You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL HAD NO SAFETY RAILINGS AND THE SCAFFOLD WOBBLED AND COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THE KICKBACK FROM A HAMMER DRILL PLAINTIFF WAS USING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this Labor Law 240(1) action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff demonstrated the scaffold from which he fell did not have safety railings and the scaffold wobbled and collapsed because of the kickback from a hammer drill he was using:

… [T]he plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) through his deposition testimony that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold that lacked safety rails and that he was not otherwise provided an appropriate safety device. The plaintiff further testified that the kickback from the hammer drill he was using caused the scaffolding to wobble and collapse, proximately causing both his fall and his subsequent injuries. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Correa v NY Developers & Mgt., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03143, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: A fall from a scaffold with no safety railings warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1); a fall from a scaffold which wobbles and collapses because of the kickback from a hammer drill similarly warrants summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1).​

 

, ,

THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, FINDING THAT DEFENDANT UNDULY INFLUENCED DECEDENT TO NAME HIM AS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY OF TWO BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS; THE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE PROOF OF UNDUE INFLUENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant unduly influenced the decedent to remove plaintiff as a beneficiary of two brokerage accounts and name defendant as the sole beneficiary. The court explained the shifting burdens of proof:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial” … .

“Generally, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “Where, however, the existence of a confidential relationship is established, the burden shifts to the beneficiary of the transaction to show that the transaction is fair and free from undue influence” … . “‘In order to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship, there must be evidence of circumstances that demonstrate inequality or a controlling influence'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the defendant … . * * *

As a result, the burden of proving undue influence remained upon the plaintiff … . * * *

… [P]laintiff presented only conclusory and speculative evidence that the defendant exercised undue influence over the decedent … . “‘[A] mere showing of opportunity and even of a motive to exercise undue influence does not justify a submission of that issue to the jury, unless there is in addition evidence that such influence was actually utilized'” … . Collins v Denaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 03142, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into  the shifting burdens of proof applied to a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made by a defendant after a plaintiff’s verdict. Here the appellate court determined the conclusory and speculative evidence did not support the jury’s verdict.

 

, ,

THIS LAWSUIT BY A PENNSYLVANIA PENSION FUND AGAINST A LONDON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY TRIGGERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK’S CONFLICT-OF-LAW RULES (“PROCEDURAL” VS “SUBSTANTIVE”) AND THE “FORUM NON CONVENIENS” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, applying conflict-of-law rules, determined the complaint in this shareholder derivative action should not have been dismissed based on plaintiff’s lack of standing. But the complaint should have been conditionally dismissed on “forum non conveniens” grounds:

The plaintiff commenced this shareholder derivative action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The plaintiff, the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, is a shareholder in the nominal defendant Standard Chartered PLC (hereinafter SC). SC is a multinational banking and financial services company. SC is publicly owned, is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales, and is headquartered in London. The nominal defendant Standard Chartered Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter SC Holdings) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC. Nonparty Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter SC Bank) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC Holdings. SC Bank, an international bank, is licensed to operate a foreign bank branch in New York. * * *

Since the procedural law of the forum typically applies under our conflict-of-law rules, the plaintiff’s failure to commence the action in England and Wales or Northern Ireland does not bar it from relying on the UK Companies Act to establish derivative standing in New York … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff is the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, and SC is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales and is headquartered in London. None of the individual defendants reside in New York. Further, the central actionable events transpired in the United Kingdom, where SC’s directors and officers held their meetings. Although the plaintiff contends that SC presided over a money laundering scheme centered on SC Bank’s New York branch, its derivative claims center on management decisions made in the United Kingdom … . Further, it is undisputed that English substantive law governs the plaintiff’s claims. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have conditionally granted SC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 327 on the ground of forum non conveniens, as the burden which would be imposed upon the courts of this State if this action was retained would be substantial … . City of Philadelphia Bd. of Pensions & Retirement v Winters, 2026 NY Slip Op 03141, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of New York’s conflict-of-laws rules and the “forum non conveniens” doctrine in a lawsuit brought in New York by a Pennsylvanian pension fund against a London banking and financial services company.

 

, , ,

THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE, WHICH INCLUDED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED DEFENDANT, A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure was a nullity and the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the defendants died during the proceedings:

“‘Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent'” … . Ordinarily, any determination rendered without such a substitution is deemed a nullity … . However, under certain circumstances, where a party’s death does not affect the merits of a case, this Court has found that there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution … .

Here, the record demonstrates that as of July 2021, the plaintiff and the Supreme Court were on notice that [defendant] Trevor P. Williams had died. Nevertheless, the proceedings continued after that date, and in March 2022, the court issued the subject order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, which contains a deficiency provision applicable to Trevor P. Williams.

Given the deficiency provision contained in the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, the demise of Trevor P. Williams affects the merits of the case … . The contention of nonparty U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., that it waived the right to seek a deficiency against Trevor P. Williams is based on evidence dehors the record and, therefore, is not properly considered on this appeal … . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, since a proper substitution was not made as required by CPLR 1015(a), the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction, inter alia, to issue the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale appealed from is a nullity and must be vacated and the appeal must be dismissed, as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal . Champion Mtge. v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-13-28

Practice Point: If the death of a party doesn’t affect the merits of the case, sometimes the need to stay the proceeding and substitute a personal representative can be overlooked. Here, however, the judgment of foreclosure included a deficiency judgment against the deceased defendant. Therefore the death affected the merits and the proceedings were rendered a nullity.​

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT BOARD CERTIFIED IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, THE EXPERT SET FORTH A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s medical expert need not be board certified in emergency medicine to be qualified to offer an opinion. The hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for the care provided by an independent physician:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine. “‘A physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge . . . [or] expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony'” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert set forth a sufficient foundation for his or her opinion, based on his or her clinical experience and familiarity with the applicable standards of care … . …

… [G]enerally, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . “However, an exception to the rule that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the treatment provided by an independent physician applies where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing, or a nonemployee physician otherwise acted as an agent of the hospital or the hospital exercised control over the physician” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that [the hospital] was free from vicarious liability for [plaintiff’s] care and treatment in its emergency department as a matter of law … . Valitutto v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03020, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine.

Practice Point: Here the hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for treatment by an independent physician.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop for no apparent reason did not raise a question of fact in this rear-end collision case:

… [A] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability” … .

“An assertion that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle” … , although such an assertion may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of comparative fault … . * * *

[Defendant driver] asserted that the plaintiff brought his vehicle to a sudden stop for no apparent reason and “without any vehicle slowing or stopping ahead of plaintiff.” In essence, “this explanation amounts to nothing more than a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact” as to the defendants’ liability … .

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff, if any, which would offset the amount of damages, must abide the trial … . Brindisi v ARJ Transp., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02958, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: The allegation that plaintiff’s car stopped suddenly for no apparent reason will not defeat summary judgment in a rear-end collision case.

Practice Point: However if plaintiff is shown to be comparatively negligent at trial, the amount of damages could be offset.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The order dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice. Therefore a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) was proper and should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar. A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is not subject to any specific time limitation … . Where, as here, an order directing dismissal of a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it is procedurally proper for the aggrieved party to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate that order … .

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . Here, CPLR 3215(c) is not applicable to the defendant under the circumstances of this case, as she appeared in the action by answer … . “Further, this action does not present an extraordinary circumstance as would warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint” … . US Bank N.A. v Jones-Boakai, 2026 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: If an order dismissing a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is proper.​

 

,

THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE WAS TO REQUEST A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; BUT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE; SINCE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year requiring dismissal of the complaint. Although plaintiff did request a settlement conference within one year, the settlement conference was not required because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure:

… [P]laintiff had one year from July 17, 2012, to take proceedings for the entry of judgment against the defendant (see CPLR 3215[c] …). However, the plaintiff did not take such proceedings until over two years later, when it moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference in March 2015. Thus, the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default. Although the plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention requesting a foreclosure settlement conference within the one-year period after the defendant’s default, a settlement conference was not required in this case because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure (see CPLR 3408[a][1]). As such, the filing of the request for judicial intervention did not constitute the taking of proceedings for the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) and did not toll the one-year deadline to do so … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Islam, 2026 NY Slip Op 03015, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Requesting a settlement conference which is not required does not toll the one-year period for taking proceedings to enter a default judgment in a foreclosure action.

 

,

A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY); BUT A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6) FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a prior owner of property may be liable pursuant to Labor Law 200 and common law negligence for a dangerous condition which the new owner did not have time to remedy, but prior owners cannot be liable under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) which relate to construction activities:

… Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Federal Brick’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it to the extent that they sounded in premises liability. … Federal Brick failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous premises condition as a former owner. Inasmuch as “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of property owners and general contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .

… T]he “narrow exception” that allows for premises liability to be extended to prior owners of property … does not apply to the statutory liability imposed by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Those statutes apply to certain construction-related activities … , rather than premises conditions for which a prior owner might remain responsible. Quintero v MBH Capital, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03010, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Under some circumstances a prior property owner may be liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition if the new owner has not yet had time to learn of it and remedy it. This prior-owner liability may be pursunat Labor-Law-200 and common-law negligence theories.

 

, ,

AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S AUTOMOBILE FOR EVIDENCE OF DWI; DURING THE SEARCH THE POLICE OPENED A CLOSED BOX AND DISCOVERED A FIREARM; REVERSING SUPREME COURT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH FOR ALCOHOL IN THE CLOSED BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on the People’s appeal, determined the police, after a traffic stop, had probable cause to search the defendant’s car for evidence of DWI. The police therefore had probable cause to open a closed box which could have contained alcohol, but in fact contained a firearm:

… Supreme Court credited the officers’ testimony that the defendant apparently had been drinking, and those factual findings and credibility determinations are entitled to great deference on appeal … . Thus, the police had probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor.

“If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search” … , which may include closed containers … “found therein in which there was probable cause to believe that the [contraband] may be found” … .

The scope of a warrantless search of a vehicle is defined not by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted, but by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found … . The relevant inquiry here is not whether the cardboard box could physically hold an open container of alcohol, but whether there was reason to believe that it did … .

Here the cardboard box containing the gun was unsealed and heavy, indicating it was not empty. Further the defendant moved his hands under the seat when he was stopped, indicating he may have been secreting contraband in the box. The issue was whether that search could extend to the cardboard box. The label on the box stating that it originally contained “lithium battery portable power station” was not particularly significant since the box was not new, was unsealed, and was of a size and shape that could store a variety of objects, including an alcohol bottle or a gun.  People v Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 03005, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Upon a traffic stop, evidence the driver had been drinking authorized a warrantless search of every part of the car for alcohol. Because there was reason to believe a closed box could contain alcohol, the police were authorized to search the box and seize the firearm inside.

 

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