You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not submit proof it had the financial ability to close:

“A plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform his or her obligations under the contract” … . “[C]onclusory assertions that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform, are insufficient to satisfy this burden” … .

“When a purchaser submits no documentation or other proof to substantiate that it had the funds necessary to purchase the property, it cannot prove, as a matter of law, that it was ready, willing, and able to close” … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment on a complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must submit evidence demonstrating its financial ability to purchase the property, and in the absence of such evidence, the motion must be denied … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property. More specifically, the conclusory assertions of Gavriel Yakubov, the alleged sole member of the plaintiff, that he had always been, and remained, ready, willing, and able to close, absent any evidence demonstrating the plaintiff’s financial ability to close, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property … . GLND 1945, LLC v Ballard, 2019 NY Slip Op 04143, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS DID NOT FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer to offer a work-training program, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who tripped and fell over extension cord wires during the training session. The only Espinal exception alleged was that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, which was deemed inapplicable by the Second Department. The alleged failure to eliminate the tripping hazard was not actionable:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

… The Supreme Court’s determination that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant negligently failed to correct the alleged tripping hazard amounts to a finding that the defendant may have merely failed to become “an instrument for good,” which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party … . Espeleta v Synergy Resources, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04138, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the victim’s 911 call was properly admitted as an excited utterance, even though the call was made about five minutes after the assault with a butcher knife:

“A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance— made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay” … . The determination of admissibility of a statement as an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court, which “must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” … . Here, the evidence demonstrated that the 911 calls qualified as excited utterances. First, the nature of the attack on the complainant was the type of startling event that would cause “physical shock or trauma” … . Further, the 911 calls were made only approximately five minutes after the event, and in those intervening minutes, the complainant ran across the street from the scene of the incident to his apartment to bandage his wound. Under these circumstances, this short interval of time did not “detract[ ] from [the] spontaneity” of the statements … . People v Jaber, 2019 NY Slip Op 03988, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY CHARGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff had no memory of the accident and testified about his habit or routine practice of riding his bicycle home from work. The court had given the Noseworthy jury instruction:

The plaintiff testified that, while he did not recall the accident, he did recall leaving work and getting on his bicycle with the intent of taking the route he usually took home, which route he detailed, explaining that he took the same route every day, except for when he took the bus. While that route would have had the plaintiff traveling with traffic at the time of the accident, the defendant testified, inter alia, that the plaintiff was traveling against traffic … . …

The jury could have credited the plaintiff’s testimony as to his habit or routine practice, as to which the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence “to allow the inference of its persistence” at the time of this accident … , while also making reasonable inferences based on the defendant’s own testimony that, inter alia, the defendant failed to see that which through proper use of the driver’s senses she should have seen, for which the defendant could be found liable even if the plaintiff, as the defendant here argues, could not establish that he obeyed all the rules of the road … . Ortega v Ting, 2019 NY Slip Op 03977, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Coinmach, which leased the laundry room, was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff alleged the soap tray on the washing machine she was using came all the way out of the machine when she pulled it open, causing her to fall backward from an elevated step in front of the machine. The Second Department determined Coinmach, the lessee of the laundry room, could be held liable because it was responsible for maintaining the laundry room. The court further held that Coinmach did not eliminate questions of fact concerning its constructive notice of the defect which caused the tray to pull out of the machine, because there was no evidence when the machine was last inspected:

Coinmach was the lessee of the laundry room with “the sole and exclusive occupancy, possession and control” for a term of seven years. In return, Coinmach agreed to make monthly rent payments. A tenant has a common-law duty to keep the premises it occupies in a reasonably safe condition, even when the landlord has explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises … . …

Coinmach failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have constructive notice that the soap tray was broken. Coinmach’s area vice president testified at his deposition that Coinmach did not perform any routine maintenance on the machines, which were serviced whenever Coinmach received a service call requesting repairs. The area vice president testified that at each such service call, the technician would perform a “touch and feel test” on each machine, which would include opening the soap tray to make sure it was secure. However, there is no evidence in the record as to the date of the last service call, and therefore no evidence as to when Coinmach last inspected the subject soap tray before the injured plaintiff’s accident … . Gatto v Coinmach Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS NECK ATTEMPTING TO THROW A HEAVY HOSE TO AN AREA 15 TO 20 FEET ABOVE HIM, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff injured his neck attempting to throw a hose to an area 15 to 20 feet above him:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict liability on building owners and contractors for failure to provide proper protection against elevation-related hazards … . At the time that the plaintiff was injured, he was standing on the ground level, moving a 100-pound hose. Although the accident tangentially involved elevation, it was not caused by any elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute … . Clark v FC Yonkers Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03948, Second Dept 5-22-10

 

BARKING AND STRAINING AT THE LEASH CONSTITUTE NORMAL CANINE BEHAVIOR AND DID NOT SERVE TO MAKE DEFENDANTS AWARE OF THE DOG’S ALLEGED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case was properly granted. The fact that defendants were aware the dog had barked at plaintiff and her dog and strained at his leash did not demonstrate defendants were aware of defendants’ dog’s vicious propensities:

Here, the … defendants … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the dog did not have vicious propensities and, in any event, that they neither knew nor should have known that the dog had vicious propensities … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the dog had vicious propensities. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony that the dog barked at her and her dog and that the dog strained its leash toward her dog was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had vicious propensities … . Moreover, regardless of whether the Beach Haven defendants were aware of the behavior the plaintiff described in her testimony, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the Beach Haven defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s allegedly vicious propensities. The dog’s actions in barking at another dog and pulling its leash are “consistent with normal canine behavior” … . Bukhtiyarova v Cohen, 2019 NY Slip Op 03945, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SURVIVED THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIED, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO THE PLAINTIFFS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE PRIVITY ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION WAS ABSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-sellers were not liable under breach of contract or negligence theories for the presence of mold and mice in a house sold to plaintiffs:

The contract of sale contained language providing that, unless expressly stated, no covenant, warranty, or representation in the contract survived closing. A rider to the contract stated that the defendants were not aware of any mold or vermin infestation in the house. Prior to the closing, the plaintiffs conducted a home inspection which revealed, among other things, the presence of water staining and evidence of water infiltration on the interior of the house. The home inspection report stated that a mold evaluation was beyond the scope of the inspection and recommended that if the plaintiffs were concerned about potential mold issues, they should call a professional mold abatement company to perform an inspection. The report also stated that the need for some periodic general pest control should be anticipated. The plaintiffs did not undertake a mold inspection. * * *

… [O]nce title to the property closed and the deed was delivered, “any claims the plaintiff[s] might have had arising from the contract of sale were extinguished by the doctrine of merger” since there was no “clear intent evidenced by the parties that [the relevant] provision of the contract of sale [would] survive the delivery of the deed”. … Furthermore, “New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” … . …

A simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . …

“A claim for negligent misrepresentation requires the plaintiff[s] to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant[s] to impart correct information to the plaintiff[s]; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information” … . Here, the defendants demonstrated that there was no special or privity-like relationship between themselves and the plaintiffs in this arm’s length transaction … . Rosner v Bankers Std. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. Although the district demonstrated that it removed snow and slush from the area as late as January 6, it did not demonstrate that it inspected or cleaned the area between January 6 and January 9 when plaintiff fell:

Here, the School District failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. The evidence submitted by the School District demonstrated that snow fell on January 2 and 3, 2014. On January 2, 3, and 4, 2014, the School District removed snow and ice from all of its property, including the subject elementary school. On January 6, 2014, between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the School District removed slush from all of its property. However, no evidence was submitted as to what the accident site looked like after the School District performed work on the premises on January 6, 2014, and what, if any, cleaning procedures or inspection procedures were performed from 7:00 a.m. on January 6, 2014, until the time of the plaintiff’s accident on January 9, 2014. Accordingly, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall … . Muzio v Levittown Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03974, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

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