You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The evidence demonstrated defendant driver (Paul) went through a red light and failed to see what he should have seen. The defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs claimed that Cupid was driving when in fact the other plaintiff, Robinson, was driving was irrelevant:

The evidence submitted in support of Robinson’s motion demonstrated, prima facie, that Paul entered the subject intersection against a red light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d) … . That evidence further showed that Paul failed to see the plaintiffs’ vehicle before colliding with it in the middle of the intersection, thus demonstrating that Paul failed to see that which he should have seen through the proper use of his senses. Contrary to the defendants’ contention in the Supreme Court, Robinson was not required to demonstrate her freedom from comparative fault in order to establish her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability … .

Thus, Robinson made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability by demonstrating that Paul was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. On the facts presented here, whether Robinson or Cupid was driving their vehicle is not germane to the issue of the defendants’ liability. Robinson v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08881, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecutor’s untrue claim, made in summation and immediately objected to, that defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim, required a new trial:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments during summation that the defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim had no evidentiary support in the record. The remarks, which were promptly objected to by defense counsel, were highly prejudicial and ultimately deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … , particularly as the Supreme Court refused to give any curative instruction or grant a mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s improper comments. People v Day, 2019 NY Slip Op 08858, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, , ,

MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A DOCTOR PROPERLY SEVERED FROM A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION AGAINST THE DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action against a doctor (Wishner) for medical malpractice was properly severed from an action against the doctor’s employer (HMG) for negligent training, supervision, hiring and retention. Evidence the doctor had negligently treated another patient would not be admissible in the malpractice action but would be admissible in the action against the employer:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of Wishner’s motion which was to sever the causes of action asserted against HMG alleging negligent training, supervision, hiring, and retention from the causes of action premised on medical malpractice. In general, “it is improper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that he or she did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion” … . Thus, generally, evidence of prior unrelated bad acts of negligent treatment of other patients, even if relevant, constitutes impermissible propensity evidence that lacks probative value and “has the potential to induce the jury to decide the case based on evidence of [a] defendant’s character” … . Mullen v Wishner, 2019 NY Slip Op 08850, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

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

 

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