You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

IN THIS PUBLIC-BEACH SWIMMING-ACCIDENT CASE, THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE; THE TOWN MADE A PARTICULARIZED SHOWING OF PREJUDICE; AND THE CLAIM WAS CLOSE TO MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to serve a late notice of claim against the town in this swimming-injury case should not have been granted. Petitioner was floating 100 yards beyond the designated swimming area at a town beach with the back of his head toward the ocean when a wave crashed over him, forcing him to the ocean floor and causing a severe spinal cord injury. The Second Department went through all the criteria for allowing late notice and found that the facts fell short:

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the Town had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter. “‘[K]nowledge of the accident itself and the seriousness of the injury does not satisfy this enumerated factor where those facts do not also provide the public corporation with knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim'” … . “Generally, the phrase ‘facts constituting the claim’ is understood to mean the facts which demonstrate a connection between the happening of the accident and any negligence on the part of the public corporation” … . * * *

… [I]n light of the fact that members of his family appeared to be considering the making of a claim when they returned to the accident scene one week after the accident and interviewed lifeguards, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, or for failing to serve a notice of claim until 67 days after meeting with attorneys … . * * *

… [T]he Town made a “particularized evidentiary showing that [it] will be substantially prejudiced if the late notice is allowed” … . The Town submitted, among other things, an affirmation of its lifeguard captain, who stated that he spoke to the petitioner and his companions immediately after the accident and recalled the petitioner telling him that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, but he no longer recalled what the petitioner said about his alcohol use or other details about the accident. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s claim that the lifeguards had a duty to warn him that he was beyond the designating swimming area and to warn him that it was dangerous to float with his back to the ocean borders on being patently meritless … . Matter of Cataldo v Town of E. Hampton, 2026 NY Slip Op 04946, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise factual explanation for the denial of permission to file a late notice of claim.

 

, ,

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED FOR MISCONDUCT AND SOUGHT TO BRING A CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE CITY CHARTER REQUIRED THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ANY NONTORT ACTION AGAINST THE CITY; PETITIONER FAILED TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE CHARTER MAKES NO PROVISION FOR SERVING A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN NONTORT ACTIONS, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT PETITONER’S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have the authority to grant the petitioner, a police officer terminated for misconduct, an extension of time to file a late notice of claim against the city. The city charter did not have a provision for service of a late notice for nontort actions. Petitioner was attempting to bring a CPLR article 78 proceeding contesting his termination:

Section C6.47(A) of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh provides that, for nontort claims, no action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless “a written verified claim . . . was served on the City . . . within three months after the accrual of such claim.” The service of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City … . “[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued, as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh. Moreover, unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims … . Consequently, since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the petitioner’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Canario v City of Newburgh, 2026 NY Slip Op 04945, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: If the controlling legislation, here a city charter, makes no provision allowing a party to seek permission to serve of a late notice of claim, a court cannot grant such permission. Here the city charter did not include a “late notice” provision for nontort actions against the city.

 

,

THE FAMILY COURT ACT ALLOWS COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR SIX MONTHS FOR EACH VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION; HERE THE 42-MONTH COMMITMENT WAS AFFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined father was properly committed to jail for 42 months for 10 violations of orders of protection: Father argued the commitment could not be more than 30 days per violation:

After a hearing on both violation petitions … the Family Court found that the father willfully violated the temporary orders of protection … on 10 separate occasions. In an order of commitment … , the court, inter alia, committed the father to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction for a period of 42 months. The court rejected the father’s argument that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751, the court only had the authority to sentence him to 30 days in jail for each willful violation. The court determined that it had the authority to impose 10 consecutive six-month terms of incarceration based on its finding that the father committed 10 separate willful violations, which would amount to a maximum permissible sentence of 60 months in jail, and imposed the 42-month term of incarceration. The father appeals, asserting that the maximum permissible sentence was a total of 300 days in jail. * * *

Sections 846-a and 1072 of the Family Court Act provide a “specific punishment or other remedy” for a willful violation of an order of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 156). Accordingly, Judiciary Law § 751 does not apply, and the Family Court was authorized to commit the father to jail for a period of 42 months upon the court’s finding that, on 10 separate occasions, the father violated temporary orders of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act … . Matter of Austin C. (Rasaan K.C.), 2026 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 8-12-26

 

,

HERE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS STRICKEN FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS; AT THE INQUEST THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY DAMAGES; THE JUDGE ERRED BY CONSIDERING AN ISSUE WHICH WAS “ADMITTED” BY THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE ANSWER WAS STRICKEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have considered any substantive issues in this inquest to determine damages after the answer was stricken for failure to comply with discovery orders. Because the answer was stricken, defendant admitted all the traversable allegations in the complaint, including the issue the judge erroneously considered:

“‘A defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages'” … . “The sole issue to be determined at the inquest is the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the court may not consider the question of whether the defendant caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff” … . At an inquest, the plaintiff bears the burden of setting forth a prima facie case as to damages … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in considering the question of whether the plaintiff signed a satisfaction of mortgage under duress. The defendant’s answer was stricken and as a result, the defendant admitted all traversable allegations in the amended complaint, including the allegation that the satisfaction of mortgage was signed under an implied threat of physical harm. The sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff (see CPLR 3215[a] …). Sabella v Keora Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04884, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: When an answer is stricken every traversable allegation in the complaint is admitted by the defendant and the only remaining issue is damages.​

 

, ,

A SORA COURT JUDGE HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO, SUA SPONTE, REOPEN A SORA HEARING TO CORRECT AN ERROR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, joining the First and Fourth Departments, determined a judge has the authority to, sua sponte, reopen a SORA hearing to correct a mistake:

​Given the Supreme Court’s error, and considering the inherent power of a court to reconsider its own intermediate determinations, together with the overriding purposes and objectives of SORA, we find no wrong in the Supreme Court’s sua sponte correction of its initial failure to assess points under risk factors 3 and 5. There is no benefit to a defendant, the People, or the public in prohibiting a SORA court tasked with determining an offender’s presumptive risk level from, sua sponte, correcting its own erroneous determination … . People v Allen, 2026 NY Slip Op 04880, Second Dept 8-5-26

 

,

ONCE THE PARTIES ENTERED A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE, SUPREME COURT WAS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO VACATE THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court had been divested of jurisdiction over the case when the parties entered a stipulation of discontinuance. Therefore Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance:

“‘A motion must be addressed to a pending action'” … . A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been unequivocally terminated by the execution of an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance … “or actual entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement” … .

Here, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The action was unconditionally discontinued by the stipulation of discontinuance executed by the plaintiff and the defendant and filed with the court, in which the plaintiff withdrew the complaint and discontinued all claims interposed in the action, and the stipulation was silent as to the court’s retention of jurisdiction for any purpose … . Accordingly, under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s requested relief was not available by way of a motion and could only be obtained by commencing a plenary action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rini, 2026 NY Slip Op 04845, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: Here the parties entered a stipulation of discontinuance, thereby divesting the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the case. Supreme Court therefore could not consider the subsequent motion to vacate the stipulation.

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015(A) FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY SUBMITTING A LETTER TO SUPREME COURT ADDRESSING THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the grant of defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) for lack of personal jurisdiction, determined defendant waived the lack-of-jurisdiction defense by submitting a letter to Supreme Court addressing the merits of the action and stating he would represent himself:

“A defendant may waive the issue of . . . personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss” … . “A defendant may appear informally by actively litigating the action before the court” … . “When a party becomes ‘an actor in a suit’ is often a question of degree and of evaluation of the particular facts … . By participating in a lawsuit on the merits, a party “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 waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by submitting a letter to the Supreme Court addressing the merits of the action and stating that he would represent himself in the action, all without objecting to the court’s jurisdiction … . Moreover, more than four years after the commencement of this action, the defendant successfully moved to restore the action to the active calendar and sought further affirmative relief without moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction … . Foote v Foote, 2026 NY Slip Op 04842, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: There is no time limit for a motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Here, however, defendant waived the defense by participating in the action.

 

,

IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE, THE NEGLIGENCE PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW AND THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging negligence per se and the res ipsa loquitur cause of action in this ceiling-collapse case should have been dismissed. The negligence per se cause of action alleged a violation of Multiple Dwelling Las section 78(1) which does not impose a specific duty on the landlord. The res ipsa loquitur cause of action failed, in part, because the landlord did not have exclusive control of the plaintiff’s bathroom and the leaking bathtub in the apartment above:

A cause of action alleging negligence per se predicated on a violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) cannot lie, as the statute imposes only a general duty to maintain a multiple dwelling and does not impose a specific duty upon a landlord … .

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident where the plaintiff can show that: (1) the event is of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality that caused the injury is within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) the injury is not the result of any voluntary action by the plaintiff” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that her bathroom ceiling and a bathtub in an upstairs apartment were within the defendants’ exclusive control … . The plaintiff also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to her comparative fault, as she entered the bathroom to scrub the bathtub despite being concerned about the imminent collapse of the ceiling before it fell … . Williams v SI 1688 Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04896, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: Multiple Dwelling Law 78(1) imposes a general duty to maintain a multiple dwelling but does not impose a specific duty upon a landlord. Therefore it could not be the basis of a negligence per se cause of action against the landlord in this ceiling-collapse case.

Practice Point: The res ipsa loquitur cause of action did not lie in this ceiling collapse case because the landlord did not have exclusive control over the bathroom where the ceiling fell or the leaking bathtub in the apartment above.

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS AN AGENT FOR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE COULD BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendants” (Petrocelli’s) motion for summary judgment in this case stemming from an injury at a construction site. Petrocelli was the construction manager. There was a question of fact whether Petrocelli could be deemed an agent of the general contractor such that it could be liable for a dangerous condition at the site:

While a construction manager is generally not considered a contractor responsible for the safety of the workers at a construction site pursuant to Labor Law § 200, “it may nonetheless become responsible if it has been delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor, or if it functions as an agent of the owner of the premises” … . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . A role of general supervision “is insufficient to impose liability under the Labor Law” … .

Here, the Petrocelli defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not exercise a significant degree of control and supervision of the construction site such that it was not delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor … , and failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition because they did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the “dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time to afford [them] a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . Vasquez v 1719 27 ST, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04894, Second Dept 8-5-26

Practice Point: If a construction manager acts as an agent for the general contractor and therefore exercises supervisory control over a work site, the construction manager may be liable for a dangerous condition at the work site.​

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE FOR A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint when plaintiff failed to meet a deadline for a deposition:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading . . . , where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” … . “[T]he drastic remedy of striking a pleading . . . pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious” … . Further, due process generally requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court may impose such drastic remedies for discovery noncompliance” … .

Here, the plaintiff was not given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to imposition of the drastic sanction of dismissal of the complaint, “including on facts relevant to whether the plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful and contumacious” … . The defendants did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff’s failure to appear for his deposition, nor did the Supreme Court make its own motion or include language in any prior order warning that noncompliance would result in sanctions … . Winchcombe v Ridgeline Constr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04794, Second Dept 7-29-26

Practice Point: The appellate courts do not like sua sponte dismissals of complaints without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

 

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