You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE CODE, WRITTEN NOTICE BY MAIL AND PUBLICATION IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF A TAX LIEN AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence, determined defendant received adequate notice of the real property tax lien and sale:

The defendant argues that the Village should have been required to commence an in rem tax lien foreclosure proceeding. However, she concedes that, pursuant to L 1993, ch 602, § 6, Code of Village of Hempstead § 119-19, and former Real Property Tax Law § 1452 (repealed by L 1993, ch 602, § 4), “[o]pting out [of a law repealing certain sections of the Real Property Tax Law] allowed the Village of Hempstead and the tax lien purchaser to use the old law, which allowed for sale of the tax lien based on a written notice to the owner by mail and publication, and the issuance of a tax deed after service of a notice to redeem on the owner by mail.” The plaintiff correctly argues that the mailing and publication of the notice of tax lien sale and the mailing of the notice of redemption were sufficient to satisfy due process in this case … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross-motion to set aside the tax lien sale and to cancel the tax deed. BR Madison, LLC v Novas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00417, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the Village Code, written notice by mail and publication of a tax lien and sale satisfied the property owner’s due process rights.

 

,

THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inclusion of additional information the the envelope with the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice of foreclosure did not invalidate the notice (in light of a recent Court of Appeals decision):

The Court of Appeals held that RPAPL 1304 does not prohibit the inclusion of additional information in the envelope that may help borrowers avoid foreclosure and is not false or misleading … .

Here, information about HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program] was sent with the 90-day notice. This information was relevant to avoiding foreclosure and was not false or misleading. Therefore, pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ decision in Kessler ]39 NY3d 317] and the subsequent case law, the inclusion of this information with the 90-day notice did not violate the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). The plaintiff otherwise established that it sent the RPAPL 1304 notice as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Smart, 2025 NY Slip Op 00476, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: The inclusion of additional information in the envelope containing the RPAPL 1304  90-day notice of foreclosure does not violate the “separate envelope” rule if the information is not misleading and may help the borrower avoid foreclosure.

 

, ,

THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality proved it did not have written notice of the road defect and plaintiff’s attempt to raise for the first time an exception to the written notice requirement in response to the summary judgment motion was improper:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she drove her vehicle over an uncovered manhole … .

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notification law may avoid liability for a defect or hazardous condition that falls within the scope of the law if it can establish that it has not been notified in writing of the existence of the defect or hazard at a specific location” … . “Such [prior written] notice is obviated where the plaintiff demonstrates that the municipality ‘created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence’ or that a ‘special use’ conferred a benefit on the municipality” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not dispute that the defendants established, prima facie, that they had no prior written notice of the alleged roadway defect. In opposition, the plaintiff instead argued that the special use exception applied. The plaintiff, however, failed to allege that exception in either the notice of claim or the complaint … . Therefore, that new theory of liability was improperly raised in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Anderson v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff raised an exception to the written-notice prerequisite to municipal liability for road defects for the first time in response to the municipality’s motion for summary judgment. That is too late. The exception should be raised in the notice of claim and/or the complaint.

 

,

EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA BELOW THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD BEEN RECENTLY MOPPED, TOGETHER WITH TESTIMONY THAT THE STAIRS WERE WET, WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that the stairs had recently been mopped and were wet when plaintiff slipped and fell was sufficient to warrant summary judgment:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein she noted that after she fell, her pants and the bottom of her shirt became wet. The plaintiffs also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of their son, who testified that when he came to the lobby to help his mother, the floor and the stairs were wet and the stairs felt slippery under his feet. That testimony, along with the surveillance video [of the area below the stairs being mopped], established the plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendant. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Tkachuk v D&J Realty of N.Y., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00472, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Video evidence showing the area below the stairs being mopped, together with testimony the stairs were wet, warranted the award of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.

 

,

IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced defendant’s SORA risk level from two to one. This was a statutory rape case in which the victim was five years younger than defendant:

“In cases of statutory rape, the Board [of Examiners of Sex Offenders] has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … . The Guidelines provide that “[t]he Board or a court may choose to depart downward in an appropriate case and in those instances where (i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [under risk factor 2, sexual contact with the victim,] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … .

Here, considering all of the circumstances, including the five-year age difference between the defendant and the victim, the fact that the defendant’s overall score of 75 points was near the low end of the range applicable to a presumptive level two designation, and that the subject offense is the only sex-related crime in the defendant’s history, the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2 results in an overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety … . Accordingly, a downward departure is warranted, and the defendant should be designated a level one sex offender. People v Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 00467, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here, in reducing defendant SORA risk level from two to one, the court noted that the risk to the public can be over-assessed in statutory rape cases where the defendant and the victim are close in age.​

 

,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the “storm in progress” applied to this slip and fall because it was snowing at the time, summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendants. In addition to alleging the negligent failure to clear ice and snow, the complaint alleged the ramp where plaintiff fell violated certain provision of the NYC Building Code. The defendants did not demonstrate the code did not apply. Because there can be more than one proximate cause  the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment:

… “[T]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Although there is no disagreement that the snow and ice from the storm was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, Avenue L and the Sesame defendants each failed to establish, prima facie, that the provisions of the 1968, 2008, and 2014 New York City Building Codes relied upon by the plaintiff were inapplicable and that an alleged violation of those provisions did not proximately cause the plaintiff to fall … . Wechsler v Ave. L., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00347, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff conceded it was snowing when she slipped and fell, triggering the “storm in progress” rule which let defendants off the hook for any failure to clear ice and snow. But the plaintiff also alleged certain building code violations caused her fall. The defendants did not demonstrate the code was inapplicable so they were not entitled to summary judgment. There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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