You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS; THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM CONVICTION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the criminal possession of a firearm conviction, determined criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts:

CPL 300.30(4) provides that “[c]oncurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” … . CPL 300.40(3)(b) provides, in relevant part, that with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Here, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law §§ 265.03[1][b]; 265.01-b[1]). Because the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the charge of criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Walker, 2025 NY Slip Op 02225, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts requiring vacation of the criminal possession of a firearm conviction.

 

,

THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the propriety of service issue and dismissed the proceeding on that ground:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the proceeding/action on the ground of a defect in service. Lack of personal jurisdiction is an affirmative defense that can be waived by, among other things, “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” … . “When 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” … .

Since the respondents did not object to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over them in an answer or in their cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the petition/complaint, the court should not have, sua sponte, raised the issue of the propriety of service … . Further, the respondents waived any objection to the propriety of service by appearing in the proceeding/action and cross-moving to dismiss the petition/complaint without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Matter of Weiss v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 02210, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Defective service is an affirmative defense which, if not raised by a party, is waived. A judge cannot raise and decide the issue sua sponte.

 

,

HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the bank’s (mortgagee’s) counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, an equitable lien and an equitable mortgage should have been dismissed. The bank was seeking reimbursement for costs associated with maintaining the mortgaged property which had allegedly been abandoned. Essentially, the Second Department held that the existence of the mortgage agreement, a contract, precluded recovery on the equitable theories, even though two of the three parties did not sign the mortgage agreement:

On September 6, 2005, the defendant Gladys Villa (hereinafter the borrower) executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Ossining (hereinafter the property). By bargain and sale deed dated March 8, 2006, the borrower retained a one-third interest in the premises for herself and conveyed the remaining interest to the plaintiffs, Miguel Auquilla and Hilda Guzman (hereinafter together the owners), as tenants in common. The borrower and the owners allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the note and the mortgage by failing to make the monthly payments due in December 2009, and thereafter. * * *

The mortgagee’s theory that the mortgage agreement does not govern the dispute since it was executed by the borrower and not by the owners is a novel one in this Court, but is ultimately unpersuasive. Although this Court has not explicitly recognized such a rule in this context, we now hold that there can be no quasi contract claim by a mortgagee against a third-party nonsignatory owner of property encumbered by a mortgage, the terms of which covers the subject matter of the dispute. Auquilla v Villa, 2025 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Where there is a contract which binds both signatories and third-party nonsignatories, quasi-contractual theories of recovery are not available.

 

,

SUPREME COURT HELD A HEARSAY STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE “UNDER STRESS OF EXCITEMENT” AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated a piece of duct, which should have been secured, fell and knocked him off the ladder. The defendant alleged that plaintiff told the foreman he fell because he jumped down several rungs. That hearsay statement was admitted as an excited utterance. The First Department held the statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and should not have been admitted in evidence:

Defendant submitted the affidavit of its foreman, who averred that after the accident, plaintiff told him that he, plaintiff, fell from the ladder because he had jumped down several rungs. Supreme Court admitted this statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, finding that it raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This finding was error. According to the foreman, plaintiff was taking a break and told the foreman that he felt “fine” when he made the statement. Thus, there was no evidence that plaintiff made the purported hearsay statement “under the stress of excitement” … . As defendant did not argue any other valid basis for admitting the hearsay statement, it is “insufficient to defeat summary judgment” … , and there was no other admissible evidence in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Vivar v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02051, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: Here, whether the defendant raised a question of fact in this ladder-fall case turned on whether plaintiff’s alleged statement that he fell because he “jumped down several rungs” was admissible as an excited utterance. The First Department determined the alleged hearsay statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and was inadmissible. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

,

HERE THE PARTY WHO WAS AWARDED COSTS ON APPEAL WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PROCURING THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the party who has been awarded costs on appeal is entitled the cost of procuring the transcripts included in the record on appeal:

Pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13), a party to whom costs are awarded on appeal is entitled to tax his or her necessary disbursements for “reasonable and necessary expenses as are taxable according to the course and practice of the court, by express provision of law or by order of the court.” Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to disbursements for the expense of procuring trial transcripts for the purpose of preparing a record on appeal pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13) … . Thandi v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 01967, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Here is a concrete example of what it means to be awarded “costs” after an appeal.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner, 6810 Wai, was liable for an action by an independent contractor hired to repair the facade of defendant’s building. Defendant operated a bar on the ground floor of the building. The independent contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff, who was entering the bar:

[T]he well-settled general rule provides that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because it has no right to supervise or control the work” … . “An exception to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe” … . “Where, for example, premises are open to the public, the owner has a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress” … .

Here, 6810 Wai failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, as its submissions demonstrated that it had a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. The ground floor hookah bar was open to the public during the construction work, which created a nondelegable duty to the general public to maintain a safe ingress and egress, and, thus, 6810 Wai could be held liable for any negligence of its independent contractor … . Sultan v 6810 Wai, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01966, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The owner of property which is open to the public has a nondelegable duty to maintain safe ingress and egress. Here the building owner operated a bar on the first floor of a building. The owner had hired an independent contractor to repair the facade of the building. The contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff. The building owner could be held liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.

 

,

UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the Certificates of Compliance filed by the People were improper and the statement of readiness was  illusory because evidence which could be used to impeach the credibility of one of the arresting officers (Lt. Ruiz) was not turned over. The indictment was dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. The opinion is comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

This appeal concerns the new disclosure obligations in criminal cases, enacted by the New York State Legislature, effective January 1, 2020, as part of sweeping criminal justice reform legislation under the new CPL article 245 … . The new legislation provides, inter alia, for “[a]utomatic” disclosure by the People to the defendant of “all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case” that are in the People’s possession or control (CPL 245.20[1]). Specifically, this appeal concerns CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), which requires that the People disclose “[a]ll evidence and information” that “tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness.” We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the People were required to disclose, pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), underlying records from a prior case where one of the prosecution witnesses was found to be incredible, and that the Supreme Court properly determined, based upon the record before it, that the People’s certificates of compliance were improper, properly struck a statement of readiness as illusory, and properly granted the defendants’ motions, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that they were deprived of their statutory right to a speedy trial. * * *

This Court holds that the underlying records in the case in which Lt. Ruiz’s testimony was found to be incredible did relate to the subject matter of this case for impeachment purposes … . Here, the underlying records pertaining to Lt. Ruiz’s incredible testimony, including the transcript of his testimony, did relate to the subject matter of the case because the material went toward the weight of the credibility of the witness and could be used for impeachment purposes. Therefore, the People were required to provide the records. People v Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a comprehensive discussion of the People’s obligation to provide “automatic” disclosure of evidence which can be used to impeach the credibility of an arresting officer.

 

, ,

THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop which culminated in the pursuit of the defendant and the seizure of the firearm in defendant’s possession. The testimony of the arresting officer, Tofalli, at the suppression hearing was deemed unworthy of belief. Therefore the People did not meet their initial burden at the hearing, i.e., proving the legality of the police conduct:

“‘In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . Reasonable suspicion exists where there is a “quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man [or woman] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” … . “A suspect’s flight alone or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might suggest a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit,” and “[p]ursuit is only authorized when flight is combined with circumstances indicating that the suspect might be engaged in criminal activity” … .

Here, the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Tofalli’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Tofalli’s testimony that when the defendant pulled up his pants he was able to see an “L-shape” outline in the defendant’s waistband while the initial target was standing two feet in front of the defendant directly between Tofalli and the defendant defies common sense and strains credulity. Moreover, Tofalli’s testimony was inconsistent with the notes he made in his memo book, arrest reports generated after the incident, and his testimony before the grand jury, none of which made any mention of the initial target … , and was further inconsistent with the recording obtained from Tofalli’s body-worn camera, which revealed that prior to his interaction with the initial target, the defendant was not touching his pants, and does not depict the defendant’s T-shirt tightening around an “L-shape” object. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we find Tofalli’s testimony unworthy of belief … . People v Black, 2025 NY Slip Op 01943, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The flight of the subject of a street stop, without some other indication of criminal activity, does not justify pursuit.

Practice Point: If the police testimony at the suppression hearing is not worthy of belief, the People have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Suppression must be granted.

 

THE TOWN DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TURN OVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CREDIBLY ALLEGED TO EXIST IN THE FOIL REQUEST; THE FOIL PETITION WAS REINSTATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined the Town did not adequately explain its refusal to turn over documents relating to an Amazon warehouse and distribution center that was to be built in the Town. Therefore the petition, which was dismissed by Supreme Court, was reinstated:

Here, Meyer [the appellant] credibly alleged the existence of records, such as email correspondence between Amazon and the Town and traffic studies which may have been undertaken in connection with the approval of the new warehouse and distribution center, which were not produced. When faced with a request for such records, the Town was required to “either disclose the record sought, deny the request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search” … . Merely representing that “[u]pon information and belief” all documents had been provided, as was averred by the Town’s FOIL appeals officer in connection with the Town’s motion, is insufficient to comply with the requirements of FOIL … . Matter of Meyer v Town of Hempstead, 2025 NY Slip Op 01930, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Here the FOIL request credibly alleged that certain documents existed. The Town’s response that “upon information and belief” all documents had been provided was not sufficient. The statute requires the Town to claim a specific exemption or certify it does not possess or could not locate the requested documents. The dismissed petition was reinstated.

 

,

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY TIMELY RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR MISSING THE 90-DAY DEADLINE; HERE THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE BUT THE MUNICIPALITY DID RECEIVE TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the absence of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive, determined petitioner should have been granted leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner, a plumber, allegedly tripped over a piece of rebar protruding from the ground at a construction site:

Here, while the petitioner concedes that his claim of clerical error does not qualify as a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the petitioner’s application” … .

While the lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive on an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “whether the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . Here, while there is no proof that the petitioner served the notice of claim upon NYCHA on January 27, 2020, NYCHA admits to receiving the first petition on or about January 31, 2020, less than three weeks after the expiration of the 90-day notice period. NYCHA additionally admits that it was able to schedule and conduct a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing with the petitioner on April 20, 2020. Matter of Herry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 01928, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: In determining a request for leave to file a late notice of claim, whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for failing to file the notice of claim within 90 days is less important than whether the municipality timely received actual notice of the claim. Here the excuse was not valid but the municipality received timely notice. The request for leave to file a late notice should have been granted.

 

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