You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied all but one of the defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on lack of personal jurisdiction, pending further discovery. The traffic accident happened in New Jersey. The plaintiffs’ van was struck from behind by a freight truck leased by Finkle (a New Jersey corporation) from Ryder Truck Rental and driven by defendant Larios, a resident of Pennsylvania. All the plaintiffs were residents of New York. The Second Department found that there was no general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and no long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a])(3) (tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state). However there may jurisdiction against Finkle pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (conducting business within the state):

… [Plaintiffs] have not alleged facts in opposition which would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under New York’s general jurisdiction statute, CPLR 301, over Larios, who was not domiciled in New York, or over Finkle, which was not incorporated in New York and did not have its principal place of business in New York … . …

Under CPLR 302(a)(3), “[t]he situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff” … . Here, since the accident which caused the injuries occurred in New Jersey, CPLR 302(a)(3) does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants in New York … .

… .Finkle asserted that it is a New Jersey corporation with its business address in New Jersey, and Larios stated that, at the time of the accident, he was transporting a load for the United States Postal Service within the State of New Jersey. However, Finkle admitted that it had terminals at four New York locations at which it parked its vehicles. Based upon these facts, and given Finkle’s failure to submit trip logs, manifests, or other documentary evidence to support its assertion that the load Larios was transporting was being shipped within the State of New Jersey and had no relationship to Finkle’s New York business, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny as premature that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Finkle, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery. Qudsi v Larios, 2019 NY Slip Op 04742, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND EXPERT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS DIVERTED WATER ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH FORMED A PATCH OF BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s request to enter the Rizzetta defendants’ property to allow inspection and expert examination of the alleged diversion of water from the property onto a public road should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured riding his bicycle when he hit a patch of black ice, slipped and fell:

CPLR 3120(1)(ii) provides that a party may serve another party with notice “to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession, custody or control of the party served for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, sampling, testing, photographing or recording by motion pictures or otherwise the property or any specifically designated object or operation thereon.” Motions seeking such discovery “are routinely granted when a central issue in the case is the condition of the real property under inspection” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. A central issue in this litigation is the source of the water which allegedly caused the injury-producing ice condition. An owner of private land abutting a public roadway may be liable for injuries sustained from a fall on ice on the public roadway, if the “ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway” … . The plaintiff’s theory of the Rizzetta defendants’ liability is premised upon the Rizzetta defendants’ alleged diversion of water from their property onto the public roadway. Although the probative value of the inspection may be weakened by the passage of time since the accident occurred, such delay is not a basis for denying the plaintiff’s discovery request where, as here, the inspection may still aid the parties in preparation for trial … . Zupnick v City of New Rochelle, 2019 NY Slip Op 04754, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against the building owner should have been granted, but his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against his employer, Bright Way, was properly denied because plaintiff presented no proof Bight Way acted as the owner’s agent. Apparently Bright Way occupies the owner’s building. Plaintiff is a salesman for Bright Way. Plaintiff was instructed to run a thermostat wire on the second floor of the building when he fell 15 feet through an inadequately protected hole:

Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes liability only on contractors, owners or their agents” (…see Labor Law § 240[1]). “An agency relationship for purposes of section 240(1) arises only when work is delegated to a third party who obtains the authority to supervise and control the job”… . “Where the owner or general contractor delegates to a third party the duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law, that third party becomes the statutory agent of the owner or general contractor” … . “The key question is whether the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed” … . “[U]nless a defendant has supervisory control and authority over the work being done when the plaintiff is injured, there is no statutory agency conferring liability under the Labor Law” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish, prima facie, that Bright Way was an agent of the property owner or one of its contractors at the site. The evidence proffered by the plaintiff in support of his motion did not establish that Bright Way had been delegated the “duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law”… , that Bright Way “had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed” at the construction site … , that Bright Way had “broad responsibility” to coordinate and supervise “all the work being performed on the job site” … , or that Bright Way had requested or been granted authority by the owner or contractor to supervise and control the work in the area where the accident occurred … . Yiming Zhou v 828 Hamilton, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04752, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, ,

BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of default did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. And the proof mailing in accordance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions, including the affidavit of Daphne Proctor, a “Document Execution Specialist” employed by the loan servicer, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the business records relied on by the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s default in repayment of the subject loan … . Notably, to the extent that Proctor’s “purported knowledge of [the defendant’s] default was based upon her review of unidentified business records created and maintained by [the loan servicer], her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The record contains a single 90-day notice with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail  … . Furthermore, Proctor, who asserted that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, did not aver in her affidavit that she was familiar with the loan servicer’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … , nor did she aver that she had mailed the notices herself. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kohli, 2019 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, 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, the property owners, were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the ice formed sometime between the middle of the day on the 16th and 7 a.m. on the 17th when he fell. The property owner, Santiago, testified he saw no ice on the afternoon of the 16th and saw no ice when he returned to the property at 11 a.m. on the 17th. The defendants’ papers, therefore, demonstrated there were questions of fact:

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that on February 16, 2016, precipitation had fallen, that it stopped sometime after he picked up his children at their school at noon, that when he returned to the subject property, the driveway was not icy, and that the neighbor whom the defendants had retained to plow the driveway had done so after the precipitation stopped but did not apply any salt. The plaintiff also testified that, on February 17, 2016, at approximately 7:00 a.m., he slipped and fell on thick ice that was cloudy and dirty in appearance and which covered the entire driveway. He further testified that the ice started forming on February 16, 2016, either sometime in the middle of the day, or sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the next day.

The defendants also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the defendant Christian Santiago, who testified that the tenants did not have any responsibilities with respect to snow or ice removal from the driveway. He also testified that he visited the subject property to inspect ongoing renovation work in one of the apartments in the morning or early afternoon of February 16, 2016, that it was not snowing or raining at that time, and that he did not observe any ice on the driveway. Santiago further testified that, when he returned to the property the following day, at approximately 11:00 a.m. or noon, he observed a snowbank measuring anywhere from four-to-five feet or six-to-seven feet high at the end of the driveway created by the plow the day before, that he did not see any ice on the driveway, and that he noticed that there was salt on the concrete landing but not on the driveway. …

The defendants failed to submit any meterological data for either February 16 or 17, 2016, or evidence of the condition of the driveway subsequent to it being plowed by the neighbor or within a reasonable time prior to the incident … .

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants showed the existence of triable issues of fact and did not suffice to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment … . Ghent v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 04362, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE CREATED BY THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS REBUTTED BY DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING THAT THE PLACE WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH HIM OR HIS BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether the defendant corporation, Advanced, and its principal, Trimarco, were properly served with the summons and complaint. The presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit was rebutted by Trimarco’s affidavit stating that the place where service was made, and any person at that location, had no connection to him or the business:

Trimarco submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that both he and Advanced were improperly served at a residence that he had “sold to an unrelated third party three years ago.” He further averred that, on the date service was purportedly made, he had no relationship with any person at [the residence], and no person at that address was authorized to accept service on behalf of Advanced. …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint without first conducting a hearing. “Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” … . “[W]here there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted, and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence” … .

With respect to service on Advanced, CPLR 311(a)(1) provides that personal service upon a corporation shall be made, among other ways, “to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.” Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation … . …

With respect to service on Trimarco, CPLR 308(2) provides, in relevant part, that service may be made upon a natural person “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served.” Here, Trimarco’s detailed affidavit, in which he claimed that the address where service was made was not his actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the plaintiff’s affidavit of service … . Finnegan v Trimarco, 2019 NY Slip Op 04361, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD THE RIGHT FILE A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE ACTION TO FORECLSOE ON THE LIEN RAISED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN A PRIOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE PRECLUDED THE SECOND ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subcontractor’s action seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, despite its being based on theories different from those raised in the prior action:

“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action” … . ” [O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Accordingly, “a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … .

While a subcontractor may have the right to file a second mechanic’s lien within the statutory time period, at least to cure an irregularity in a lien first filed, or to reassert a lien when the prior one has been lost by delay in its enforcement …, a second mechanic’s lien is not immune from the doctrine of res judicata. Although the plaintiff framed its causes of action in the 2014 action as breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action, and its cause of action in this action as one to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, these are merely different theories for the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover monies allegedly owed to it under the subcontract. County Wide Flooring, Corp. v Town of Huntington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04354, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

THE GYM TEACHER TOLD THE STUDENTS TO RUN AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING; STUDENT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OVER A CHAIN WHICH, SHE ALLEGED, OTHER STUDENTS WERE JUMPING OVER AS THEY RAN; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action was properly denied. The gym teacher told the students to run around the perimeter of the building and, according to the student-plaintiff, some students were jumping over a chain. The student-plaintiff attempted to jump over the chain when she tripped and fell:

The infant plaintiff testified at her deposition that the gym teacher did not instruct her not to jump over anything, and that approximately 20 students jumped over the chain before she attempted to do so. She initially did not know what the other students were jumping over, and she realized that they were jumping over the chain when she was approximately five feet away from it. The infant plaintiff was still jogging at that point. She did not see the chain until she was very close to it because the chain “blend[ed] in.” The gym teacher testified at his deposition that the students usually ran on a grassy area around the perimeter of a field. On the day of the accident, however, he instructed the infant plaintiff and her classmates to run around the perimeter of the school building because the grassy area was too wet and muddy. He had never before instructed that class to run around the perimeter of the building. The gym teacher also testified that he instructed the students to avoid the chain, that he ran behind the students, and that, when he reached the chain, he observed students running around it. …

… [T]the school district failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it provided adequate supervision, or that a lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . B.T. v Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 04442, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION, PREMISED ON DEFENDANT’S AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when he was attempting to move a light fixture. He was cutting sheetrock in the ceiling with an allegedly improper electric saw when it kicked back and injured him. The Labor Law 240 and 231 causes of action were properly dismissed because an elevation-related hazard was not alleged, nor was an Industrial Code violation:

“Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work. General supervisory authority to oversee the progress of the work is insufficient to impose liability. A defendant has the authority to control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, as supplemented by the plaintiff’s affidavit, the complaint states cognizable causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and to recover damages for common-law negligence. The plaintiff averred that on the day of the accident, Rapaport [the construction manager] , whom he knew as the “contractor,” directed the plaintiff to move an overhead light from one place in the ceiling to another and told him to use an electrical saw to cut the sheetrock in the ceiling. These allegations are sufficient to support the statutory and common-law negligence claims against the moving defendants, and the moving defendants’ documentary evidence does not utterly refute these allegations … . Soller v Dahan, 2019 NY Slip Op 04441, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REQUIRING A FORECLOSURE AFFIRMATION AND A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY, A STIPULATION AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED, THE IMPROPER APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER RAISED A MATTER OF LAW THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate a dismissal of a foreclosure action should have been granted. Supreme Court had improperly applied an administrative order (AO 548/10) requiring a “Foreclosure Affirmation/Certificate of Merit” that was not in effect at the time the bank made its motion for summary judgment. The parties had entered a stipulation which awarded the bank summary judgment in return for waiver of its right to seek a deficiency judgment. The court noted that the improper retroactive application of AO 548/10 could be raised for the first time on appeal because it is a question of law that could not be avoided if it had been raised at the proper time:

“[A] court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice”… . “A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … .

Here, equity and justice require vacatur of the dismissal order in the interests of substantial justice … . Countrywide Bank, FSB v Singh, 2019 NY Slip Op 04353, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

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