the SUM endorsement. Steward’s testimony established that at the time of the accident, he had stepped upon the Moffet ramp which was attached to the tractor-trailer, and that he was struck by the minivan while his right leg was still on the ramp, and while he was stepping down with his left leg. Thus, although Steward had been away from the tractor-trailer during the work day, his testimony established that at the time of the accident, he was in physical contact with the vehicle, such that he was “occupying” it … . Matter of Utica Mut. Assur. Co. v Steward, 2020 NY Slip Op 00285, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding of neglect was not supported:

To establish neglect, a petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, ‘first, that [the] child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship’ . ‘Actual or imminent danger of impairment is a prerequisite to a finding of neglect [which] ensures that the Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, will focus on serious harm or potential harm to…  the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior’ … .

… The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the mother and the child have a difficult relationship caused, in significant part, by the mother’s disapproval of the child’s behavior and the child’s unwillingness to abide by her mother’s rules, and the fact that the child had disciplinary problems at home and at school. Contrary to the court’s determination, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the mother ever struck the child at the relevant time. While the petition alleged that the mother, during an argument with the child … locked the child in a storage room, the child testified that she herself ran into the storage room, locked the door, and was not physically hurt. This argument arose when the mother told the child that she could not go out that night. At that time, when the neglect is alleged to have occurred, the child had been residing with the mother for only one day, having lived in foster care for approximately two years. Moreover, although the petition alleged that the mother was required to make alternate living arrangements for the child since the child could no longer reside with the maternal grandmother and refused to reside with the mother, the mother’s desire to have the child reside with her does not support a finding of neglect. Finally, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing of the mother’s insults and name-calling, while certainly counterproductive and inappropriate, does not rise to the level of establishing a failure to provide the child with proper supervision or guardianship or demonstrate a resulting impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Matter of Alexandra R.-M. (Sonia R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00280, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

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