You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE ONE-STEP RISER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord (Steph-Leigh) was not responsible for the repair of a one-step riser inside a warehouse, which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege the violation of a statute, Steph-Leigh demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly damaged step … . Although the lease obligated Steph-Leigh to make necessary structural repairs to the interior of the premises, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegedly cracked and eroded single-step riser was not a structural element of the warehouse for which Steph-Leigh was contractually responsible … . Michaele v Steph-Leigh Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08844, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, , ,

NEGLIGENT CONCEALMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITAL ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE BILLING PRACTICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent concealment/misrepresentation, but did state a cause of action for violation of General Business Law 349. The plaintiff alleged defendant hospital failed to to disclose material facts about the hospital’s billing practices for emergency treatment:

As a threshold matter, while the parties appear to dispute whether the first cause of action should be characterized as one sounding in “negligent concealment” or “negligent misrepresentation,” this is a distinction without a difference. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s allegations are that the hospital negligently failed to disclose material facts to him concerning the hospital’s billing practices. This is a species of negligent misrepresentation based on the omission to disclose material facts … . As a general proposition, “a duty to speak with care exists when the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, [is] such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information” … . Thus, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the parties are in a contractual relationship, without more, is insufficient to support the imposition of a duty to speak with care … .

While it cannot be doubted that the relationship between a physician and a patient is one of confidence and trust regarding matters of medical treatment … , we decline to hold that such relationship, and any duty to speak with care that may come with it, also extends to matters of billing having nothing to do with the rendition of medical treatment. …

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the General Business Law § 349 cause of action insofar as asserted against it. First, contrary to the hospital’s contention, it was engaged in consumer-oriented activity … . Second, it is possible to engage in deceptive trade practices through omissions as well as affirmative representations … , particularly where, as here, it is alleged that “the business alone possesses material information that is relevant to the consumer and fails to provide this information” … . Third, contrary to the hospital’s contention, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered an injury under General Business Law § 349 … . Krobath v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08838, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 13O4 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was not demonstrated by the bank:

… [T]he affidavit of Theresia Ang, assistant vice president for the loan servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter PHH), which was submitted in support of the motion, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendants in the manner required by RPAPL 1304 … . While Ang attested that “a ninety (90) day pre-foreclosure notice” was sent to the defendants “by registered or certified and first class mail,” and attached a copy of the notice along with a proof of filing statement from the New York State Banking Department, “the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service, or proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it served the defendants pursuant to RPAPL 1304 by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to their last known address … . Moreover, while Ang attested that she had personal knowledge of the records maintained in PHH’s electronic record keeping system, the plaintiff failed to submit proof of “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . KeyBank N.A. v Barrett, 2019 NY Slip Op 08835, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce should not have been modified without holding a hearing:

“A party seeking a change in [parental access] or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” … . As a general matter, custody and parental access determinations should only be rendered after a full hearing … .However, this general right is not absolute … , and a hearing “is not necessary where the undisputed facts before the court are sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a modification of custody … .

The plaintiff made the necessary showing entitling him to a hearing regarding that branch of his motion which was to modify the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce with respect to the child … . The record shows that there were disputed factual issues regarding the child’s best interests such that a hearing on modification of parental access was required … . Further, “[a] decision regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence” … . Here, in making its determination, the Supreme Court relied solely on information provided at court conferences, and the hearsay statements and conclusions of the family specialist, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . Katsoris v Katsoris, 2019 NY Slip Op 08833, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT, WHO LIVED IN INDIA, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the time for serving defendant (Kothary), who lived in India, in this foreclosure action was properly extended in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b. But Supreme Court should not have directed an alternative method of service (service upon the defendant’s attorney) pursuant to CPLR 308 (5):

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting, in the interest of justice, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon Kothary. The plaintiff established, among other things, that the action was timely commenced, and that service was timely attempted and was perceived by the plaintiff to have been within the 120-day period but was subsequently found to have been defective … . Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action, and that there was no identifiable prejudice to Kothary as a consequence of the delay in service … . …

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 308(5) to direct an alternative method for service of process by permitting service upon Kothary’s attorney. “CPLR 308(5) vests a court with discretion to direct an alternative method for service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) are impracticable” … . “[A] plaintiff seeking to effect expedient service must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made” … . Here, at the hearing, Kothary provided the address where he resides in New Delhi … , and the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that effectuating service in India by any of the authorized methods would have been unduly burdensome … . “That [Kothary] resided in a foreign country did not, by itself, relieve the plaintiff of [its] obligation to make a reasonable effort to effectuate service in a customary manner before seeking relief pursuant to CPLR 308(5)” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Kothary, 2019 NY Slip Op 08832, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the medical malpractice causes of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff’s decedent had seen the defendant psychiatrist for the first time on November 20, 2014 and the next appointment was set up for December 11, 2014. Defendant alleged he called decedent on November 21, 2014 to tell her she should be treated by someone else, but the December 11, 2014 appointment was not cancelled. Decedent committed suicide on November 24, 2014. The action was commenced on May 24, 2017:

Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the period of limitations does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment if three conditions are met: (1) the patient “continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period”; (2) the course of treatment was “for the same conditions or complaints underlying the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim”; and (3) the treatment is “continuous” … . To satisfy the requirement that treatment is continuous, further treatment must be explicitly anticipated by both the physician and the patient, as demonstrated by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . * * *

The question here is whether the statute of limitations began to run on November 20, 2014, when the decedent met with the defendant for a medical appointment, or November 24, 2014, when she died. The Supreme Court concluded that the limited interactions between the defendant and the decedent failed to give rise to a continuing trust and confidence between them upon which the court could conclude that the decedent anticipated further treatment. However, since a further appointment was scheduled and was not cancelled—further treatment of some sort was anticipated, or there is at least a triable issue of fact on that issue … . Hillary v Gerstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 08658, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID ON THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the liquid on the floor:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the assistant manager of the supermarket, who did not recall if he was working on the date of the accident, and the affidavit of the defendant’s vice president of loss prevention, merely referred to the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection practices. The defendant did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the condition on which the plaintiff fell was not visible and apparent, and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection of the area where the plaintiff was injured … . Fortune v Western Beef, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08656, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, , ,

THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a California judgment should have been given full faith and credit and the underlying merits should not have been considered:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the judgment and the order, which obligated the defendants to pay the plaintiff certain amounts, and evidence that the defendants had not paid the amounts awarded therein (see CPLR 3213 …). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.

The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art IV, § 1) requires that the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state be given full faith and credit in every other state. The purpose of the clause is to avoid conflicts between states in adjudicating the same matters … . “The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence . . . which requires recognition of the foreign judgment as proof of the prior-out-of-State litigation and gives it res judicata effect, thus avoiding relitigation of issues in one State which have already been decided in another” … . “Absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state” … , and it is precluded from inquiring into the merits of the judgment … .

Here, the defendants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the California court, but instead, sought to relitigate the merits underlying that court’s determination. The Supreme Court should not have considered the defendants’ attack on the merits of the California determination. Balboa Capital Corp. v Plaza Auto Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08645, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated defendant had a bank account in a New York bank to which the funds defendant borrowed from plaintiff were wired. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached a contract requiring the repayment of the loan:

CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state.” “The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . The sufficient activities requirement is satisfied “so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … .

“To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus . . . or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted” … . “This inquiry is relatively permissive, and does not require causation, but merely a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim” … . “CPLR 302(a)(1) is a single act statute and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Skutnik v Messina, 2019 NY Slip Op 08725, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCEDURE USED WHEN PLAINTIFF DONATED BLOOD SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DOCTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3012-a WAS DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH BELIEF THE ACTION SOUNDED IN COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the action stemming from alleged negligence in drawing blood donated by plaintiff sounded in medical malpractice, not common law negligence; (2) therefore a certificate of merit was required (CPLR 3012-a); and (3) the failure to provide a certificate of merit does not warrant dismissal of the action, rather the plaintiff should be allowed 60 days to provide the certificate:

… [M]any of the plaintiff’s allegations bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment to a particular patient …. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendant failed to properly screen the plaintiff for health problems, obtain her medical history, monitor her physical condition, measure her hemoglobin levels, and keep her at the donation site for a specific period of time to observe any signs of an adverse reaction. The issues of whether the plaintiff needed additional screening, monitoring, or supervision, and whether she was at risk of falling due to a medical condition, involve the exercise of medical judgments beyond the common knowledge of ordinary persons. Only a medical professional would know what factors make a person ineligible to donate blood, how much blood should be drawn, what constitutes the signs and symptoms of an adverse reaction, and how to immediately treat an adverse reaction. Thus, the interaction between the plaintiff and the defendant implicates issues of medical judgment that sound in medical malpractice. * * *

… [A]lthough the complaint was not accompanied by a certificate of merit as required by CPLR 3012-a, dismissal of the complaint is not warranted as the plaintiff’s attorney should be provided with an opportunity to comply with the statute now that it is determined that the statute applies to this particular action … . There is no reason to believe from this record that the plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to file a certificate of merit was motivated by anything other than a good faith assessment that CPLR 3012-a did not apply to the action. The proper remedy at this stage, since the defendant had also sought in its underlying motion “such other and further relief as this court may deem just, proper and reasonable” … , is for this Court to extend the plaintiff’s time to serve a certificate of merit upon the defendant until 60 days after service of this opinion and order.  Only if the plaintiff is recalcitrant in complying with both the statute and this Court’s order may the Supreme Court, in its discretion, then dismiss the complaint … . Rabinovich v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 08724, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

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