You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

BUS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BUS DRIVER SIGNALED TO DEFENDANT DRIVER TO PASS THE BUS AND THE DRIVER EITHER STRUCK THE WHEEL CHAIR LIFT OR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING ON THE LIFT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bus company’s (Happy Child’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff (Jaber) was standing on the bus’s wheel chair lift when the bus driver signaled to defendant driver (Todd) to drive past the bus. Todd stuck either the defendant or the lift:

The Happy Child defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the bus driver’s alleged action in signaling Todd to maneuver his car through the narrow space between the extended lift—on which Jaber was still standing—and parked cars on the other side of the street did not set into motion an eminently foreseeable chain of events that resulted in Jaber’s injuries … . Accordingly, the Happy Child defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ or Todd’s opposing papers … . Jaber v Todd, 2019 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT EXPLAINED OR WERE WRONGLY EXPLAINED, THE WAIVER WAS INVALID, THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION BY THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT A LEVEL ONE DE BOUR INQUIRY, THE SWITCHBLADE DEFENDANT THREW AWAY WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined (1) defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the nature and consequences of the waiver were either not explained or were wrongly explained, and (2) the police officer’s (Conaghan’s) initial communication with defendant when the officer was sitting in a moving police vehicle was not a level one De Bour inquiry. Therefore the switchblade defendant threw away upon the officer’s communication was properly admitted in evidence:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the comment, “fellas, how you doing tonight,” constituted a greeting and not a level-one De Bour inquiry … . Conaghan testified at the suppression hearing that, when he asked the defendant and the two other males how they were doing, the window to the vehicle was already rolled down and his partner did not stop the vehicle. He also testified that he often greeted people on the street in this manner. Moreover, the credibility determinations of a court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record … . A review of the record supports the court’s finding that Conaghan’s testimony was credible.

Since there was no impermissible request for information by Conaghan, the defendant’s “unprovoked and wholly voluntary” act of throwing the switchblade was not in direct and immediate response to any illegal actions by the police … . The recovery of the switchblade was not tainted by any illegality, because no illegal inquiry occurred … . People v Birch, 2019 NY Slip Op 02716, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the distributor’s (Skyfood’s) and seller’s (E & A’s) motions for summary judgment in this products liability and negligent design action should have been granted. Plaintiff lost several fingers when he tried to remove a piece of cheese from a meat grinder being used to grate cheese by reaching into the hopper without turning the machine off. The court held that the plaintiff’s own actions constituted to sole proximate cause of the injury and the danger was open and obvious (no duty to warn):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Skyfood’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging strict products liability and negligent design insofar as asserted against it. Skyfood established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action by submitting, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and the affidavit of an expert, which showed that the plaintiff’s own conduct of knowingly placing his hand into the hopper of the operating cheese grater without turning it off was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of the separate motions of Skyfood and E & A which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging failure to warn insofar as asserted against each of them. Skyfood and E & A made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against them by establishing, as a matter of law, that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious danger of knowingly placing his hand into a cheese grater in close proximity to its spinning blade … . Hernandez v Asoli, 2019 NY Slip Op 02688, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT WAS AFFIXED TO THE NOTE, A STANDING REQUIREMENT, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS ON APPEAL AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the plaintiff had established standing to bring the foreclosure action. The issue whether the endorsement was affixed to the note, the issue raised by the dissent, was not raised on appeal, according to the majority, and therefore could not be considered:

We disagree with our dissenting colleague on the issue of whether the plaintiff established that the note was properly endorsed pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and, thus, validly transferred to it. The defendants’ brief, at most, mentions in passing UCC 3-202(1) along with other boilerplate legal discussion, but then relates the UCC provision to an argument that the plaintiff failed to prove the authority of the assignor to negotiate the note. Further, in challenging the endorsement itself, the defendants focus in their brief on the plaintiff’s failure to establish the signature and authority of David A. Spector, whose name is on the endorsement, and the plaintiff’s failure to prove the chain of assignments, but the defendants do not actually raise the issue of the affixation of the endorsement to the note. The defendants’ brief focuses almost entirely upon the enforceability of the assignment, not the issue of physical possession of the note or endorsement. To the extent physical possession is argued by the defendants, their argument is that the plaintiff failed to prove when the note was received and the circumstances of its delivery, without raising any issue about this particular endorsement being firmly affixed to the note. As a result, the dispositive basis of the dissent, having not been argued on appeal, is simply not before us to consider. It is not appropriate for us to decide an appeal “on a distinct ground that we winkled out wholly on our own” … , where no party has had notice and an opportunity to be heard on this ground. Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Molini, 2019 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

ALLEGATIONS THAT A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING FRAUD, DURESS, COERCION AND UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, dealt with the analytical criteria for motions to dismiss counterclaims and affirmative defenses in the context of a postnuptial agreement which was alleged to have been tainted by fraud, coercion, duress and unconscionability. The “unconscionable” allegations survived the dismissal motion. The decision covers all these substantive and procedural issues in some depth and cannot, therefore, be fairly summarized here:

An unconscionable agreement is “one such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . Because of the fiduciary relationship between spouses, postnuptial agreements “are closely scrutinized by the courts, and such agreements are more readily set aside in equity under circumstances that would be insufficient to nullify an ordinary contract”  … . “To warrant equity’s intervention, no actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the [agreement] is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other’s overreaching” … . “Although courts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching, the general rule is that [if] the execution of the agreement . . . be fair, no further inquiry will be made'” … .

Here, at this stage of the action, the defendant’s pleadings, as amplified by his submissions in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of his cross motion … , are sufficient to allege both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Shah v Mitra, 2019 NY Slip Op 02739, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the “presumption of receipt” with respect to a letter alleged to have been sent to the defendant requesting that surveillance video from 6 hours before to 2 hours after plaintiff’s slip and fall be preserved. Only a two-minute clip showing plaintiff’s fall had been preserved and Supreme Court had precluded the defendant from presenting video evidence as a sanction for spoliation pursuant to CPLR 3126:

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that the defendant failed to preserve all of the surveillance video footage taken on the date of the accident after the defendant was placed on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation … . The letter dated February 23, 2016, which was submitted for the first time with the plaintiff’s reply papers, may be considered, since the defendant had an opportunity to respond and submit papers in surreply … . However, the defendant denied receiving this letter and we reject the plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to the presumption of receipt. The mere assertion in the reply affirmation of the plaintiff’s attorney that the letter dated February 23, 2016, was “sent” to the defendant, unsupported by someone with personal knowledge of the mailing of the letter or proof of standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that the letter was properly addressed and mailed, was insufficient to give rise to the presumption of receipt that attaches to letters duly addressed and mailed … . Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02737, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STORM, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant demonstrated there was a storm in progress in this slip and fall case, there was a question of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm:

Under the storm in progress rule, a property owner will not be held liable in negligence for accidents occurring as a result of a slippery snow or ice condition “occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Here, in support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the affidavit and report of a meteorologist with attached certified climatological data, which demonstrated that, at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, a wintery mix of freezing rain, sleet, and rain was falling and the temperature may have been at or below freezing. Accordingly, the defendant established, prima facie, that a storm was ongoing at the time of the plaintiff’s fall … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, via her General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony, her deposition testimony, and the affidavit of her brother, as to whether the icy condition that caused her fall existed prior to the storm in progress and whether the defendant had constructive notice of the hazard … . Isabel v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02506, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

THE EXCEPTION TO THE FAULTY WORKMANSHIP EXCLUSION IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO PRESERVE COVERAGE FOR ENSUING LOSS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the fire damage was covered under the policy:

Following an inspection of the property by a fire investigator and an electrical engineer, the defendant issued a letter to the plaintiffs’ claims adjuster disclaiming coverage for “building damage” on the grounds that “improper conditions” related to a junction box “were the direct cause of the fire and instant loss” and the policy specifically excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. … The exclusion provided, in relevant part, “[w]e do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described [in] Coverages A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. . . c. Faulty, inadequate or defective: . . . (2) design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction . . . of part or all of any property, whether on or off residence premises.”

“Where a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk” … . Therefore, “an ensuing loss provision . . . provide[s] coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage” … . …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs did not establish, as a matter of law, that the exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion was applicable to preserve coverage for the damage to their property. The evidence in the record demonstrated that the fire occurred two years after the alleged faulty workmanship related to the junction box, and caused ensuing loss to property “wholly separate from the defective property itself” … . Fruchthandler v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 02502, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the records submitted by the bank (Deutsche Bank) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, in support of its motion, Deutsche Bank submitted the mortgage, the note, and the affidavit of Nicholas Collins, a vice president of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), Deutsche Bank’s loan servicer, in which Collins averred, inter alia, that the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payments due under the note and mortgage after January 1, 2008. The plaintiff also submitted a limited power of attorney dated June 7, 2012, which demonstrated that Ocwen was authorized to act on Deutsche Bank’s behalf. However, Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Collins, including those relating to the defendant’s alleged default, were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, since Collins, who was employed by Ocwen, did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Thus, Collins failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the records on which he relied, including the records concerning the defendant’s payment history, and therefore, his assertions based on those records were inadmissible … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Blount, 2019 NY Slip Op 02500, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint as abandoned without giving plaintiff a chance to be heard in this foreclosure action:

… [B]y notice of motion dated August 15, 2014, the plaintiff … moved, inter alia, to extend its time to serve a copy of the order of reference with notice of entry … , nunc pro tunc, to March 23, 2007 (hereinafter the second extension of time motion). In an order dated February 26, 2015 (hereinafter the February 2015 order), the Supreme Court denied the second extension of time motion, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, noting, inter alia, that “[t]he order of reference at issue was signed in 2007” and the appointed referee was no longer on the fiduciary list. …

The Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination to direct dismissal of the complaint deprived the plaintiff of notice and opportunity to be heard and amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s due process rights (see CPLR 3216 … ). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the February 2015 order. Chase Home Fin., LLC v Plaut, 2019 NY Slip Op 02494, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

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