You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS STOPPED IN AN UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT WAY IN THIS COMMON CARRIER INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether the bus on which plaintiff was a passenger stopped in an unusual and violent way, injuring her:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging that a common carrier was negligent in stopping a bus, a plaintiff must prove that the stop was unusual and violent, rather than merely one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” … . Moreover, a plaintiff may not satisfy that burden of proof merely by characterizing the stop as unusual and violent … . “However, in seeking summary judgment dismissing such a cause of action, common carriers have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the stop was not unusual and violent” … .

… According to the plaintiff’s testimony, shortly after she paid her fare, the bus “took off” and then came to a quick stop, causing her to fall. According to the testimony of the bus driver, he was operating the bus at about 15 miles per hour when a vehicle cut in front of him, causing him to apply the brakes and stop the bus. Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the stop of the bus was unusual and violent … . Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05759, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

INSURER DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS OF THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE, INSURER MUST DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant insurer (Utica) failed to timely disclaim coverage of the additional insureds and was therefore obligated to defend and indemnify the additional insureds in this construction accident case:

… [T]he plaintiff AVR-Powell C Development Corp. (hereinafter AVR-Powell), the owner of and general contractor at a construction site located on Lax Avenue in College Point, entered into a written agreement with nonparty Vinny Construction Corp. (hereinafter Vinny Construction), which was to perform masonry work in connection with the construction project. Pursuant to the agreement, Vinny Construction was required to procure and maintain a commercial general liability insurance policy naming AVR-Powell and the plaintiff Powell Cove Associates, LLC (hereinafter Powell Cove), as additional insureds. The defendant, Utica First Insurance Company (hereinafter Utica), issued a policy to Vinny Construction which included a “Blanket Additional Insured” endorsement specifying that an “[i]nsured also includes . . . [a]ny person or organization whom you are required to name as an additional insured on this policy under a written contract or written agreement.” …

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (d), an insurer is required to provide its insured and any other claimant with timely written notice of its disclaimer or denial of coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion, and will be estopped from disclaiming liability or denying coverage if it fails to do so … . Furthermore, where, as here, “a primary insurer . . . tenders a claim for a defense and indemnification to an insurer . . . which issued a certificate of insurance to the parties, indicating that they are additional insureds, that insurer must comply with the disclaimer requirements of Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) by providing written notice of disclaimer of coverage to the additional insureds” … . …

The plaintiffs’ submissions showed that Utica did not provide a disclaimer of coverage directly to its additional insureds until March 20, 2015, approximately six years after the first demand for coverage from Utica. AVR-Powell C Dev. Corp. v Utica First Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 05758, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE DOG WAS A GUARD DOG AND THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK AND INJURIES RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department determined the evidence of defendants’ dog’s vicious propensities was sufficient to warrant denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case:

… [T]he defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of I.A. through affidavits which demonstrated that the defendants were unaware of any incident where the dog bit any person or animal, or acted aggressively, viciously, or ferociously, or attacked, harmed, or threatened to harm any person or animal … . In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted evidence demonstrating that the dog was kept, at least in part, as a guard dog, that the dog, unprovoked, bit I.A. on the face and would not let go until another boy pried open the dog’s mouth, and that I.A. suffered multiple severe lacerations to his face which required emergency surgery and left him with multiple scars. While the hospital records submitted by the plaintiffs were uncertified (see CPLR 4518[c]), hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment where, as here, it was not the only evidence upon which opposition to the motion was predicated … . … [T]he evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants knew or should have known that their dog had vicious propensities … . I.A. v Mejia, 2019 NY Slip Op 05757, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an order that was not served on the defendant by the plaintiff, here an order striking the answer if discovery demands were not complied with by a specified date, was not enforceable:

… [T]he plaintiff, as the successful moving party given that the Supreme Court conditionally granted that branch of the prior motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer, was required to serve the May 2016 order on the defendant for that order to be enforceable against the defendant with respect to its answer being stricken in the event that it failed to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016 … . The plaintiff’s contention that since the May 2016 order did not specify that the plaintiff had to serve a copy of that order with notice of entry upon the defendant, the plaintiff did not have to do so before that order was enforceable against the defendant, is without merit (see CPLR 2220). Since the defendant did not have notice of the May 2016 order, its failure to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016, was not willful. Wolf Props. Assoc., L.P. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05808, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action should have been granted more time to serve the defendant by publication:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service upon “good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. Good cause will not exist where a plaintiff fails to make any effort at service, or fails to make at least a reasonably diligent effort at service. By contrast, good cause may be found to exist where the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve process is a result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control” … .

If a plaintiff fails to establish good cause for an extension, courts must consider whether an extension is warranted in the interest of justice … . A showing of reasonably diligent efforts at service is not required, but courts may consider diligence along with other factors, including “the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v James, 2019 NY Slip Op 05807, Second Dept 7-24-19

,

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

 

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