You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FIRST DEGREE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined vacated defendant’s conviction of two inclusory concurrent counts of the court alleging aggravated operation of a operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree:

… [T]he counts alleging driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree were inclusory concurrent counts of the count alleging aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (see CPL 300.30[4]; 300.40[3][b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 511[2][a][ii]; [3][a][i]; 1192). Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment dismissed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee must be reduced is more appropriately raised before the Supreme Court and, accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to consider this issue … . People v Delcid, 2019 NY Slip Op 05788, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, , , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY, HERE THE ABILITY FOR UNLIMITED AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED; SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Supreme Court should not, sua sponte, have granted relief which was not requested by a party. Petitioner allegedly was injured trying to board a subway train. Before filing a notice of claim petitioner commenced a CPLR 3102 (c) proceeding to obtain discovery before starting the action. The court granted the petition and, sua sponte, gave the petitioner permission to amend the notice of claim, which had not yet been filed, within 30 days of filing the note of issue. The Second Department noted that a sua sponte order is not appealable and exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal (CPLR 5701[a][2]; [c]):

Turning to the merits, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 2214(a), an order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefor'” . “However, the court may grant relief that is warranted by the…  facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court strayed from this principle when, in addition to granting, in effect, that branch of the petition which was for an order preserving material related to the accident, it also sua sponte granted a nearly unlimited prospective right to the petitioner to amend a notice of claim that had not yet been served. This sua sponte relief was dramatically different from the pre-action discovery that was the subject of the petition … . Furthermore, the papers before the court did not support the award of such additional relief, since the absence of a notice of claim rendered it impossible to determine whether the future notice of claim or any amendments thereto would be in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e. We also agree with the appellants that they were prejudiced insofar as the court set a permissive timeline for amending the notice of claim that potentially could be, inter alia, beyond the statute of limitations and after the completion of discovery. Matter of Velez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05781, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, ,

THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled a resolution adopted by the Suffolk County Legislature specifically allowing the publication of the financial disclosure information provided to the County Ethics Board by an assistant district attorney. A newspaper initially made the request of the Ethics Board. The request was denied and the newspaper did not seek review of the denial. The Legislature, in direct response to the denial of the newspaper’s request,  took it upon itself to adopt the resolution allowing the information to be made public. The Second Department held that the Legislature did not have the authority to essentially act as a reviewing court by passing a resolution addressed to a specific circumstance:

The County Legislature was established to determine County policies and to exercise other functions as may be assigned to it by law … . The County Legislature exercises the County’s powers of local legislation and appropriations … . The County Legislature has broad powers to enact local legislation. However, it is fundamental that legislative power does not extend so far as to apply the rules of law to particular cases, as the power to adjudicate the applicability of the law to individual situations is a judicial power … . A legislative body may not usurp a court’s power to interpret and apply the law to the particular circumstances before it … . Thus, it was beyond the authority of the County Legislature to determine that the Ethics Board’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s financial disclosure statements from public inspection was incorrect and to take it upon itself to obtain the statements and provide for their public release. Put another way, the County Legislature wrongly placed itself in the position of a reviewing court. This is particularly disturbing where the purportedly aggrieved newspaper took no steps to vindicate its rights to disclosure of the financial statements by the Ethics Board. Matter of Prudenti v Suffolk County Legislature, 2019 NY Slip Op 05779, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER (GEICO) WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE HIT AND RUN WAS INSURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was conflicting evidence whether a particular vehicle (owned by McRae) was involved in a hit and run accident involving a parked car in which Williams and Shields were sitting. The alleged registration number matched that of the McRae vehicle which was insured by Liberty Mutual. However, there was evidence the McRae vehicle was being repaired on the day of the accident. A framed issue hearing was therefore required:

GEICO commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits or, in the alternative, to temporarily stay arbitration pending a framed-issued hearing … . …

GEICO, as the party seeking a stay of arbitration, met its burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay … . GEICO met this burden by submitting evidence that on the date of the accident, the McRae vehicle was insured by Liberty Mutual.

The burden then shifted to Williams and Shields, as the parties opposing the stay, to rebut that prima facie showing … . Williams and Shields submitted evidence that the McRae vehicle was being repaired at the time of the accident, raising an issue of fact as to whether the McRae vehicle could have been involved in the accident. Since an issue of fact was raised, arbitration should be temporarily stayed, the putative hit-and-run parties joined as respondents, and a framed-issue hearing conducted, before a determination is made on that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 05660, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

,

THE PURPORTED REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT TO REDUCE COVERAGE AFTER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS UNENFORCEABLE, THE INSURER IS LIABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the reformation of the insurance contract to reduce the bodily injury coverage limits from $250,000 to $80,000 was unenforceable because the change was made after the traffic accident occurred:

In December 2011, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when a vehicle in which he was a passenger was involved in a collision. At the time of the collision, the vehicle was driven by nonparty Douglas Giambrone and owned by nonparty Carol Giambrone (hereinafter together the Giambrones), and was insured by the defendant under a liability policy providing for bodily injury coverage up to $250,000 per person/$500,000 per occurrence. In May 2012, the plaintiff commenced an action against the Giambrones to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained in the accident. In August 2012, the defendant entered into an agreement with the Giambrones to reform the policy to reduce the bodily injury coverage to a single $80,000 limit. Thereafter, the Giambrones notified the plaintiff that the coverage limit applicable to the accident was $80,000. The plaintiff subsequently obtained a judgment against the Giambrones in the amount of $300,000 in the underlying personal injury action. …

An insurer may not retroactively reform a policy to reduce the stated bodily injury coverage limits after a loss caused by its insured occurs, even if the reduced limits still meet or exceed the statutory minimum (see Olivio v Government Empls. Ins. Co. of Washington, D.C., 46 AD2d 437, 443-445; Reliance Ins. Cos. v Daly, 38 AD2d 715, 716). … The plaintiff … demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the defendant is obligated to satisfy the first $250,000 of the judgment he obtained against the Giambrones.  McGuckin v Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 2019 NY Slip Op 05654, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

,

ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was jogging when she tripped over a raised edge of a depression in the roadway. The defect was surrounded by orange markings:

The evidence demonstrated that [defendant] was in the process of restoring the excavated area in the location of the plaintiff’s accident and that the alleged defective condition measured approximately four-feet wide, eight-feet long, and at least one-inch deep. …

… A “condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted'”  … . Furthermore, “proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability . . . but is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence” … . “Thus, to obtain summary judgment, a defendant must establish that a condition was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . Finally … , the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action … . Karpel v National Grid Generation, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05651, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

,

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EXCUSE OFFERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

With regard to default judgments, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion.” The “one exception to the otherwise mandatory language of CPLR 3215(c) is that the failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint . . . may be excused if sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'”  … . “This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not offer any excuse for its failure to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment … for more than one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part  … . “Where, as here, a party moving for a default judgment beyond one year from the date of default fails to address any reasonable excuse for its untimeliness, courts may not excuse the lateness and shall’ dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Uddin, 2019 NY Slip Op 05649, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse and appellants’ motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he appellants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015(a) to vacate their default … . …

“A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court” … . “In making that discretionary determination, the court should consider relevant factors, such as the extent of the delay, prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the appellants set forth a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the centralized motion part of the Supreme Court on the return date of the plaintiff’s motion based on evidence of law office failure. In an affirmation, the appellants’ attorney explained that upon receiving the plaintiff’s motion, he directed his office’s legal assistant to note the return date of the motion on the office calendar, but that the return date had not been noted on the calendar. In addition, the appellants demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense based upon the statute of limitations. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Faragalla, 2019 NY Slip Op 05641, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation concerning the alleged malpractice was deemed conclusory and therefore did not raise a question of fact. The informed consent cause of action was dismissed because the medical procedure was not the proximate cause of the claimed injuries:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff ” must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . ” The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury'” … . Here, the defendants established through their expert affirmation that the surgery performed … did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s claimed injuries … . Gilmore v Mihail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05647, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, ,

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud cause of action should not have been granted. Supreme Court held the fraud action was duplicative of the breach of contract action:

“The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury” … . “Mere unfulfilled promissory statements as to what will be done in the future are not actionable as fraud and the injured party’s remedy is to sue for breach of contract” … . Where, however, it is alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations of present facts that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract, a cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement is not duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… [T]he cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The first cause of action alleges that the defendants knowingly made false representations in … financial statements, which were collateral to the APA [asset purchase agreement], that these false statements were made in order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the APA, that the plaintiff would not have entered into the APA but for these false statements, and that the plaintiff was injured by this fraudulent conduct …. As the first cause of action alleges misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the APA and further alleges that these misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the APA, the court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action. Did-it.com, LLC v Halo Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05644, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

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