You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO DELAY DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS MURDER CASE UNTIL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an expedited review of Supreme Court’s granting a protective order in a murder case, determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion, in part because defense counsel was notified of the ex parte proceeding:

On January 15, 2020, the Supreme Court convened in an open session in the presence of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant. After ascertaining that defense counsel would not waive a hearing on the protective order, the court ordered the courtroom sealed. The defendant was removed from the courtroom, and defense counsel stepped out of the courtroom. Defense counsel did not voice an objection to the court’s conduct of an ex parte proceeding. Nor did defense counsel seek to offer any arguments concerning any of the factors relevant to the determination as to whether, and to what extent, a protective order should be issued. The court then proceeded to conduct an ex parte proceeding regarding the People’s application. Thereafter, the court resumed with a continued open session attended by both defense counsel and the defendant. After the court informed defense counsel that it had granted the People’s application, the parties and the court proceeded to discuss other matters related to the case. During these proceedings, defense counsel inquired as to whether there was description of the shooting by a witness. The court responded by stating that defense counsel had been provided with a videotape that “pretty much shows you how the shooting occurred.” … The defendant now seeks expedited review of the court’s ruling pursuant to CPL 245.70(6).

… [T]he record reflects that the court considered the possibility of allowing defense counsel access to the information on the condition that it not be shared with the defendant personally; the court raised this possibility sua sponte.

It would have been better in my view to allow defense counsel to see the portions of the People’s written application that contained legal argument or other matter that would not reveal the information sought to be covered by the protective order, pending the court’s determination as to whether the sensitive portions of the People’s application should be sealed. Further, it would have been better in my view, even assuming that portions of the People’s written and oral presentations should be sealed, to permit defense counsel to participate in portions of the protective order proceeding where the substance of the sealed information is not discussed. In my view, defense counsel should be excluded from participation in the protective order review process only to the extent necessary to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information pending the court’s determination as to the issuance, and scope, of the protective order. People v Nash, 2020 NY Slip Op 00520, First Dept 1-27-20

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION (OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE) UNTIL AFTER JURY SELECTION VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDER; THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an expedited appellate review of the issuance of a protective order by Supreme Court, vacated the protective order and sent the matter back to allow the defense to make an argument in opposition. The defendant is accused of stabbing his wife multiple times. The People, pursuant to CPL 245.70, ex parte, applied for and were granted an order delaying, until after jury selection, the turning over of information otherwise subject to automatic disclosure under CPL 245.70. The decision makes an effort to explain how these new disclosure provisions should be handled by the trial courts:

Unlike the prior discovery statute, which allowed the People to wait until the time of trial to turn over witness statements (see CPL former 240.45), the new statutory scheme provides that disclosure is to be made within days after arraignment (see CPL 245.10[1][a]). The new statute provides that there shall be a “presumption in favor of disclosure” when interpreting certain listed provisions of CPL article 245 (CPL 245.20[7]), although the provision relating to protective orders (CPL 245.70) is not among those that are listed (see CPL 245.20[7]).

CPL 245.70 provides that upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may at any time order that discovery be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate (see CPL 245.70[1]). It further provides that the court “may permit a party seeking or opposing a protective order under this section, or another affected person, to submit papers or testify on the record ex parte or in camera,” and that any such papers and a transcript of any such testimony may be sealed and constitute a part of the record on appeal (CPL 245.70[1]). …

The statute cannot be reasonably construed to permit a protective order to be sought entirely ex parte in every case. Since entirely ex parte proceedings should be allowed only in some cases, it necessarily follows that proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party. …

The necessity for appellate intervention would have been reduced had the Supreme Court, either before or after granting the subject protective order, afforded defense counsel the opportunity to be heard and thereafter determined whether to grant, adhere to, modify, or rescind the protective order. People v Bonifacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-23-20

Similar issues and result in People v Reyes-Fuentes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00518, Second Dept 1-23-20

 

FATHER’S NONVOLUNTARY UNION DUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS INCOME FOR CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s nonvoluntary union dues should have been deducted from his income for the calculation of child support:

Although no deduction from income for union dues is specifically mandated by the Family Court Act, there is an allowable deduction for “unreimbursed employee business expenses except to the extent said expenses reduce personal expenditures” (Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][5][vii][A]). Nonvoluntary union dues may be deducted under this category … . “However, such expenses are properly deducted from parental income in calculating child support obligations only when proven, usually by tax returns accompanied by records and receipts” … .

At the hearing, counsel for the mother consented to the deduction of the father’s nonvoluntary union dues from the father’s income for the purposes of calculating his child support and related financial obligations. Thus, the Family Court should have granted the father’s objection to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as failed to deduct the father’s nonvoluntary union dues from his income in calculating his child support and related financial obligations. Matter of Julien v Ware, 2020 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the hospital, Good Samaritan, was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of a physician, Chin, who, although not a hospital employee, treated plaintiff in the hospital emergency room:

“In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself” … . However, “[a]n exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . …

Here, although Good Samaritan established that Chin was not its employee, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Good Samaritan’s emergency room seeking treatment from a privately selected physician rather than from the hospital itself … . Fuessel v Chin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00404, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause action in this ladder fall case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action asserted against [defendant]. The plaintiff established, prima facie, [defendant’s] liability under Labor Law § 240(1) through the submission of a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he was provided with a ladder that lacked rubber feet, and that the ladder, which was leaning against a wall, slid away from the wall, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground … . Chapa v Bayles Props., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00397, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

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

 

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