You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

ATTORNEY WHO DRAFTED THE 2005 WILL APPOINTING THE ATTORNEY AS EXECUTOR WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE TESTATOR ACKNOWLEDGE THE TESTATOR HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS WOULD RESULT IN THE ATTORNEY-EXECUTOR’S ENTITLEMENT TO ONLY ONE-HALF THE STATUTORY EXECUTOR’S COMMISSIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, resolving a split among Surrogate’s Courts, determined that the attorney who drafted the 2005 will appointing himself as executor was required to have the testator sign an acknowledgment the testator had been informed that the failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements would result in the attorney-executor being entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions:

The 2004 amendment [of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) 2307-a] was intended, as reflected in both its text and in its legislative history, to require that the testator be informed that, absent the testator’s acknowledgment of receipt of the required disclosures, the attorney-executor would receive only one-half of the commissions otherwise payable. That the Legislature inadvertently included this fourth disclosure requirement only in model forms and not in the subdivision dealing directly with the required disclosures was an oversight, as is confirmed by the 2007 amendment and its legislative history … . …

At bar, the instrument signed by the testator in 2005 did not include an acknowledgment that he had been informed that the failure to comply with the disclosure requirements would result in the attorney-executor being entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions. Therefore, we agree with the Surrogate’s Court’s determination that the petitioner is entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions … . Matter of Brier, 2019 NY Slip Op 02516, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

PETITION SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking to invalidate the organizational meeting of the Suffolk County Committee of the Conservative Party should have been denied. The decision is fact specific and deals with many Election Law procedural issues that cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [W]e are mindful that “a court’s jurisdiction to intervene in election matters is limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute” … . The ” internal issues arising within political parties are best resolved within the party organization itself and judicial involvement should only be undertaken as a last resort'” … . While the courts “will act to protect the rights of committee persons to be present and to vote at meetings of the committee” … , ” [j]udicial intervention is only warranted upon a clear showing that a party or its leaders have violated [the Election Law] or the party’s own rules adopted in accordance with law, or otherwise [have] violat[ed] the rights of party members or the electorate'” … . No such showing was made in this case. Matter of Auerbach v Suffolk County Comm. of the Conservative Party, 2019 NY Slip Op 02515, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (the holder of the note) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Therefore respondent’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “The statute requires that such notice . . . be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower” … . …

The respondent, which submitted only a copy of the required notice, and did not submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute, failed to meet its prima facie burden with respect to the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Specifically, the respondent did not submit “an affidavit of service, [or] proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , or “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Marchai Props., L.P. v Fu, 2019 NY Slip Op 02511, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY LAW (TIMOTHY’S LAW) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that New York’s mental health parity law (Timothy’s Law, Insurance Law 3221(1)(5) and 4303(g)) did not create a private right of action over and above the administrative enforcement provisions. Plaintiff alleged the health insurance benefits administered by defendants were far more restrictive for mental health than for general medical claims:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that ” regardless of its consistency with the basic legislative goal, a private right of action should not be judicially sanctioned if it is incompatible with the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Legislature or with some other aspect of the over-all statutory scheme'” … . Thus, where “the legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute, “[t]he question then becomes whether, in addition to administrative enforcement, an implied private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme”‘” …  . …

… .[D]eterminations of whether the law had been violated require[] complex, fact-based determinations about medical necessity, and DFS [NYS Department of Financial Services] had implemented a comprehensive system to evaluate appeals following denials of coverage  … . … “[A]llowing people to litigate these issues in court might yield duplicative or inconsistent results” … . Kamins v United Healthcare Ins. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02507, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS APPEARED FOR THE 50-h HEARING, PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY REFUSED TO LET THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFY UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF COULD HEAR THE OTHER’S TESTIMONY, BECAUSE THE 50-h HEARING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BRINGING SUIT, PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that plaintiffs were precluded from proceeding with the lawsuit because, although plaintiffs appeared for the 50-h hearing, plaintiffs attorney refused to participate in the 50-h hearing unless each plaintiff was present when the other testified. The majority held that the 50-h hearing is a condition precedent to any lawsuit and the statute does not create a right for plaintiff’s to be present for each other’s testimony at the hearing:

The purpose of General Municipal Law § 50-h is to enable a municipality to make a prompt investigation of the circumstances of a claim by examining the claimant about the facts of the claim … . The oral examination of a claimant pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h serves to supplement the notice of claim and provides an investigatory tool to the municipality, with a view toward settlement … . “Compliance with a demand for a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a municipal defendant, and the failure to so comply warrants dismissal of the action” … . “A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality” … . …

” [A] court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact'”  … . Moreover, “[i]n the construction of statutes, each word or phrase in the enactment must be given its appropriate meaning” … , which is in derogation of the common law, is to be strictly construed  … . In strictly construing a statute, courts “will not go beyond the clearly expressed provisions of the act” … . Colon v Martin, 2019 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 3-27-19

​

,

LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this school recess injury case was properly granted. Plaintiff, who was in eighth grade, was injured when her shin struck a knee-high fence as she attempted to jump over it, causing her to fall on a concrete walkway. She had been taking turns with her friends jumping the fence for 10 or 15 minutes:

The plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and her deposition that she did not see any school personnel outside the school building either before or at the time of the incident. …

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . However, “[s]chools are not insurers of safety, . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . Here, the defendant established … that the plaintiff was engaged in an age-appropriate activity that did not constitute dangerous play, and that the alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Chiauzzi v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, explained in detail the proof requirement for a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action, emphasizing the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court determined that the bank’s proof of standing was sufficient, but the proof of defendant’s default was not. The opinion is too detailed to be fairly summarized here and should be consulted for guidance in foreclosure actions:

From an appellate perspective, the recent flood of foreclosure appeals has revealed consistent and repeated confusion about some of the most fundamental aspects of the procedural, substantive, and evidentiary law that must be routinely applied in a foreclosure context. In an effort to provide additional clarity in this important area of the law, we deem it appropriate to collect and reiterate some of these foundational principles in the hope that such clarity will eliminate many of the disputes that make up an ever-increasing proportion of trial-level dockets. For the reasons that follow, we modify the order appealed from.

… [I]t bears noting that the business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a “writing or record” (CPLR 4518[a]). Although “[t]he foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business” … , it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Accordingly, “[e]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon,2019 NY Slip Op 02306, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , , ,

DECEDENT’S CONSENT TO SURGERY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, THE CONSENT WAS AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions should have been dismissed. With respect to the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, the court held that the submission of the informed consent form by the defendant did not violate the Dead Man’s Statute:

The plaintiff contends that Meyerson [defendant surgeon] cannot rely upon the portion of his expert’s affidavit which states that the decedent was aware of the risks of the procedure because he signed a consent form for a similar procedure in 2012, because this evidence would be inadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4519, the so-called Dead Man’s Statute. CPLR 4519 “precludes a party or person interested in the underlying event from offering testimony concerning a personal transaction or communication with the decedent” … .

While evidence excludable at trial under CPLR 4519 may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment so long as it is not the sole evidence proffered … , such evidence “should not be used to support summary judgment” … . However, the statute does not bar “the introduction of documentary evidence against a deceased’s estate. . . . [A]n adverse party’s introduction of a document authored by a deceased does not violate the Dead Man’s Statute, as long as the document is authenticated by a source other than an interested witness’s testimony concerning a transaction or communication with the deceased” … . Inasmuch as the expert’s affidavit as to the decedent’s execution of the form was predicated upon the medical records, which contained the decedent’s consent form for the prior surgery and on which the expert relied, and the records were properly authenticated and submitted on the motion, Meyerson properly relied upon the expert opinion to support his motion … . Wright v Morning Star Ambulette Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02381, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff instead relied on the “Affidavit of Mailing” of a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo. However, the affiant did not aver that she personally mailed the notice, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and, therefore, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …. Similarly, the presence of numbered bar codes on the copies of the 90-day statutory notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Offley, 2019 NY Slip Op 02377, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

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