You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

REVIEW POWERS OF A MASTER ARBITRATOR EXPLAINED; HERE THE MASTER ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY VACATED AND THE ORIGINAL ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly vacated the master arbitrator’s award and reinstated the original arbitrator’s award in this no-fault benefit case. The court explained the authority of a master arbitrator:

A master arbitrator may not review the facts by weighing the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, or making independent findings of fact … . A master arbitrator’s review powers, however, do include reviewing the facts to determine “whether or not the evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the determination of the arbitrator” … . Here, there is no rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator that the original arbitrator committed an error of law … . Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 07265, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

REFERENCES TO JUDGMENTS IN A LICENSE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the response of the Nassau County Office for Consumer Affairs to a request for documents relating to licenses held by Home Beyond Center, LLC should not have had the references to judgments redacted:

FOIL requires government agencies to “make available for public inspection and copying all records,” subject to a number of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87[2]). One such exemption permits an agency to deny access to records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) provides that “[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to” seven specified kinds of disclosure … . Where none of the seven specifications is applicable, a court “must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … .

Here, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the redactions of information contained in the license application file of Home Beyond Center, LLC, relating to “judgments” should be exempt from disclosure as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Matter of Liang v Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 2019 NY Slip Op 07251, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT APPLY TO A SEARCH DONE BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE IN QUEENS; STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH, AS WELL AS THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH, PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly suppressed statements made without Miranda warnings, including the consent to search a safe, as well as the firearms seized from the safe. Although defendant was on parole in New Jersey, the search was done in Queens by New York City police. Therefore the consent to search provided by parolees as a condition of parole was not applicable:

… [A]lthough Soto had consented to searches by New Jersey parole officers as a condition of his parole, the record reveals that the NYPD officers, not the New Jersey parole officers, searched the safe after they were notified that the New Jersey parole officers found what appeared to be heroin in the apartment. Accordingly, the People cannot rely on Soto’s consent given as a condition of parole to justify the warrantless search of the safe … . Furthermore, since the NYPD officers failed to advise Soto of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him and obtaining his consent to open the safe, his statements regarding the safe and his consent to open it cannot be characterized as voluntary … . Moreover, the People failed to proffer any argument as to why the warrantless search was proper as to Santiago. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of Soto’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the firearms evidence and the statements made by him to the NYPD officers without the benefit of Miranda warnings, and that branch of Santiago’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the firearms evidence … . People v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 07099, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE PHOTO ARRAYS USED BY THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT WAS OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF PHOTOS VIEWED BY THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the witness’s identification of the defendant from photographs properly survived the motion to dismiss. The presumption of suggestiveness was overcome by the evidence of the sheer number of photographs shown to the witness. The court also held that rape first degree is a lesser included count of predatory sexual assault which was dismissed by the conviction on the higher court:

… [A]lthough the People did not produce in court the photographic arrays displayed through the use of the photo manager system, which gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, the People nevertheless rebutted that presumption and sustained their initial burden through the testimony of the detective, which established that she utilized the various databases applying the description of the perpetrator supplied by the complainant … . The detective testified that the complainant was shown the computer-generated photo arrays a day after the incident occurred and then again three days later. The detective’s unrebutted testimony established that 700 to 1,000 photographs were generated by the photo manager system, which were displayed in smaller arrays of photographs, from which, during the third viewing session, the complainant identified the defendant as the person who assaulted her … . “[W]hen a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness'” … . Moreover, the complainant eventually identified the defendant in a lineup. People v Castello, 2019 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

IN DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION AND GRANTING MOTHER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE HER CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND EVIDENCE NOT TESTED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for modification of child support should not have been denied and mother’s motion to terminate her child support obligations should not have been granted based on hearsay and evidence not tested by cross-examination:

… [F]ather filed a petition to modify the child support order … . The father asserted, as a change of circumstance, that the child was living with him. The mother moved for summary judgment dismissing the father’s petition, and for termination of her child support obligation, on the ground of parental alienation, contending that the father had unjustifiably frustrated and interfered with her relationship with the child. * * *

The Family Court, in making its determination that the father alienated the child from the mother, improperly relied on inadmissible information that had been provided at court conferences in earlier proceedings before a different judge. The court also improperly relied on hearsay statements and conclusions by an expert, whose credibility was not tested by either party, from an earlier forensic evaluation, and on statements and conclusions by two therapists, whose opinions and credibility were not tested by either party, made at a conference before a different judge … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Family Court’s determination to grant the mother’s motion for summary judgment and for termination of her child support obligation, we reinstate the father’s petition to modify the child support order … , and we remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing on that petition. Matter of McNichol v Reid, 2019 NY Slip Op 07073, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not submit proof of compliance with the filing requirements of RPAPL 1306:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1306, lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services . . . within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and the mortgage (RPAPL 1306[1]; see RPAPL 1306[2]). RPAPL 1306(1) further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of compliance with RPAPL 1306. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lyon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07060, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore she was entitled to the required 90-day notice, which she did not receive. That bank argued that she was not a borrower because only her deceased husband signed the note. However she was named on the mortgage and she signed the mortgage:

While RPAPL 1304 provides that the notice shall be sent to the “borrower,” that term is not defined in the statute (see RPAPL 1304). It is undisputed that only the defendant’s deceased husband, Solomon Forman, is identified as a “borrower” in the note which is secured by the mortgage. That is not determinative in this case. In the mortgage instrument, the defendant is referred to as a borrower. On the first page of the mortgage instrument, under the heading entitled “Words Used Often in this Document,” the defendant is identified, along with her husband, as ” Borrower.'” The defendant is also designated as “Borrower” under her signature on the signature page of the mortgage instrument. While the plaintiff contends that this standard mortgage form mischaracterizes the defendant as a borrower, any ambiguities in the language of the document must be construed against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is the party who supplied the document … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Forman, 2019 NY Slip Op 07045, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO FIX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff, a cleaner employed by a nonparty to clean a NYC school, tripped and fell as he was walking across the auditorium stage to turn on the lights. The defendant argued it could not be liable because plaintiff was injured by the condition he was responsible to fix:

A plaintiff cannot recover against a defendant for common-law negligence if he or she was injured by the dangerous condition which he or she had been hired to remedy … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants established that the plaintiff was merely walking to the rear of the stage in order to turn on the lights in the auditorium. Thus, the plaintiff was not engaged in the type of cleaning activity aimed at eliminating the risk presented by the test board that had been left on the floor … . Additionally, the plaintiff’s duty to clean visible debris off the floor had not yet arisen, because the plaintiff testified that due to the dim lighting condition in the auditorium, he had not observed the test board before his fall. Torres v Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06818, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action was not properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 and plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar should have been granted:

… [T]he Supreme Court issued a certification order which … certified the matter for trial and directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days. The order provided that “[i]f plaintiff does not file a note of issue within 90 days this action may be dismissed. (CPLR 3216).” Thereafter, the parties executed a stipulation dated June 15, 2017, extending the date by which the note of issue must be filed to September 7, 2017. The action was ministerially dismissed on June 21, 2017, without further notice to the parties. …

An action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … .

The certification order, which purported to serve as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective as it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . Furthermore, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the subsequent stipulation … , which purported to extend the plaintiff’s deadline for filing a note of issue … , did not constitute a valid 90-day demand … .

Moreover, it is evident from the record that the action was ministerially dismissed without a motion or notice to the parties, and there was no order of the court dismissing the action … . Rosenfeld v Schneider Mitola LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 06813, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

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