You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION IN SUPREME COURT AND DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUING PLANTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; RATHER THAN DECIDE THE MOTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD WHICH HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION RE: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion in this wrongful death action and referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Whether, as defendants argued in their motion, plaintiff’s decedent’s exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation must be determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board before a court can consider the issue:

“The Workers’ Compensation Law ‘is designed to insure that an employee injured in course of employment will be made whole and to protect a coemployee who, acting within the scope of his [or her] employment caused the injury'” … . “[P]rimary jurisdiction” for determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter the Board) … , and it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto in the absence of a determination by the Board … . “Where the issue of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law is in dispute, and a plaintiff fails to litigate that issue before the Board, a court should not express an opinion as to the availability of compensation, but should refer the matter to the Board because the Board’s disposition of the plaintiff’s compensation claim is a jurisdictional predicate to the civil action … . Guang Qi Lin v Xiaoping Lu, 2025 NY Slip Op 00309, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here in this wrongful death action defendants argued plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation. Because that issue had not been determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board, Supreme Court could not rule on it and should have referred the matter to the Board which has primary jurisdiction on the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENSE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DEMAND; ON APPEAL THE PEOPLE ARGUED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS; BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND IN THE MOTION COURT, THE PEOPLE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS THEREFORE ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the certificate of compliance (COC) with the People’s discovery obligations was illusory and defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds should have been granted:

Officer Soto testified before the grand jury that the defendant was sitting in a parked car when the plainclothes officers approached him, that Officer Soto did not identify himself as a police officer, that he could not recall whether Officer Cruz identified himself as a police officer, that a struggle ensued over some suspected marijuana in the defendant’s hand, and that the defendant drove away, causing injury to each officer. The indicted charges included aggravated assault upon a police officer and assault in the second degree, alleging, among other things, that the defendant caused serious physical injury to Officer Soto and physical injury to Officer Cruz. * * *

The defendant … identified the failure to disclose any “line of duty” paperwork, despite the defendant’s request for the same, and the facts that both officers were out “line of duty” for a period of time due to their injuries and Officer Soto ultimately retired due to his injuries. The defendant asserted that the “line of duty” paperwork would include documents relating to the independent medical examinations by the New York City Police Department District Surgeon used to certify that the officers were, in fact, injured and unable to return to full duty, as well as written statements by the officers regarding the manner in which their injuries occurred. * * *

On appeal, the People assert that there is no indication that any “line of duty” paperwork exists. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, however, the People did not refute the defendant’s assertion that the paperwork existed. “Normally what is not disputed is deemed to be conceded” … . Moreover, as the People bear the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery prior to filing the COC, it was incumbent on the People to address the defendant’s assertion regarding the “line of duty” paperwork in opposing his motion. People v Serrano, 2025 NY Slip Op 00338, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: If the People ignore a defendant’s discovery demand for relevant documents, they will be deemed to have acknowledged that the documents exist rendering the COC illusory.

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A LOUISIANA CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined the Louisiana conviction for an offense which is not a felony in New York should not have been the basis for adjudicating defendant as a second felony offender:

The defendant … contends that his adjudication as a second felony offender was illegal because the predicate Louisiana offense was not a felony under New York law. “Penal Law § 70.06 requires the imposition of enhanced sentences for those found to be predicate felons” … . An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06 only if it is for a crime whose elements are equivalent to those of a felony in New York … . Here, as conceded by the People, the defendant’s Louisiana conviction of simple robbery did not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing and thus, the defendant should not have been adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of that conviction … . People v Harris, 2025 NY Slip Op 00331, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: If an out-of-state conviction is for an offense which is not a felony in New York, an enhanced sentence as a second felony offender is not available.

 

,

A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a cause of action alleging legal malpractice should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging legal malpractice. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession by filing a second amended complaint which deleted the majority of the factual allegations and legal malpractice causes of action the plaintiff had interposed against the defendant in the underlying action without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The complaint further alleged that the defendants’ negligence in amending that pleading proximately caused the plaintiff to lose his claims of legal malpractice against the defendant in the underlying action, and to incur additional legal fees to appeal the denial of his motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff alleged actual, ascertainable damages that resulted from the defendants’ negligence … . Ofman v Richland, 2025 NY Slip Op 00327, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice.

 

, , ,

A FOIL REQUEST FOR A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) MEMO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO ANNUL A ZBA RULING; MATTER REMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of the petition, determined the FOIL request for a memo prepared by the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should not have been dismissed on the ground the petitioner had unsuccessfully sought to annul a determination by the ZBA. The matter was remitted for a review of the memo by the judge to determine whether it was exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency material:

Supreme Court erred in dismissing this proceeding on the basis that it was rendered academic by the dismissal of a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding in which the petitioner was one of the parties seeking to annul a determination by the ZBA. “FOIL does not require that the party requesting records make any showing of need, good faith or legitimate purpose. The underlying premise [is] that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government” … . “[T]he standing of one who seeks access to records under [FOIL] is as a member of the public, and is neither enhanced nor restricted because he [or she] is also a litigant or potential litigant” … .

… [E]xemptions are construed “narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies ‘by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'” … . When relying upon an exemption, “it is the agency’s burden to demonstrate that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption” … . “To meet its burden, the party seeking exemption must present specific, persuasive evidence that the material falls within the exemption. Conclusory assertions that are not supported by any facts are insufficient” … . Here, the exemption at issue provides that each agency shall make its records available for inspection, “except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that . . . are . . . intra-agency materials which are not . . . statistical or factual tabulations or data” … . … Factual data “simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making” … . Matter of Supinsky v Town of Huntington, 2025 NY Slip Op 00324, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: A FOIL request should not be denied on the ground the person making the request is, was or could be a litigant in a matter related to the request.

Practice Point: Intra-agency and inter-agency material, meaning opinions, ideas or advice exchanged as part of a deliberative process, is exempt from FOIL disclosure.

 

, ,

RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE NECESSARY PARTIES BE SUMMONED; THE COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON NECESSARY PARTIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ONLY THE SUMMONED NECESSARY PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE STANDING TO RAISE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined dismissing the complaint was not the appropriate remedy for petitioners’ failure to include necessary parties, the property owners,, in this Article 78 proceeding challenging zoning variances. Supreme Court should have directed the necessary parties be summoned. The courts power to summon necessary parties is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations. Only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the statute of limitations defense:

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned ([CPLR]. § 1001[b] …). Contrary to the respondents’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of the property owners at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations … . Moreover, the respondents lack standing to assert a statute of limitations defense on behalf of the property owners, who have not yet appeared in this proceeding … . Thus, the respondents failed to demonstrate that the petitioners’ failure to join the property owners as respondents warranted dismissal of the petition. Matter of Supinsky v Town of Huntington, 2025 NY Slip Op 00323, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the dismissal of the petition for failure to include necessary parties was not appropriate. The court should have directed that the necessary parties be summoned.

Practice Point: A court’s power to direct that necessary parties be summoned is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations.

Practice Point: Here only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the stature of limitations defense.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality (City of Middletown) did not owe a special duty to plaintiff police officer, who was bitten by a police dog during training: The dog handler, Officer McDonald (a City of Middletown police officer), and plaintiff were participants in training sessions conducted by the NYS Homeland Security and Emergency Services when the unleased dog bit plaintiff:

As part of the training, the police dogs were off-leash. The plaintiff, who was participating in a different training event in a different building, entered the building where the explosives detection training exercise was being held and was still in progress when he was bitten by Officer McDonald’s police dog.

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality was exercising a governmental function, a municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. There was no evidence that Officer McDonald [the dog handler] took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants established that Officer McDonald was an attendee at a training program conducted by the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services at a New York State facility, that he merely participated in the training exercise, and that he took direction from the NYPD canine instructor. Mahar v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 00315, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the police dog handler did not have control of the unleashed dog when it bit plaintiff. The dog and the handler were participating in an explosive-detection training session conducted by a third party. Because the dog handler had not taken control of a known and dangerous safety condition (the dog) at the time plaintiff was injured, the dog handler did not owe plaintiff a special duty, a prerequisite to municipal liability.

 

,

PETITIONER ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED THE RECORDS SOUGHT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO ASSIST PETITIONER IN IDENTIFYING THE RECORDS AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS; DENIAL OF THE PETITION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the denial of the petition to compel the disclosure of Nassau County Police Department records and remitting the matter, noted that the applicable regulations require the Department to assist the petitioner in identifying the records sought:

… [P]etitioner made a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law … for certain records pertaining to the creation or maintenance of the Department’s current databases. Specifically, the petitioner requested: (1) “Any Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Requests for Qualifications (RFQs), and contracts pertaining to the creation or maintenance of the Department’s current database(s)”; (2) “The data dictionary, glossary of terms, record layout, entity relationship diagram, user guide, and any other records that describe the Department’s database(s)”; and (3) “The instruction manual or any other type of guide, distributed to law enforcement personnel dictating how they should use the database(s).”

… [T]he Department’s Legal Bureau denied the request on the ground that the petitioner did not reasonably describe the database to which he was referring. …

… [T]he petitioner’s requests were not vague or unlimited. They were circumscribed as to subject matter—the records pertaining to the creation or maintenance of the Department’s current databases—and the time period … . …

… [R]egulations enacted under FOIL by the Committee on Open Government provide that, upon receipt of a FOIL request, agency personnel are required to “assist persons seeking records to identify the records sought, if necessary, and when appropriate, indicate the manner in which the records are filed, retrieved or generated to assist persons in reasonably describing records” (21 NYCRR 1401.2[b][2]). Here, there is no evidence that, before denying the petitioner’s request, the Department made any effort to work with the petitioner to more precisely define the information desired, if possible … . Matter of Lane v County of Nassau, 2025 NY Slip Op 00220, Second Dept 1-15-24

Practice Point: Here the petitioner adequately identified the police department records at issue and the police department made no effort to assist petitioner in identifying the records as required by the applicable regulations. The FOIL petition should not have been denied.

 

,

ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined Family Court should not have prohibited father from filing any further custody modification petitions because father had not filed frivolous petitions or filed petitions out of ill will or spite:

Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in prohibiting the father from filing any further modification petitions without the permission of the court. “While public policy generally mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will” … . Here, there is no basis in the record to demonstrate that the father filed frivolous petitions or filed petitions out of ill will or spite … . Matter of Freyer v Macruari, 2025 NY Slip Op 00217, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: Family Court has the discretion to prohibit a party from bringing any future custody modification petitions, it can only do so where the party has filed frivolous motions or has filed motions out of ill will or spite.

 

,

HERE THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE A FUTURE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY WARRANT MODIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed “with prejudice” because a future change in circumstances could warrant modification:

Family Court should not have provided that its dismissal of the mother’s petitions was with prejudice. This language could create confusion as to whether the mother could seek relief based upon a change in circumstances. Therefore, we delete that provision of the order appealed from and substitute therefor a provision dismissing the petitions without prejudice … . We note that child custody and parental access orders are not entitled to res judicata effect and are subject to modification based upon a showing of a change in circumstances. Thus, a new petition may be filed where there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the order or judgment sought to be modified was made … . Matter of Blackman v Barge, 2025 NY Slip Op 00214, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: Here the petition for modification of custody should not have been dismissed “with prejudice” because a future change in circumstances may warrant modification.

 

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