You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , , ,

NONE OF DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS STOOD UP TO APPELLATE SCRUTINY; THE GRAND LARCENY AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE COUNTS CHARGING SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND APPEARING AS AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED WERE DISMISSED AS DUPLICITOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the grand larceny and criminal impersonation counts, with the People’s consent, under a weight-of-the-evidence analysis. The proof demonstrated the grand larceny counts failed because the “victims” voluntarily gave defendant the money. The criminal impersonation counts failed because the defendant did not impersonate a “real person.” The scheme to defraud and “appearing as an attorney without being admitted” counts were dismissed as duplicitous:

… [T]he counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree and practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered were duplicitous. “A count in an indictment is void as duplicitous when it charges more than one offense” … . “Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented to the grand jury or at trial makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . Here, neither the verdict sheet nor the jury charge explained how the testimony and evidence adduced at trial applied to the three counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree or the three counts of practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered, including which counts pertained to which of the complainants. Under the circumstances, the challenged counts were duplicitous because it is impossible to determine the particular acts upon which the jury reached its verdict with respect to each of the counts … . People v Rafikian, 2026 NY Slip Op 01232, Second Dept 3-4-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of dismissal of indictment counts as duplicitous. It was not possible to determine which allegation in the counts was the basis of the the jury’s decision to convict.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS UNAVOIDABLY DELAYED IN GETTING TO COURT AND SO INFORMED THE JUDGE; IN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ABSENCE A JUROR REQUESTED TO BE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF HER FRIEND’S SON; THE DISCHARGE OF THE JUROR WITHOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONSENT REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defense motion for a mistrial should have been granted. Defense counsel, because of a child-care issue, informed the court she could not be there at 9 am but would arrive at court later in the morning. While defense counsel was absent, a juror requested to be discharged because of the sudden death of a family friend’s son. The judge discharged the juror. When defense counsel arrived she objected to the discharge of the juror without her consent and moved for a mistrial:

It is undisputed that the Supreme Court failed to adhere to the requirements of CPL 270.35. As a matter of procedure, the court, at a minimum, should have informed all parties of the substance of the inquiry and provided each side with an opportunity to be heard before making its determination to discharge the sworn juror. The court both conducted the inquiry and discharged the juror in the presence of the People and in the absence of defense counsel.

Although defense counsel was apprised with the actual specific contents of the jury note upon her arrival … , the Supreme Court’s procedural errors here were inherently prejudicial, as they deprived the defendant of an opportunity to be heard before giving meaningful notice of the contents of the note, conducting the inquiry, and discharging the juror as incapacitated … . People v Dean, 2026 NY Slip Op 01218, Second Dept 3-4-26

Practice Point: Here the discharge of a juror in defense counsel’s absence warranted a mistrial.

 

,

PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE A SCAFFOLD WHILE STANDING ON IT AND IT FELL OVER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on a Baker scaffold, attempting to move it, when it toppled over. The scaffold did not have safety railings and plaintiff was not provided with any safety equipment.. Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is irrelevant for a Labor Law 240(1) action:

The plaintiff’s assigned work on the project required him to stand on top of a Baker scaffold. As the plaintiff was attempting to move the scaffold while standing on the platform of the scaffold, the scaffold toppled over and the plaintiff fell five to six feet to the floor below. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries by submitting a transcript of his deposition testimony in which he testified that he fell from a scaffold that did not have any safety railings and that he was not provided with any safety devices to keep him from falling … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Since the plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of his fall, his comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the cause of action alleging a violation of that statute … . * * *

… [T]he court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) as was predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b), as the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the manually propelled scaffold lacked safety railings … . Bustamante v BSD 370 Lexington, L.L.C., 2026 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 3-4-26

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the irrelevance of comparative negligence for a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, THERE WAS ALSO PROOF THE MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AND WAS RETURNED; WITHOUT PROOF PLAINTIFFS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE 90-DAY NOTICES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution should not have been granted. Although there was proof defendants (the Cohens) mailed the 90-day notices to the pro se plaintiffs, there was no proof the notices were received (the mailings were returned):

In August 2023, more than a year after the expiration of the stay, the Cohens moved … pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. In support of the motion, the Cohens submitted evidence that in August 2022 they mailed 90-day demands pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3) to the plaintiffs, who were then pro se, by certified mail. The Cohens also submitted evidence, however, that the mailings were returned to them. The United States Postal Service tracking history submitted by the Cohens indicated that one delivery was attempted and that five days later a reminder was sent to schedule redelivery before the mailings were returned to the sender. * * *

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff “to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within [90] days after receipt of such demand” … . “Notably, the time within which the plaintiff must act runs from the receipt, and not the service of the demand” … . Here, in support of their motion, the Cohens submitted proof that the 90-day demands were not received by the plaintiffs. Kurbonov v Cohen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: To support a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, the defendant must proof the 90-day notice was actually received by the pro se plaintiff. Proof of mailing is not enough.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY IMPOUNDED; THEREFORE THE ITEMS SEIZED DURING THE SUBSEQUENT INVENTORY SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTIONS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion and vacating the convictions, determined the People did not demonstrate the proper procedure for impounding defendant’s vehicle (which was subjected to an inventory search) was followed:

The People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . At a suppression hearing, the arresting officer equivocated on whether or not the vehicle was parked legally on the street, and he did not testify as to the posted time limits pertaining to the parking space at which the defendant had pulled over. Although the officer testified that he had to impound the vehicle to safeguard it at the precinct station house and “for further investigation,” the People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had pulled over the vehicle. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, the People failed to present any evidence as to whether the New York City Police Department had a policy regarding impoundment of vehicles, what that policy required, or whether the arresting officer complied with that policy when he impounded the defendant’s vehicle … .

Accordingly, the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and the physical evidence that was recovered from the vehicle during the inventory search subsequent to that impoundment must be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful impoundment … . People v McClarin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01076, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the valid grounds and procedures for impounding a vehicle and the consequences of improperly impounding a vehicle. Here all the items seized in an inventory search after the improper impoundment were suppressed and the convictions were vacated.

 

, , ,

HERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF EACH NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE INCIDENTS; WHERE A SCHOOL HAS TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING A CLAIM, THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A BAR TO GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant school district should been granted. The petition alleged negligent supervision a student who was assaulted, harassed, and bullied on specific occasions. There were contemporaneous incident reports. The school district, therefore, had knowledge of the nature of the claims within 90 days of each incident:

… [T]he petitioner established that the School District had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of each incident included in the notice of claim. The petitioner submitted, among other things, incident reports and documentation of investigations conducted by the School District within days of the incidents … , police reports that documented communications and an investigation by school officials … , an electronic communication between the petitioner and a school official … , and an “[a]ction [p]lan” created pursuant to a meeting between the petitioner and school officials where the alleged wrongful conduct and the plans to monitor the students and address the conduct were discussed … .

As the petitioner demonstrated that the School District acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the petitioner met her initial burden of showing that the School District would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In opposition to the petitioner’s initial showing, the School District failed to come forward with particularized evidence showing that the late notice had substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … .

Although the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve the notice of claim, “where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Polito v North Babylon Sch. Dist., 2026 NY Slip Op 01067, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against a school district, the absence of a reasonable excuse for timely filing the claim may be overlooked where it is demonstrated the school had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claims.

 

, ,

A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the “reckless disregard” standard for liability applied to this accident involving a police car and a skateboarder, and (2) the county defendants did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether the “reckless disregard” standard was met. The officer was responding a call from a woman in labor with complications. The officer struck the skateboarder, who was in a turn lane, when the officer swerved into the turn lane to pass a car:

The “reckless disregard” standard demands more than a showing of a lack of “due care under the circumstances” … . “It requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “This standard requires a showing of more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … .

Here, the defendants established that the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 was applicable to Degere’s [the officer’s] conduct because he was responding to a radio call of a woman going into labor with complications … . However, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint because their moving papers failed to eliminate all issues of material fact regarding whether Degere acted recklessly by either traveling at a high speed in the center turn lane in a school zone with poor lighting conditions or abruptly merging into the center turn lane without first looking to his left or activating his turn signal … . Moccasin v Suffolk County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01049, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “reckless disregard for the safety of others” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 in the context of a police officer responding to an emergency call.

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the court should not have delegated its authority to determine parental access by conditional parental access on the consent of the children:

… “[A] court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . Here, the Family Court improperly delegated its authority to determine the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. to those children. … [W]e remit the matter to the Family Court … for a new determination as to the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. in accordance with the best interests of those children … . Matter of Destinee A. (Jacquelyn M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: A Family Court judge cannot delegate his/her/their authority to determine parental access to the parties or the children.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint, determined the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon, should not have been precluded on the ground he was not qualified to testify about robotic surgery. The complaint alleged the defendant negligently performed a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy:

“A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, but the witness should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, a board certified general surgeon, testified that he had knowledge of adrenalectomies and the splenic vein based on his education and training, had performed surgeries involving the adrenal gland, and had extensive experience performing laparoscopic surgeries, and he opined that the principles of good surgical practice with respect to the isolation, preservation, and protection of adjacent organs were the same regardless of whether a surgery was performed openly, laparoscopically, or robotically. This testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert was qualified to render an opinion regarding the standard of care for a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy … . The expert’s lack of experience in performing robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomies goes to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility … . Lynch v Wang, 2026 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-28-26

Practice Point: A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field to testify about accepted practices in that field. Here the plaintiff alleged defendant negligently performed robotic surgery. Plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon who was not experienced in robotic surgery, should not have been precluded from testifying.

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS FOR VACATING THE JUDGMENT, HE WAIVED ANY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES BY PARTICIPATING IN AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH BEFORE MOVING TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant had waived any jurisdictional (improper service and notice) issues by participating in an examination under oath in connection with the underlying renewal-judgment enforcement proceeding. Defendant had defaulted in the renewal-judgment proceeding and summary judgment had been awarded to plaintiff. After participating in the examination under oath, the defendant moved to vacate the renewal judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment. Supreme Court granted the motion:

“‘[I]mproper service of a motion provides a complete excuse for default on a motion and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion'” … , and “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities, warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … .

However, “‘[w]hen a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court'” … .

Here, the defendant made an informal appearance in the action by appearing for the examination under oath in connection with the enforcement of the renewal judgment, which went to the merits of this action. Bharath v Sitaram, 2026 NY Slip Op 00872, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Here defendant waived any jurisdictional issues related to improper service and notice by participating in an examination under oath.

 

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