You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury did not involve the type of elevation hazard covered by Labor Law 240 (1) and defendants  did not exercise the level of supervisory control necessary for liability under Labor Law 200:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a metal plate, which was used to cover an excavated trench located on the roadway, struck the plaintiff as it was being removed from the roadway surface. * * *

… [T]he defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action by their submissions, which demonstrated that they only had general supervisory authority over the plaintiff’s work … . …

“The contemplated hazards [of Labor Law § 240(1)] are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured” … . The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injury did not result from the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Lombardi v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06763, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There was insufficient evidence the note was endorsed in blank and there was insufficient evident of defendant’s default:

… [I]t is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion in its appellate brief that “[t]he note, as attached to the complaint, was indorsed in blank on the reverse side of the signature page (and not a separate allonge),” it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note annexed to the complaint whether the separate page that bears the endorsement in blank was stamped on the back of the note, as alleged by the plaintiff, or on an allonge, in which case the plaintiff would have to prove that the endorsement was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2).

… [W]hile Panganiban’s [plaintiff bank’s vice president’s] affidavit was sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the business records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a writing or record’ (CPLR 4518[a]) . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence , … a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s proof that defendant (Bazigos) defaulted on the loan was inadmissible hearsay:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . “A plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit (see CPLR 3212[b]; 3123), by an affidavit from a person having [personal] knowledge of the facts’ (CPLR 3212[b]), or by other evidence in admissible form'” … .

Here, Bluford (a bank vice-president), whose knowledge was based on business records, did not actually attach or otherwise incorporate into her affidavit any business records showing that Bazigos had defaulted on the note. Thus, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on the issue of Bazigos’s default … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Bazigos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06757, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ARGUED HE WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF RAN INTO THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AS IT WAS BEING OPENED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, because plaintiff in this bicycle-vehicle traffic accident case affirmatively argued he was not comparatively negligent, the issue of comparative negligence was properly considered on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff ran into the door of defendant’s car as it was being opened. The plaintiff did not eliminate all triable issue of fact concerning his comparative negligence:

“Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability”… , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided where, as here, “the plaintiff specifically argued the absence of comparative fault in support of his [or her] motion” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … . “A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care while riding his bicycle. Further, although the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate his freedom from comparative fault to establish his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Flores v Rubenstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06747, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant’s answer in this slip and fall case had been struck, the defendant should not have been precluded from presenting evidence on damages:

… Supreme Court … struck the answer and scheduled an inquest on the issue of damages. At the inquest, following direct testimony by the plaintiff, the court denied defense counsel’s request to cross-examine the plaintiff, since the defendant’s answer had been stricken. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $267,221.77. …

“[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” … . “Accordingly, where a judgment against a defaulting defendant is sought by motion to the court, the defendant is entitled, at an inquest to determine damages, to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony, and offer proof in mitigation of damages” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not provide such an opportunity to the defendant, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages … . Dejesus v H.E. Broadway, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS SLIGHTLY LATE; TO DENY THE REQUEST IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCERNABLE INTERFERENCE OR UNDUE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defense counsel’s slightly late peremptory challenge to an unsworn juror was an abuse of discretion:

The court named prospective juror number one to be assigned a seat and said, “We now have ten, need two. Looking at Chavez – -,” when defense counsel interrupted, stating that he had made an error and had intended to exercise a peremptory challenge to prospective juror number one. Defense counsel acknowledged that the challenge was “a couple of seconds” late, and requested permission to excuse prospective juror number one. The court summarily denied the request.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his belated peremptory challenge. We agree. Under CPL 270.15, “the decision to entertain a belated peremptory challenge is left to the discretion of the trial court” … . Where a belated peremptory challenge to as-yet unsworn prospective jurors “would interfere with or delay the process of jury selection,” it is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to permit the challenge … . However, where there is “no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [the] defendant’s challenge,” it is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny it … . Here, the delay in challenging prospective juror number one was de minimis …. There was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight, and the voir dire of the next subgroup of jurors was still to be conducted … . People v Price, 2019 NY Slip Op 06629, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, ,

SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant-purchasers’ motion to dismiss the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement was property granted. The agreement was subject to attorney approval and defendants’ attorney disapproved the contract either seven or nine days after the agreement was executed. There was no time-limit for attorney approval in the agreement, and seven or nine days were deemed a reasonable time:

… [T]he defendants established their entitlement to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). “On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Moreover, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the motion should not be granted unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

The evidentiary material submitted by the defendants in support of their motion demonstrated that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence conclusively established that the purchase agreement was unenforceable because it was subject to attorney approval, which was not given by the defendants’ attorney. As the purchase agreement contained no time limit within which approval was required “a reasonable time for cancellation thereunder is implied” … . Whether, as acknowledged by the defendants, it was seven days after the parties entered into the purchase agreement that the defendants’ attorney disapproved it, or as alleged by the plaintiff, it was nine days after the parties entered into the purchase agreement that the defendants’ attorney disapproved it, the time between the parties entering into the agreement and the disapproval was minimal, during which no prejudice would inure to the plaintiff, and was a reasonable time period as a matter of law. Makris v Boylan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06598, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, because a fraudulent conveyance action does not require an intent to defraud, the specificity requirements in the CPLR for pleading a fraud cause of action do not apply. Here plaintiff alleged the defective design and construction of a condominium:

Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, a conveyance that renders the conveyor insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent, if the conveyance was made without fair consideration (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 …). Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 274, a conveyance is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent when it is “made without fair consideration when the person making it is engaged or is about to engage in a business or transaction for which the property remaining in his [or her] hands after the conveyance is an unreasonably small capital” … . Section 270 of the Debtor and Creditor Law defines “creditor” as any “person having any claim, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, absolute, fixed, or contingent.”

Here, the complaint’s fifth cause of action sufficiently states cognizable claims alleging fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274. Since valid claims of violations of Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 do not require proof of actual intent to defraud, such claims are not required to be pleded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . Further, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that it is a creditor of the sponsor since it asserted a breach of contract cause of action against the sponsor, even though said cause of action was unmatured at the time of the alleged conveyances … . Board of Mgrs. of E. Riv. Tower Condominium v Empire Holdings Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06587, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries were alleged to relate to defendant-hospital’s improper restraint of plaintiff’s decedent (apparently to keep him from getting up from his hospital bed). Defendant argued the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions had passed. The Second Department held that defendant did not demonstrate that a doctor had ordered the restraints; therefore the defendant had not made out a prima facie case that the action sounded in medical malpractice as opposed to negligence:

” The critical question in determining whether an action sounds in medical malpractice or simple negligence is the nature of the duty to the plaintiff which the defendant is alleged to have breached'” … . ” When the duty arises from the physician-patient relationship or is substantially related to medical treatment, the breach gives rise to an action sounding in medical malpractice, not simple negligence'” … . ” The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under the 2½-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions (see CPLR 214-a). Since the defendant did not present any evidence that a doctor ordered the decedent to be restrained at any point prior to or during the subject incident, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claims related to medical treatment, as opposed to the failure of hospital staff to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to prevent harm to the decedent … . ​Wesolowski v St. Francis Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06646, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Goodyear’s motion to dismiss the products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. Plaintiff, a New York resident, was injured when a tire manufactured by Goodyear allegedly malfunctioned causing the car to overturn in Virginia. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not rebut Goodyear’s argument that it did not have significant affiliations with New York and noted that a corporation’s registration with the New York State Department of State does not confer jurisdiction on New York:

“While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, the plaintiffs, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” … . “General jurisdiction in New York is provided for in CPLR 301, which allows a court to exercise such jurisdiction over persons, property, or status as might have been exercised heretofore'”… . A court may exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State” … .

Here, in opposition to Goodyear’s motion, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Goodyear existed under CPLR 301. The plaintiff did not rebut the evidence submitted by Goodyear showing that Goodyear’s affiliations with New York are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home here … . Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York” … . Aybar v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06584, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

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