You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the prior dismissal of plaintiff’s action because the plaintiff failed to appear in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss was not a determination on the merits and therefore has no res judicata effect:

The plaintiff had commenced a prior action against, among others, the defendants, and the complaint in that action was dismissed insofar as asserted against them upon the plaintiff’s failure to appear in opposition to their motion to dismiss. An order entered upon a party’s default in appearing to oppose a motion to dismiss is not a determination on the merits … . Where a dismissal does not involve a determination on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply … . Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar the instant action … . Abdelfattah v Najar, 2019 NY Slip Op 04346, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation entered by plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord, pursuant to a Yellowstone Injunction, should not have modified by the judge. The defendant landlord notified plaintiff of several alleged defaults under the lease, and subsequently notified tenant of the termination of the lease. Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and moved for a Yellowstone injunction which the court ordered. The parties entered a so-ordered stipulation requiring plaintiff tenant to pay over $100,000 per month for use and occupancy of the property during the court proceedings. More than a year later plaintiff tenant moved to move to modify the stipulation to reduce the monthly use and occupancy payments and the court reduced the payments to zero:

The so-ordered November 2015 stipulation was negotiated by the parties and accepted by the Supreme Court, and, as a result, may be considered a court order … . “Although the Supreme Court retains inherent discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice, [a] court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgment is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud], mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … . Nevertheless, “[u]nder almost any given state of facts, where to enforce a stipulation would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage, courts will afford relief” … . …

Although the landlord generally has the burden of proving the amount owed by the tenant … , here, it was the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion to modify the “September 22, 2015 order, as amended,” to demonstrate that the payment of use and occupancy in the amount of $111,041.66 per month was unjust.

In concluding that the subject property had no value “as long as the Notice of Default remains on the property,” the Supreme Court erroneously considered the value to the plaintiff of using and occupying the subject property after the lease was purportedly terminated, instead of considering the fair market rental value of the subject property, namely, the amount that a prospective commercial tenant would be willing to pay to lease the subject property from the defendant … . 255 Butler Assoc., LLC v 255 Butler, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04344, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CAN APPEAL A CHANGE OF CUSTODY TO WHICH THE CHILD IS OPPOSED, THE CHILD IS AGGRIEVED FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD A FULL CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT FIRST ASSESSING THE ALLEGATIONS OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PRIOR MODIFICATION PETITIONS, AND FAMILY COURT MUST GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHILD’S WISHES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, that mother’s petition for a change in custody should not have been granted. The opinion is too comprehensive to be fairly summarized here. Of particular interest is the Second Department’s conclusion that Family Court should have not have held a full custody hearing without first determining whether the allegations warranted it. The Second Department took judicial notice of two prior petitions for modification which were dismissed, the last petition being very close in time to the instant petition.  The opinion is well worth reading in its entirety. It addresses several substantive issues and distinguishes some 4th Department authority. The Second Department summarized the issues and holdings as follows:

This appeal raises several important issues pertinent to child custody determinations. We conclude that: (a) the attorney for the child has the authority to pursue an appeal on behalf of the child from an order determining the custody of the child; (b) the child is aggrieved, for appellate purposes, by an order determining custody; (c) the Family Court should not have held a full custody hearing without first determining whether the mother had alleged and established a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the child’s best interests were served by the existing custodial arrangement; and (d) the Family Court erred in failing to give due consideration to the expressed preferences of the child, who is a teenager. Matter of Newton v McFarlane, 2019 NY Slip Op 04386, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

SURR0GATE’S COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE ADMINISTRATOR’S PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A SHORT SALE OF DECEDENT’S REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS WORTH SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE MORTGAGE WHICH ENCUMBERED THE PROPERTY, CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS IN THE PETITION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly denied the petition by the administrator of decedent’s estate seeking authority to conduct a “short sale” of real property that was worth substantially less than the mortgage which encumbered the property. Surrogate’s Court determined the proof offered in support of the petition fell short in several respects:

A decedent’s personal property is the primary source for the payment of the decedent’s debts, and land cannot be used as a source of funds unless the personalty has been exhausted … . However, the primary source for payment of a mortgage debt is the mortgaged premises (…EPTL 3-3.6). To obtain court authorization to sell real property to satisfy a decedent’s debts, including mortgage debts, a personal representative must demonstrate that the decedent’s personal property is insufficient to satisfy the debts (see SCPA 1902[3] …).

A Surrogate has ” the right to decree intelligently, and upon equitable principles, and to order [executors’ and administrators’] conduct upon principles of justice and of reason,'” and may not ” rubber stamp'” an application without examining its basis … . Here, we agree with the Surrogate’s Court’s determination that, without other evidence, the petitioner’s conclusory assertions regarding the extent of the decedent’s personal property and debts, the existence and status of the mortgage, and the identities of potential distributees were insufficient to support the relief he sought. Matter of Kahn, 2019 NY Slip Op 04384, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the zoning board’s denial of variances should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. CPLR 7804 requires that the respondent provide the transcript:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided “a copy of a transcript from the proceeding, . . . any of the submissions that he may have made in support of the requests, including the applications for any variances themselves” and had “also not provided an affidavit from a person with knowledge in support of [his] petition.”

CPLR 7804(d) permits, but does not require, the petitioner to submit affidavits or other written proof in support of the verified petition. Further, CPLR 7804(e) provides that the respondent, not the petitioner, “shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court.” Matter of D’Souza v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 6-5-10

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CLAIM HE COULDN’T STOP BECAUSE HIS CAR SKIDDED ON WET METAL GRATING DID NOT ESTABLISH THE REAR-END COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendants’ claim that the defendant driver, Flippen, couldn’t stop because the skidded on wet metal grating did not raise a question of fact:

“[A] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, as the evidence submitted in support of their motion demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ contention that Flippen applied his brakes but was unable to stop because his vehicle skidded on a wet metal grating on the roadway was insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence arising from the rear-end collision because they failed to demonstrate that Flippen’s skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Morgan v Flippen, 2019 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ON THE JOB INJURY CASE ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER AND PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that information provided for the first time in a reply affidavit could not be relied upon to sustain a movant’s prima facie burden for a summary judgment motion. The plaintiff, who was injured on the job, alleged he was hired by the defendant Bright Star Messenger Service, LLC (hereinafter the appellant). In its motion for summary judgment the appellant alleged it was plaintiff’s general employer and plaintiff’s only remedy was Workers’ Compensation. But included in appellant’s papers was plaintiff’s claim for Worker’s Compensation benefits which listed plaintiff’s employer as “Bright Star Courier.” Therefore the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case that it was plaintiff’s employer. The appellant then submitted a reply affidavit stating that Bright Star Courier had changed its name to Bright Star Messenger Center, LLC prior to the accident:

… Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it failed to make a prima facie showing that it was the plaintiff’s general employer. The appellant submitted the affidavit of a representative of the appellant, who stated that the plaintiff was employed by the appellant on the date of the accident, and that the appellant had procured workers’ compensation insurance for the plaintiff. However, the appellant also submitted Workers’ Compensation Board records showing that the plaintiff had filed a claim for benefits that listed the plaintiff’s employer as “Bright Star Courier.” Under these circumstances, the appellant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was the plaintiff’s general employer … . While the appellant submitted a reply affidavit from its representative averring that Bright Star Courier had changed its name to Bright Star Messenger Center, LLC, prior to the accident, a party cannot sustain its prima facie burden by relying on evidence submitted for the first time in its reply papers  … . The appellant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required the denial of its motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Matthews v Bright Star Messenger Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04375, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that discovery in this third-party assault (negligent supervision) case should not have been restricted to prior sexual assaults in the school and prior assaults between the alleged (student) perpetrator and the (student) plaintiff:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendants were only required to provide records pertaining to “assaults of a sexual nature” and “all assaults of any nature between” the infant plaintiff and the student alleged to have sexually assaulted the infant plaintiff. Evidence of prior assaults at the school, particularly any assaults in the stairwell where the subject incident occurred, may be sufficient to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of conduct similar to the subject incident … . Moreover, evidence of any prior assaults perpetuated by the offending student against students other than the infant plaintiff may be sufficient to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the offending student’s dangerous propensities … . M.C. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04372, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD EXPIRED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE BANK UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATION WITH DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE DEBT HAD NEVER BEEN ACCELERATED; CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCELERATION OF A MORTGAGE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank’s (Deutsche Bank’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s RPAPL article 15 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage should have been granted. The bank had started foreclosure proceedings in 2007 and plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the statute of limitations had run. However, the 2007 action had been dismissed because the bank did not have standing at the time it was brought. The Second Department determined the documentary proof of the dismissal of the 2007 action demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the debt had never been accelerated and, therefore, the statute of limitations had never started running. The decision provides a succinct and clear explanation of the requirements for a dismissal based on documentary evidence and the requirements for accelerating a mortgage debt:

… [C]ontrary to the plaintiff’s contention and the opinion of our dissenting colleague, the commencement of the foreclosure action, which was dismissed on the ground that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt since Deutsche Bank did not have the authority to accelerate the debt at that time … . The plaintiff did not identify the specific time when the mortgage was actually, legally accelerated. Furthermore, the notices of default were nothing more than letters discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which do not “constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Consequently, the allegations in the complaint that the debt was accelerated as of April 30, 2007, the date when Deutsche Bank commenced the underlying foreclosure action, or prior to April 30, 2007, when the notices of default were sent, are utterly refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Deutsche Bank, which included the written assignment of the mortgage [dated after April 30, 2007) “together with the . . . note” and the October 2009 order [dismissing the foreclosure action], in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint … . Moreover, Deutsche Bank, through the evidence it submitted with its motion, demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegation that the statute of limitations to foreclose the subject mortgage had expired was “not a fact at all,” and that “it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” warranting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . J & JT Holding Corp. v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

ALLEGEDLY OPERATING A TREE-TRIMMING BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE AND ENTRUSTING THE TREE-TRIMMING TRUCK TO PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER, IF NEGLIGENT, WERE NOT PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THE DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE TRUCK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, AND THE ACCIDENT WAS AN ‘EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE,’ SO THERE WAS NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the allegations that defendants were operating a tree-trimming business without a license and negligently entrusted the tree-trimming to one Perez (with whom plaintiff worked) were not proximate causes of the injury. Plaintiff caught a ring on his finger on a spike on a metal step on the truck and his finger was severed. The court noted that the danger was open and obvious and the accident was an ‘extraordinary occurrence’ so there was no duty to warn:

“Evidence of negligence is not enough by itself to establish liability. It must also be proved that the negligence was [a proximate] cause of the event which produced the harm”… . Thus, ” liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes'” … . Further, “proximate cause is no less essential an element of liability because the negligence charged is premised in part or in whole on a claim that a statute or ordinance . . . has been violated” … .

… [E]ven if the defendants were negligent in operating a tree-trimming business without a license or in lending or renting or entrusting the truck to Perez, such negligent acts only furnished the occasion for the plaintiff’s accident … , but were not a proximate cause of the accident. The defendants additionally demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have any “special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to [Perez] which render[ed] [his] use of the [truck] unreasonably dangerous,” as is required to establish a negligent entrustment cause of action … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to either negligence or negligent entrustment.

With respect to the cause of action alleging a violation of the defendants’ duty to warn, the defendants demonstrated … that any danger posed by the stairs was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff from his prior use of the truck … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s accident was an “extraordinary occurrence” … . “[T]here is no duty to warn against an extraordinary occurrence, which would not suggest itself to a reasonably careful and prudent person as one which should be guarded against”… . Deschamps v Timberwolf Tree & Tile Serv., 2019 NY Slip Op 04133, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

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