You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DENYING FATHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY AND HIS RIGHT TO A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied father’s request for an adjournment of the custody modification proceedings. Father was effectively denied his right to testify:

“The granting of an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the hearing court upon a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” … . “The determination to grant or deny an adjournment will not be overturned absent an improvident exercise of discretion” … . While adjournments are within the discretion of the hearing court, the range of that discretion is narrowed where a fundamental right of the parties is involved … . Generally, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody and visitation order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required, where due process requires that a parent be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard … .

After balancing the relevant factors, we find that under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s request for an adjournment, as the court’s denial of the requests for adjournment deprived the father entirely of his right to testify on his own behalf in the custody modification hearing, thereby depriving him of a full and fair evidentiary hearing … . Matter of Panizo v Douglas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00966, Second Dept, 2-19-25

Practice Point: Although the decision to grant or deny a request for an adjournment is discretionary, here the denial of the request effectively deprived father of his right to a full and fair evidentiary hearing in this custody modification proceeding, requiring reversal.

 

, ,

BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case against a school (Central Yeshiva), determined the complaint did not state causes of action for negligence or negligent retention of the teacher (Charitonov) who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiff. Bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse are not enough to avoid dismissal:

Here, the complaint failed to state causes of action alleging negligence and negligent retention, supervision, and direction against Central Yeshiva, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity to commit the alleged wrongful acts and failed to provide any factual allegations from which it could be inferred that Central Yeshiva had prior notice of similar conduct at its dormitory … . The complaint merely asserted bare legal conclusions that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity for improper conduct without providing any factual allegations that Charitonov’s abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate any basis to allow him to conduct discovery prior to directing dismissal of those causes of action (see CPLR 3211[d] …). Doe v Educational Inst. Oholei Torah, 2025 NY Slip Op 00948, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case against a school stemming from the abuse of a child by a teacher, bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse do not state a cause of action for negligence or negligent retention. The complaint must include supporting factual allegations.

 

, ,

WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action was subject to a three-year, not a six-year, statute of limitations and was time-barred:

“‘New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims'” … . Rather, “[t]he statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought” … . Generally, “[a] cause of action [alleging] breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a six-year statute of limitations where the relief sought is equitable in nature (see CPLR 213[1]), or by a three-year statute of limitations where the only relief sought is money damages (see CPLR 214[4])” … . “Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” … . “The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . Berejka v Huntington Med. Group, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 00942, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where the relief sought for breach of fiduciary duty is equitable, or where fraud is an essential element, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Where the only relief sought is money damages, the applicable statute of limitations in three years.

 

,

WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE, RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC WHERE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO COURT-ORDERED DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Although plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, no 90-day notice had been served nor had the court ordered dismissal of the action:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “In the absence of those two circumstances, the court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue” … . Adams v Frankel, 2025 NY Slip Op 00939, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where plaintiff fails to fails to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic where no 90-day notice has been served and dismissal has not been ordered by the court.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action should not have been dismissed because it was in the form of a proceeding rather than an action. Supreme Court should have converted the proceeding into the proper form:

The petitioner commenced this purported proceeding by the filing of an order to show cause and a petition, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice. In opposition to the order to show cause and the petition, the respondent submitted an affirmation of counsel, in which counsel argued, among other things, that the proceeding should be dismissed because it was not brought in the proper form. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Although this matter was improperly commenced in the form of a proceeding instead of an action, dismissal is not required. “Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), a proceeding should not be dismissed ‘solely because it is not brought in the proper form,’ and the court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form” … . Accordingly, we convert this proceeding into an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice, with the order to show cause deemed to be the summons and the petition deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] …), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the respondent an opportunity to serve and file an answer within 20 days of service upon it of this decision and order with notice of entry … . Matter of Robinson v NYU Langone Hosps., 2025 NY Slip Op 00870, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: A proceeding brought in the wrong form can be converted to the proper form by the court pursuant to CPLR 103 (c).

 

, , , ,

THE 2024 AMENDMENTS WHICH SET A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT APPLY TO CLAIMS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the 2024 amendments (the “chapter amendments”), which set forth a standard for determining claims alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment, applied retroactively to claims pending when the amendments were enacted and are constitutional:

First, we must determine whether so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment unit applies to actions such as this one, which were commenced before the effective date of the chapter amendments but were pending before a court on the effective date. We hold that it does.

Next, we must determine whether the defendant established that so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment unit is unconstitutional on its face or whether it would be unconstitutional to apply that portion of the chapter amendments to this action. We hold that the defendant did not establish that the relevant portion of the chapter amendments is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this action.

Finally, applying the standard set forth in the chapter amendments, we must determine whether the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartment units such that the formula set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §§ 2522.6(b)(3) and 2526.1(g) (hereinafter the default formula) should be used to calculate the legal regulated rent and any rent overcharges. We hold that the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-13-25

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PLED AS “CONVERSION” AND “UNJUST ENRICHMENT,” THEY STEMMED FROM ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR BREACH-OF-CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED, NOT THE THREE-YEAR TORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that, although the causes of action were couched as “conversion” and “unjust enrichment,” they stemmed from the alleged breach of a partnership agreement. Therefore the six-year contract, not the three-year tort, statute of limitations applied:

… [T]he causes of action were subject to a six-year statute of limitations rather than a three-year statute of limitations. “In determining which limitations period is applicable to a given cause of action, the court must look to the substance of the allegations rather than to the characterization of those allegations by the parties” … . “[W]hen damage to property or pecuniary interests is involved, the six-year statute governs regardless of how the theory of liability is described, as long as the asserted liability had its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties” … . Thus, “where liability is premised on a contractual relationship, the six-year statute of limitations applies” … . Fernandes v Fernandes, 2025 NY Slip Op 00848, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here the causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment stemmed from alleged breaches of the partnership agreement, so the breach-of-contract, not the tort, statute of limitations applied.

 

, , , ,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial, determined plaintiff was improperly cross-examined about his status as a defendant in a pending lawsuit:

… Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial based upon improper cross-examination of the plaintiff about a pending lawsuit against him relating to his alleged failure to pay for an unrelated medical procedure. Where a lawsuit has not resulted in an adverse finding against a witness, counsel should not be permitted to ask the witness if he or she has been sued since the fact that a lawsuit has been commenced, in and of itself, has little or no probative value with regard to credibility … . Here, the court improvidently permitted defense counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff as to whether he was the defendant in a pending lawsuit alleging nonpayment, since the lawsuit had not resulted in an adverse finding against the plaintiff and the fact that the lawsuit had been commenced, in and of itself, had little to no probative value with regard to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Moreover, defense counsel’s reference to an allegation that the plaintiff had taken $200,000 in insurance proceeds that was not forwarded to medical providers and, after being precluded from ascertaining from the plaintiff whether that allegation was true, defense counsel’s reference to “someone” taking $250,000 that “didn’t belong to them,” prejudiced the plaintiff, who was the sole eyewitness on his behalf. Drayton v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: The cross-examination of the plaintiff about his status as a defendant a pending lawsuit was improper and warranted a mistrial.

 

, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE 2011 ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE NEVER STARTED RUNNING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage was never validly accelerated when the foreclosure proceeding was brought in 2011. The 2011 action was dismissed because the notice of default was not served in accordance with the mortgage agreement (a condition precedent to foreclosure). Because the debt was never accelerated in 2011, the statute of limitations never started running and plaintiffs’ action to cancel and discharge the mortgage (RPAPL 1501 (4)) should not have been granted:

… [T]he defendants established … that the acceleration of the debt alleged in the complaint was a nullity due to the Supreme Court’s determination … that GMAC failed to establish … proper mailing of the notice of default, a contractual condition precedent to acceleration of the debt. Accordingly, the statute of limitations to foreclose the mortgage never accrued … . …

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, CPLR 213(4)(b), as amended by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act …, … does not preclude the defendants from asserting that the statute of limitations for an action to foreclose the mortgage has not expired. … [T]he defendants demonstrated that the statute of limitations had not previously accrued because the 2011 action was dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination made upon a timely interposed defense that the notice of default was not mailed in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Nichols v U.S. Bank, 2025 NY Slip Op 00665, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: If a foreclosure action is dismissed because the bank did not comply with the notice of default provisions in the mortgage agreement, a condition precedent to foreclosure, the debt was never accelerated and the foreclosure statute of limitations never started running.

 

,

HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined Family Court did not have statutory authority to place mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and direct that she cooperate with ACS. The neglect proceedings were brought against father (respondent), who did not live with the mother and child. Mother, a “nonrespondent,” was not a party in the neglect proceedings and the child had not been removed from her home:

This appeal presents this Court with the opportunity to decide an issue of first impression in New York involving the rights of nonrespondent parents in child neglect proceedings, to wit: whether the Family Court may place a nonrespondent custodial parent under the supervision of … [ACS] and the court, and direct the parent to cooperate with ACS in various ways, in circumstances where the respondent parent resides elsewhere and the child has not been removed from the nonrespondent parent’s home. Considering, inter alia, the well-established “interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” … and the lack of any statutory authority permitting the challenged directives, we answer this question in the negative. Therefore, we conclude that, in this case, the Family Court improperly placed the mother under the supervision of ACS and the court, and directed her to cooperate with ACS in certain respects. * * *

… [T]he relevant provisions of Family Court Act § 1017 apply only when a court orders the removal of a child from his or her home and releases the child to the home of a nonrespondent and “noncustodial parent” … . By the plain language of the statutory text, the provisions requiring the nonrespondent parent … to “submit[ ] to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the child” and “to cooperate” with “the child protective agency” in various ways … are only triggered “[a]fter [the] child is removed from the home” … . Here, since the court never “determin[ed] that [the] child must be removed from . . . her home” … , it did not have authority pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017 to impose the challenged directives upon the mother, no matter how “well-intended” the court’s “goals” may have been … . Matter of Sapphire W. (Kenneth L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00662, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court did did not have the authority to place mother, who was not a party to the neglect proceedings against father, under the supervision of ACS.

 

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