You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO MANAGEMENT COULD BE INTERPRETED TO CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A FALSE TAX RETURN USING DEFENDANT’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND THAT PLAINTIFF STOLE FUNDS FROM THE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DECISION INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the statements made by defendant about plaintiff constituted actionable defamation and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The decision includes substantive explanations of the elements of defamation which are too detailed to fairly summarize here. In essence, defendant made statements which could be fairly interpreted to claim that plaintiff filed a false tax return using defendant’s social security number and plaintiff stole money from the company they both worked for. The statements were made in emails and in phone calls to the payroll administrator, the president and general manager of the company:

The precise meaning of the defendant’s statements that “someone tried to file a 2014 tax return using [her] name, [her] info and . . . [her social security number]” and that she “[had] reason to believe [the plaintiff] is responsible for this attack on [her] credit, [her] finances and [her] LIFE!” is that the plaintiff used the defendant’s social security number to file a fraudulent tax return … . The statements can readily be proven true or false and, given the tone and overall context in which the statements were made, signaled to the average reader or listener that the defendant was conveying facts about the plaintiff … . This includes the defendant’s statement that she had “learned of the story of [the plaintiff] stealing funds, for her deposit from [Skyline’s] accounts to purchase her condo in 2013.” Alternatively, the challenged statements are mixed opinion, which is actionable, as a reasonable reader may infer that the defendant had knowledge of facts, unknown to the audience, which support the assertions she made ,,, . The plaintiff also established, prima facie, that the statements were defamatory per se since they charged the plaintiff with the commission of a serious crime and would tend to injure the plaintiff in her profession by imputing “fraud, dishonesty, misconduct, or unfitness in conducting [her] profession” … . Kasavana v Vela, 2019 NY Slip Op 03777, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The plaintiff leased the ground floor apartment and defendant, the plaintiff’s mother, leased the second floor apartment. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on the exterior front steps of the two-family house. Defendant demonstrated she had a contractual arrangement with the property owner to remove ice and snow and, because plaintiff was not a party to the agreement, no duty of care was owed plaintiff (no Espinal factors were alleged by the plaintiff). But defendant raised questions of fact in opposition:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] 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” … .

Here, the defendant established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff was not a party to the oral agreement between the defendant and the property owner … . Since the plaintiff did not allege facts in her pleadings that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, the defendant … was not required to affirmatively establish that these exceptions did not apply

However, in opposition … , the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether … .  defendant’s oral agreement with the property owner regarding maintenance was comprehensive and exclusive so as to entirely displace the property owner’s duty to maintain … the exterior front steps and the gutter … . Additionally, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of an alleged recurrent dangerous condition regarding ice formation on the steps due to the leaky gutter, and was thus chargeable with constructive notice of each specific occurrence of the condition … .  Sampaiolopes v Lopes, 2019 NY Slip Op 03835, Second Dept 6-15-19

 

,

CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED WITHOUT A WARRANT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER, SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the cell site location information (CSLI) should not have been admitted because the information was procured without a warrant. The error was deemed harmless. The Second Department further determined the sentences for criminal sexual act and criminal impersonation should have been concurrent:

The defendant contends that the People violated his federal constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures (see US Const Amend IV) by obtaining his historical cell site location information (hereinafter CSLI) without first obtaining a warrant. Although the defendant did not object on this ground to the admission of the CSLI at trial, his contention has merit and should be considered in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Carpenter v United States (_____ US _____, 138 S Ct 2206). Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances, the trial court’s order requiring release of the CSLI under the Stored Communications Act (18 USC § 2703[d]), which order made no express finding of probable cause, was not effectively a warrant supported by probable cause … . …

As the People correctly concede, because criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50[1]) constituted one of the offenses and a material element of the other offense, criminal impersonation in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.26[1]), the trial court should not have imposed consecutive sentences on these convictions … . People v Taylor, 2019 NY Slip Op 03823, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, , ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING MEDICAL EXPERT OPINIONS ABOUT A DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF CARE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit raised questions of fact about whether defendant’s treatment of plaintiff’s decedent departed from accepted standards of practice. Granting summary judgment to defendants is not appropriate where there are conflicting medical expert opinions:

… [V]ascular surgeon Jon Kirwin from Kings County Hospital surgically created an arteriovenous fistula (hereinafter AVF) in the decedent’s upper left arm as an access site for dialysis treatments. … [D]uring one of the decedent’s scheduled dialysis visits … , a nurse examined the decedent and, believing that the AVF was infected, conferred with … [the] attending nephrologist, who directed that the decedent be transferred to Kings County Hospital’s emergency room for evaluation. The decedent presented to Kings County Hospital where he was evaluated by Kirwin, who cleared him for dialysis. The decedent underwent dialysis at Kings County Hospital without incident that day, and two days later reported to Utica for his scheduled dialysis treatment. The decedent underwent dialysis at Utica on August 27, 2010, and August 30, 2010, without incident. On August 31, 2010, the decedent was found unconscious at home and died on the way to the hospital. The cause of death was a rupture of the AVF. * * *

… [I]n support of their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the moving defendants submitted expert affirmations that established, prima facie, that none of them departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice in their treatment of the decedent and that no alleged departure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact through her expert affirmations as to whether the defendants departed from accepted standards of practice by continuing with dialysis on an AVF that presented with infection and aneurysmal dilatation and whether the continued dialysis caused the AVF to rupture. “Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury” … . Hutchinson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03775, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, ,

GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER WHEN PIECES OF THE FACADE OF A BUILDING FELL AND KILLED HER TWO-YEAR-OLD GRANDCHILD, BECAUSE GRANDMOTHER IS NOT ‘IMMEDIATE FAMILY’ SHE CANNOT RECOVER UNDER A NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THEORY, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THAT THEORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the grandmother of a two-year-old child who witnessed the child’s death was not a member of the child’s “immediate family” and therefore could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, despite the grandmother’s being in the zone of danger when the child was struck by falling pieces of a building-facade. The motion to amend the complaint to add the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action should not have been granted:

… [I]n Trombetta v Conkling (82 NY2d 549, 551), the Court of Appeals held that a niece could not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress for witnessing the death of her aunt, despite the fact that the niece’s mother had died when the niece was 11 years old, and the aunt had allegedly been the maternal figure in the niece’s life. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was 37 years old and her aunt was 59 years old (see id. at 551). In rendering its determination, the Court of Appeals stated: “On firm public policy grounds, we are persuaded that we should not expand the cause of action for emotional injuries to all bystanders who may be able to demonstrate a blood relationship coupled with significant emotional attachment or the equivalent of an intimate, immediate familial bond” (id. at 553).

In Jun Chi Guan v Tuscan Dairy Farms (24 AD3d 725), this Court held that the relationship of grandparent and grandchild does not constitute “immediate family” so as to permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In Jun Chi Guan, the plaintiff grandmother was pushing her infant grandson in a stroller, when a truck owned and operated by the defendants struck the stroller, killing the infant (see id. at 725). This Court rejected the grandmother’s argument that she should be considered immediate family because she was the family member who spent the most time with the infant during his waking hours (see id. at 726). Further, this Court held that “it is not appropriate for this Court to expand the class [of persons constituting immediate family] absent further direction from the Court of Appeals or the New York State Legislature” (id.). Greene v Esplanade Venture Partnership, 2019 NY Slip Op 03771, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT DEPENDED UPON INFORMATION FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, A DARDEN HEARING WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY, MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have held a Darden hearing because the detective observed the confidential informant (CI) enter the building but did not observe the CI go to the apartment where the drugs were allegedly purchased. Therefore probable cause for the search of the apartment depended upon the CI’s information. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted for the hearing:

The Court of Appeals has held that a Darden hearing is necessary where there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause without information provided by a confidential informant … . “[A] Darden rule is necessary in order to fulfill the underlying purpose of Darden: insuring that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant’s identity. The surest way to accomplish this task is to produce the informant for an in camera examination” …  . This procedure is “designed to protect against the contingency, of legitimate concern to a defendant, that the informer might have been wholly imaginary and the communication from him [or her] entirely fabricated”  … . “[T]he court should conduct an in camera inquiry outside the presence of defendant and his [or her] counsel, and make a summary report regarding the existence of the informer and communications made by the CI to the police, taking precautions to protect the anonymity of the CI to the maximum extent possible” … . People v Nettles, 2019 NY Slip Op 03816, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a recording of defendant’s phone conversation with his mother, made when defendant was in jail, should not have been admitted as an adoptive admission. The error was deemed harmless however. The Second Department further determined that the sentences for criminal possession of a weapon should be concurrent with the sentence for murder. There was no evidence the weapon was possessed for an unlawful purpose other than the shooting:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should not have permitted the People to introduce into evidence, as an adoptive admission of guilt, a recording of a telephone call that he made to his mother while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility. We agree. “Generally, an adoptive admission is allowed when a party acknowledges and assents to something already uttered by another person, which thus becomes effectively the party’s own admission” . Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant assented to the statements uttered by his mother during the telephone call … . …

The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the defendant possessed the gun for an unlawful purpose unrelated to shooting at the intended victim, resulting in the death of the victim (see Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]…), or that his possession of a gun was separate and distinct from his shooting of the victim (see Penal Law § 265.03[3] … ). Accordingly, the terms of imprisonment imposed upon the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon his conviction of murder in the second degree. People v King, 2019 NY Slip Op 03813, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

DEFENDANT ASSERTED SHE THOUGHT PLAINTIFF’S CAR WOULD GO THROUGH THE YELLOW LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT RAN INTO THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHEN IT CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP, DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant, in this traffic accident case, failed to raise a question of fact about a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Defendant asserted that it “appeared” the lead vehicle and plaintiff’s vehicle (behind the lead vehicle) were going to go through the yellow light at the intersection. Defendant further asserted that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, plaintiff’s vehicle struck the lead vehicle, and then defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s. The court held that defendant should have anticipated the sudden stop because of the yellow light:

The defendant driver’s assertion that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision between the plaintiff’s vehicle and the defendants’ vehicle … . Even if, as the defendant driver asserted, the plaintiff had come to a sudden stop at the traffic light, the defendant driver should have anticipated that the plaintiff’s vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection, especially where, according to the defendant driver’s own affidavit, the traffic light already turned yellow … . The defendant driver was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between her vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle, notwithstanding that it “appeared” to her that the lead vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle were “going to attempt to beat the light'” … . Therefore, in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Catanzaro v Edery, 2019 NY Slip Op 03762, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES IN TWO INDICTMENTS, WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE INDICTMENTS, COUNSEL WHO NEGOTIATED THE PLEA OFFER HAD BEEN RELIEVED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions by guilty plea because defense counsel had a conflict of interest:

The defendant was charged under Indictment No. 13-00668 with murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The defendant was later charged under Indictment No. 14-00627 with assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. Following a pretrial hearing on Indictment No. 13-00668, the defendant’s counsel (hereinafter the attorney), who represented the defendant on the charges under both Indictment Nos. 13-00668 and 14-00627, learned that he had a conflict of interest with the defendant, as the attorney’s law office also represented, on unrelated charges, the prosecution’s principal witness in the case under Indictment No. 13-00668. The witness was to testify that he saw the defendant shoot and kill the unarmed victim. The County Court granted the attorney’s motion to be relieved as defense counsel in the case under Indictment No. 13-00668. However, the attorney remained as the defendant’s counsel on the charges under Indictment No. 14-00627.

The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to certain charges on both indictments in exchange for a reduced sentence.

… The defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when the attorney, who had been relieved as the defendant’s counsel on Indictment No. 13-00668 because of a conflict of interest with the prosecution’s principal witness, made a plea offer with respect to that indictment . The defendant failed to receive representation that was conflict-free and singlemindedly devoted to his best interests as required by both the Constitution of the United States and the New York State Constitution … . People v Hill, 2019 NY Slip Op 03810, Second Dept 6-15-19

 

,

INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE THE AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed the inclusory concurrent counts of the aggravated vehicular homicide convictions:

As the People correctly concede, the defendant’s convictions of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.13[3], [4]), vehicular manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.12[1]), reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212), and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4]) must be vacated and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the convictions of aggravated vehicular homicide (see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law § 125.14[3], [4]…). People v Aniano, 2019 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

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