You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

WHERE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE BEFORE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; HERE THE FAILURE TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE RENDERED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined it had been more than a year since defendant Callahan had failed to answer the complaint and, therefore, Callahan was entitled to notice before a default judgment could be entered. No notice was given:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), ‘whenever application [for judgment by default] is made to the court or to the clerk, any defendant who has appeared is entitled to at least five days’ notice of the time and place of the application, and if more than one year has elapsed since the default any defendant who has not appeared is entitled to the same notice unless the court orders otherwise'” … . “[T]he failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment” … . As such, “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities'” … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Powers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01610, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Where it has been more than a year since defendant failed to answer a complaint, the defendant is entitled to notice before entry of a default judgment. Failure to provide notice renders the judgment a nullity.

 

, , ,

THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month statute of limitations in the employment contract with plaintiff was reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s action, which was commenced one day after the six-month limitation period had expired, was time-barred:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to [*2]commence an action is enforceable provided it is in writing'” … . CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement.”

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), “‘a moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired'” … . Once this threshold showing is met, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to “‘raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period'” … .

Here, the defendants produced the employment application, which contained the provision regarding the six-month limitations period and which was signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute that her employment was terminated on November 23, 2021. The defendants therefore established … that the limitations period expired on May 23, 2022. The plaintiff commenced this action on May 24, 2022, one day after the expiration of the limitations period. Salati v Northwell Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here the six-month statute of limitations in plaintiff’s employment contract was deemed reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s employment discrimination action, commenced six months and one day after her employment was terminated, was time-barred.

 

, ,

THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined the not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence used by Marcus, the Torah reader, and his family:​

This appeal provides this Court with an opportunity to clarify the standards courts should consider when deciding whether a covered not-for-profit corporation is entitled to a full tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for property allegedly utilized primarily in furtherance of exempt purposes. The circumstances presented here involve an Orthodox Jewish religious corporation seeking an exemption for a residential property used, inter alia, to house its Torah reader and his family. … [W]e conclude … that the petitioner demonstrated that the subject property was used primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes during the 2015 tax year. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition to review the real property tax assessment for that year. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions established that it offered Marcus housing within walking distance of the synagogue in order to continue to retain his expert services as a Torah reader, as his religious beliefs prohibited him from driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on Jewish holy days, and he had a growing family which made walking from his prior apartment impractical … . The petitioner’s rabbi also stated that, upon learning that Marcus could not continue in his role as Torah reader without residing closer to the synagogue, “[t]he congregation was unable to identify any qualified Torah [r]eader within walking distance [thereof].” Considering … that “[t]he requirement of reading from the Torah” during services “is absolute and cannot be waived,” as explained by the rabbi, the petitioner’s religious “goal[s]” were “advance[d]” by providing Marcus with housing closer to the synagogue … . Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01634, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence provided to the Torah reader and his family because the residence was used “primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes” during the relevant tax year.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment against the owner of the vehicle in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although summary judgment against the driver, Patel, was properly granted, there was a question of fact whether the driver had exceeded the scope of the permission granted by the owner, Paragon, a car dealership. There was evidence the sales rep told Patel he could drive around the block and return in five or ten minutes. Patel had taken the car on the expressway and called the dealership 35 minutes after leaving to say he had accident:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that, with the exception of bona fide commercial lessors of motor vehicles, which are exempt from vicarious liability under federal law, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of one who operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent” … . “The strong presumption of permissive use afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, can only be rebutted by substantial evidence sufficient to show that the driver of the vehicle was not operating the vehicle with the owner’s consent” … . “An owner may place limitations on a driver’s permission to use a vehicle, such as granting consent to drive only to a particular area or for a specific purpose, and use outside the scope of permission negates the owner’s liability under the statute” … . “Thus, an owner may avoid liability under the statute if the driver exceeded the time, place[,] and purpose of the use permitted by the owner” … . Madrigal v Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01620, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: The owner of a vehicle may impose limits on the permissive use of the vehicle by another. If the driver exceeds the scope of the permission to use the vehicle, the owner may not be vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STAYED; NEITHER PROCEDURE FOR LIFTING THE STAY WAS INVOKED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a stay of the foreclosure action was in effect because of the suspension of defendant McGrath’s attorney. Because plaintiff never served McGrath with the required notice to lift the stay, the summary judgment order should have been vacated:

When an attorney is suspended from the practice of law, “as with an attorney’s death, incapacitation, removal from an action, or other disability, CPLR 321(c) protects the client by automatically staying the action from the date of the disabling event” … . “The express language of CPLR 321(c) sets no particular time limit to the stay of proceedings that is automatically triggered by a qualifying event” … .

“[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … .

“[T]here are actually two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se” … . “The second way is by means of [a] notice procedure pursuant to CPLR 321(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not serve McGrath with the notice to appoint “either personally or in such manner as the court direct[ed]” (CPLR 321[c]). It is undisputed that no attempt was made to personally serve the required notice, nor is it alleged that the Supreme Court directed that service of the notice be made in some other manner … . Moreover, it is undisputed that McGrath did not communicate an intention to proceed pro se … . Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until McGrath opposed the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and cross-moved to vacate the summary judgment order … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v McGrath, 2025 NY Slip Op 01614, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: When a party’s attorney is suspended, the proceedings are automatically stayed. There are two statutory procedures for lifting the stay, neither of which was invoked here.

 

,

THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND JOIN AN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and to join another action should have been granted. The proposed amendment was not time-barred because the original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences upon which the amendment is based. The motion to join another action should have been granted because there were common questions of law or fact and defendants would not be prejudiced:

While a proposed amendment generally is considered patently devoid of merit if it is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations” … , here, the proposed amendment relates back to the original complaint and is deemed to have been timely interposed because the original complaint gave “notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” on which the claims in the proposed amended complaint were based (CPLR 203[f] …). [Defendants] failed to establish that they were prejudiced or surprised by the plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, as discovery was still ongoing at the time the plaintiff’s motion was made … , the proposed amended complaint was “premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences” alleged in the original complaint … , and the proposed amendment merely elaborated on the same theory of liability alleged in the original complaint … . …

The Supreme Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 602(a) to join Action No. 2 with Action No. 1 for purposes of trial. “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … . Here, Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 both arise from the project, concern the same parties, and involve common questions of law and fact … , and a failure to try the two actions jointly would result in a “duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions” … . Contrary to the contentions of KGD and OLA, the possibility of prejudice resulting from a joint trial can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions … , and any potential prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … .  Great Neck Lib. v Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01613, Second Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for amending a complaint, including a determination whether the amendment is time-barred (it is not if the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences referenced in the amendment).

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for consolidating two actions which involve common questions of law or fact.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE ALLEGED FRAUD WHICH INDUCED HIM TO SIGN RELEASES; THEREFORE THIS FRUAD-BASED ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school in this Child Victims Act case (1) did not demonstrate the fraud-based causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases signed by the plaintiff were time-barred and (2) was not entitled to dismissal of the fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he would not have signed the releases had he known the guidance counsellor who allegedly sexually abused him would be allowed to continue in his employment, and he would not have signed the releases had he known there were other instances of sexual misconduct by the guidance counsellor of which the school was aware:  With respect to the statute of limitations for a fraud-based action, the court explained:

“A fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, whichever is later” (… see CPLR 203[g]; 213[8]). “The inquiry as to whether a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns on whether the plaintiff was possessed of knowledge of facts from which the fraud could be reasonably inferred” … . “Generally, knowledge of the fraudulent act is required and mere suspicion will not constitute a sufficient substitute. Where it does not conclusively appear that a plaintiff had knowledge of facts from which the fraud could reasonably be inferred, a [fraud-based cause of action] should not be dismissed on motion and the question should be left to the trier of facts” … . “Ordinarily, an inquiry into when a plaintiff should have discovered an alleged fraud presents a mixed question of law and fact” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish that the causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases on the ground of fraud were time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) … . “[T]here was no indication in the [amended complaint] or in the papers submitted by the defendant[ ] on [its] motion as to when the plaintiff became aware” of the alleged fraudulent conduct … . In any event, the plaintiff, in affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, indicated that he learned of certain facts underlying the fraud-based causes of action in early 2021 … . The defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered those facts at some point prior to the two-year period immediately preceding the commencement of this action … . Gormley v Marist Bros. of the Schs., Province of the United States of Am., 2025 NY Slip Op 01612, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant did not demonstrate when plaintiff could or should have become aware of the defendant’s alleged fraud. Therefore the motion to dismiss the fraud-based action as time-barred should not have been granted.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of what must be alleged to state causes of action for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment in the context of setting aside or rescinding a release.

 

, ,

IN REINSTATING THE ACTION AFTER VACATING THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS’, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED WHAT SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN A COMPLAINT FOR LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell through the roof of the building he was working on. Apparently plaintiff failed to answer the summary judgment motion because of law office failure. In reinstating the action, the Second Department noted that the causes of action had been adequately pled as follows:​

“‘Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks'” … . “‘To impose liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a violation of the statute and that violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that his fall through the roof was the result of an elevation-related hazard caused by the failure to keep necessary safety devices in place and identified the defendants as the owners of the premises. …

“‘Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed'” … . “‘To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff or a claimant must demonstrate that his [or her] injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was employed in an area where construction was being performed and that his injuries were proximately caused by the failure to comply with applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. ….

“‘Labor Law § 200 essentially codifies landowners’ and general contractors’ common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace'” … . “‘Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a safe place to work and that the defendants controlled and supervised the work at issue. Bayron Chay Mo v Ultra Dimension Place, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of what should be alleged in the complaint for Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF INSURER DENIED FOUR CLAIMS FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH FOUR DISTINCT CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT TO A WOMAN INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; EACH OF THE FOUR CLAIMS WAS FOR AN AMOUNT BELOW $5000; AN ARBITRATOR AWARDED THE CLAIMED BENEFITS TO THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF THEN SOUGHT DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS WHICH HAS A $5000 THRESHOLD; THE FOUR DISTINCT ARBITRAL AWARDS CANNOT BE COMBINED TO MEET THE $5000 THRESHOLD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined the complaint in this no-fault insurance-benefit action should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:

The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether, under certain circumstances, separate and distinct arbitral awards can be treated by a court as, in effect, a single arbitral award under Insurance Law § 5106(c) and pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii) for the purposes of determining whether the requisite $5,000 threshold establishing subject matter jurisdiction has been met to allow for a de novo review of claims for no-fault insurance benefits…. [W]e hold that the plain language of Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1) does not contemplate allowing separate and distinct arbitral awards to be treated as, in effect, a single arbitral award or to be combined by a court for the purposes of meeting the required monetary jurisdictional threshold under Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii). …

… [P]laintiff American Transit Insurance Company commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii) to seek de novo review of four separate arbitral awards issued by a master arbitrator (hereinafter the arbitral awards). The four arbitral awards were issued by the same master arbitrator, following separate arbitration proceedings upon the plaintiff’s denial of payment for medical services performed by the defendant for Nancy Bayona, an individual who alleged that she was injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident in February 2019 when she was riding as a passenger in a taxi insured by the plaintiff. The arbitration proceedings arose upon the plaintiff’s denial of each of four claims submitted to it by the defendant for a repeated course of chiropractic treatment of Bayona performed by the defendant between March 8 and September 4, 2019. After each of the four arbitration proceedings, the master arbitrator issued an arbitral award in favor of the defendant, respectively, as follows: $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in March 2019; $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in March 2019 and April 2019; $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in April 2019 and May 2019; and $3,178.42 for chiropractic services performed in August 2019. … [P]laintiff commenced this action seeking de novo review of the four arbitral awards. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01337, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: De novo review of an arbitral award of no-fault benefits has a threshold of $5000. Here there were four claims for no-fault benefits for four distinct chiropractic treatments provided to a woman injured in a traffic accident. Each of the four claims was for an amount below $5000. The Second Department held the $5000 threshold for de novo review could not be met by combining the four distinct arbitral awards.

 

,

WHERE A DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” THE SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT; IF THE RECORD IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE, THE SENTENCE WILL BE VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant was an “eligible youth” but the record was silent about whether the court considered youthful offender treatment:

“Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain” … . “Where a defendant is an eligible youth, the determination of whether to afford him or her youthful offender treatment must be explicitly made on the record” … . Here, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment … . People v Suckoo, 2025 NY Slip Op 01396, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: If the record does not reflect that the court considered youthful offender treatment for an “eligible youth,” the sentence will be vacated.​

 

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