You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY TWO OF THE 19 PLAINTIFFS RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds should not have been granted. Nineteen plaintiffs brought this production liability action alleging damage caused by defendants’ “Just For Men” dyes and products. Only two plaintiffs resided in New York and defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on that ground, without any further proof:

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action when, although it may have jurisdiction over a claim, the court determines that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum'” (… CPLR 327[a]). The burden was on the defendants to show that “considerations relevant to private or public interest militate against accepting or retaining the litigation” … . Factors to consider are the residency of the parties, potential inconvenience to proposed witnesses, especially nonparty witnesses, availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the actionable events, the location of the evidence, and the burden that retaining the case would have on New York courts … .

Here, the defendants asserted no facts other than that the nonresident plaintiffs were out-of-state residents. The defendants did not meet their burden of proof on the issue of convenience of the witnesses, since, among other things, there was no statement as to whom the witnesses are and where they reside. Moreover, Just For Men’s design, manufacturing, labeling, advertising, and executive decision-making all allegedly occurred in White Plains, where Combe Incorporated has a principal place of business. Further, there is no per se rule stating that out-of-state plaintiffs cannot, on the ground of forum non conveniens, sue in New York based upon products liability … , despite the fact that evidence of damages would most often be found where the plaintiff resides. Albright v Combe Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00837, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

, ,

TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the town’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted because the town did not demonstrate it had not received written notice of the defect. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiff’s theory that inadequate lighting was a factor because that theory was not in the notice of claim and permission to amend the notice of claim was not sought by the plaintiff:

To prevail on its motion, it was the Town’s burden to establish, prima facie, that no prior written notice of the alleged condition was given to either the Town Clerk or Town Commissioner of Highways (see Code of the Town of Hempstead § 6-3; Town Law § 65-a[2]). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of a records access officer for the Town’s Highway Department, wherein she specifically averred that she searched the Highway Department records, but did not state that she searched the Town Clerk’s records. Thus, the Town failed to establish, prima facie, that neither the Town Clerk nor the Commissioner of Highways received prior written notice of the alleged condition … . Weinstein v County of Nassau, 2020 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS VOID PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 265-b; NOT CLEAR WHETHER DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WAS ACTING AS A CONSULTANT IN A MATTER CONCERNING A DISTRESSED HOME LOAN; IF SO, THE DEFENDANT CAN VOID THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant law firm was acting as a consultant in matters related to distressed home loans such that any related agreement to arbitrate was void pursuant to Real Properly Law 265-b. Supreme Court had granted the law firm’s motion to compel arbitration:

Real Property Law § 265-b governs the conduct of distressed property consultants. “Distressed property consultant” or “consultant” is defined as “an individual or a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity that, directly or indirectly, solicits or undertakes employment to provide consulting services to a homeowner for compensation or promise of compensation with respect to a distressed home loan or a potential loss of the home for nonpayment of taxes” … .  A consultant does not include, inter alia, “an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York when the attorney is directly providing consulting services to a homeowner in the course of his or her regular legal practice” … . Real Property Law § 265-b further provides, in part, that “[a]ny provision in a contract which attempts or purports to require arbitration of any dispute arising under this section shall be void at the option of the homeowner” … .

Here, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the Donado defendants directly provided consulting services to the plaintiff in the course of the Donado defendants’ regular legal practice … . The plaintiff asserted in his affidavit, among other things, that he never met with an attorney from Donado Law Firm, P.C. … . Inasmuch as the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the Donado defendants were consultants within the meaning of former Real Property Law § 265-b[1][e][i], there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff would be allowed to void the arbitration provision … , and a hearing is required. Ventura v Donado Law Firm, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial evidence did not support consecutive sentences for criminal possession of a weapon and murder:

We agree with the defendant that the sentencing court could not lawfully direct that the sentence imposed upon one of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree run consecutive to the sentence imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree. As the defendant correctly contends, it is impossible, based on the indictment or the trial court’s charge, to determine whether the act that formed the basis of the jury’s verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree counts was not the basis for its conviction on the murder in the second degree count. Therefore, the People have failed to meet their burden of proving the validity of consecutive sentences … . People v McClinton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00879, Second Department 2-5-20

 

,

RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenges to two jurors should have been granted and the record does not indicate defense counsel was made aware of a juror’s complaint to the judge about the deliberations and the contents of a note from the jury. The decision dealt with several suppression issues, including the finding that DNA testing of a piece of gum discarded by the defendant when he was in custody was proper:

At the commencement of the second day of deliberations, the court met with counsel and deliberating juror C.H., who had left the court a telephone message expressing concerns about deliberations. This conversation took place outside the defendant’s presence. Although the court properly attempted to keep its communication with C.H. ministerial by simply directing her to put her concerns in writing, C.H. refused to accept the court’s directions, expressing concerns about the course of deliberations, including a concern that someone was “stirring the jury” and that other jurors had been “influenced.” The court eventually directed a court officer to return C.H. to the jury room and provide her with writing materials. * * *

After the colloquy with C.H. and following an off-the-record discussion, the defendant was returned to the courtroom, and the court stated that it had received a note from the jury which had been marked as Court Exhibit X and “sealed with the consent of all parties.” No further discussion of Court Exhibit X appears on the record. * * *

We cannot assume, from the County Court’s statement that the parties agreed to seal the note, that counsel was made aware of the exact contents of the note since “an insufficient record cannot be overcome with speculation about what might have occurred. The presumption of regularity cannot salvage an O’Rama error of this nature” … . Moreover, since the failure to disclose a jury note to counsel is a mode of proceedings error, it cannot be overlooked as harmless even where the evidence is otherwise overwhelming … . People v Kluge, 2020 NY Slip Op 00878, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO SLIP OUT OF A SWING ON A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND STOPPED THE SWING; THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SWING WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SCENARIO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate the allegedly defective swing was the proximate cause of his injury. Plaintiff alleged the swing was crooked causing his daughter to begin to slip off the seat and he fractured his hand trying to stop the swing. The Second Department noted that the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to this scenario:

The concept of assumption of the risk has been “generally restricted . . . to particular athletic and recreative activities in recognition that such pursuits have enormous social value’ even while they may involve significantly heightened risks'” … . “As a general rule application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases . . . such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, the plaintiff was pushing his young daughter in a plastic molded bucket seat swing at a playground on the School District defendants’ property when, while attempting to stop the swing, he “jammed” his hand on the back of it and fractured his hand. Pushing a swing is not the type of activity to which the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable … . Moreover, jamming one’s hand in the back of a swing “is not a risk inherent in the activity and flowing from it” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing the accident leads to the conclusion, as a matter of law, that under the circumstances of this case the risk of the plaintiff’s injury was not forseeable … . It is not reasonably foreseeable that the allegedly negligent installation of the swing, which caused it to swing crookedly, would have resulted in the plaintiff “jamm[ing]” his hand on the back of the swing and fracturing his hand. The alleged negligent installation of the swing merely furnished the occasion for the unrelated act of the plaintiff reaching out to grab the swing and jamming his hand … . Raldiris v Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown, 2020 NY Slip Op 00630, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO BE HEARD ON THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after an expedited review pursuant to the new Criminal Procedure Law section 245.70, vacated the protective order and remitted the matter to allow the defense to oppose the application for a protective order:

I conclude that the Supreme Court should have afforded defense counsel an opportunity to be heard on the People’s application for a protective order (see People v Bonifacio ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517 [2d Dept 2020]). Accordingly, the application by the defendant Carlson Small is granted, the Supreme Court’s ruling and protective order are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendants an opportunity to make arguments to that court with respect to the People’s application for a protective order, and for a new determination of that application thereafter. People v Reyes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00620, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS TOO WEAK TO MEET THE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction determined the identification evidence was too weak to support the conviction in this robbery case. The conviction was deemed to be against the weight of the evidence:

Upon the exercise of our independent factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we conclude that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence. “[W]eight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. If so, the court must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the court then decides whether the [factfinder] was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

At the second trial, in this one-witness identification case, the complainant consistently had difficulty remembering details of the crime. She could not remember how she described the defendant, and when asked how she recognized him, she stated, “[b]y his shirt.” The description she provided of the perpetrator shortly after the incident did not match, in several ways, the defendant’s actual physical characteristics and appearance. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, several minutes after the incident, the defendant possessed neither the money nor the personal items which had allegedly been taken from the complainant. People v James, 2020 NY Slip Op 00615, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, ,

USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MOSTLY WEEKEND SHORT-RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the zoning board properly held that petitioner’s. Cradit’s, use of her property for short-term guests was not a legal nonconforming use:

… [W]e agree with the Board’s determination that Cradit’s use of her property was not a legal nonconforming use. Contrary to Cradit’s argument, in renting out the residence on the property on a short-term basis, she was not using the residence as a one-family dwelling. A one-family dwelling is a building that contains a single dwelling unit (see Southold Town Code § 280-4[B]). Where property is used as “a boarding- or rooming house, . . . hotel, motel, inn, lodging or nursing or similar home or other similar structure[, it] shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit'” (id.). The Board correctly determined that Cradit’s use of the residence for short-term rentals was “similar to a hotel/motel use,” which had never been a permissible use in her zoning district. Moreover, prior to the enactment of Southold Town Code §§ 280-4 and 280-111(J), Southold Town Code § 280-8(E) specifically provided that “any use not permitted by this chapter shall be deemed prohibited.” Accordingly, because Cradit was using the property in violation of a prior zoning ordinance, she could not establish that her current use is a legal nonconforming use … . Matter of Cradit v Southold Town Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 00588, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the termination of mother’s parental rights. During the trial discharge of the child to mother, the petitioner made no effort to place in a school closer to mother and mother allowed the child to stay at the foster home on weeknights to attend school:

The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that in May 2016, the mother had adequate housing for the child, that in June 2016, she had completed her service plan and was having unsupervised parental access with the child, and that in July 2016, she was having overnight and weekend parental access. In November 2016, the Family Court directed that the petitioner implement a trial discharge to the mother, and a trial discharge commenced on December 23, 2016. Although at that time the mother resided in Manhattan and the child was attending school in Brooklyn, the petitioner did not provide any assistance with regard to transferring the child to a school closer to the mother in Manhattan, did not provide any assistance with the child’s transportation to and from his school in Brooklyn, and did not provide other appropriate services to the family. The trial discharge failed in April 2017. According to the petitioner’s witness, the trial discharge failed after the petitioner became aware that the mother had not taken the child into her full-time custody. According to the mother, the child spent weeknights with the foster mother in Brooklyn, because of the long commute between the mother’s apartment in Manhattan and the child’s school in Brooklyn. After the trial discharge failed in April 2017, the mother consistently attended her scheduled supervised parental access two hours per week until the petition was filed on August 7, 2017.

Under the circumstances presented, the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, during the relevant period of time, the mother failed to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, and further, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7] …). Matter of Tai-Gi K. (Nadine B.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00586, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

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