You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PLAINTIFF INSURER CAN SUE, AS A SUBROGEE, THE CLUB WHICH SERVED ALCOHOL TO ITS INSUREDS, WHO WERE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, PURSUANT TO THE DRAM SHOP ACT; THE INSUREDS WERE INJURED IN A SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT AND THE INSURER PAID OUT MORE THAN $500,000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, affirming Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff insurance company, Drive Insurance, could stand in the shoes of its insureds (as a subrogee) and sue the defendant club, Atlantis, pursuant to the Dram Shop  Act. Plaintiff alleged defendant served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds who were then injured in a single-car accident. Plaintiff paid out over $500,000 to the insureds (named Aly, Perez and Abreu-Mateo):

… Drive Insurance alleged that Aly, Perez, and Abreu-Mateo were injured and the vehicle was damaged by Perez, who was visibly intoxicated at the time that Atlantis sold her alcohol. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that Drive Insurance was entitled to assert, as subrogee, a cause of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act and that Drive Insurance stated a claim against Atlantis for violation of the Dram Shop Act. If the owner of the vehicle and the passengers have causes of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act against Atlantis to recover damages arising out of the accident on the theory that Atlantis unlawfully served Perez when she was visibly intoxicated, causing the accident and their injuries, which causes of action do not fall into one of the exclusions discussed supra, then, since Drive Insurance alleges that it made payments as to the damaged vehicle and the injured passengers pursuant to the policy, Drive Insurance is entitled to stand in the shoes of its insured and seek indemnification from Atlantis based on Atlantis’s alleged violation of the Dram Shop Act. Drive N.J. Ins. Co. v RT Hospitality Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02188, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: An insurance company which has paid the insureds’ medical bills and vehicle-repair costs after a single-car accident, can, as a subrogee, sue the bar which served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds under the Dram Shop Act.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this slip and fall did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the flower petals on the floor which caused plaintiff to slip and fall. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. A lack of constructive notice can be demonstrated by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices is not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case must establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the fall or have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to remedy it … . “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In order to meet its prima facie burden “on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged condition … . The defendant did not submit any evidence with respect to specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question “or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed” … . The deposition testimony and affidavit submitted by the defendant as to general cleaning procedures were insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . Lisker v Vue Catering, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02196, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: This genre of reversals appeared monthly for many years. Now these decisions are few and far between. The key issue: to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall a defendant must prove the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning schedules is not enough.​

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS; THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM CONVICTION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the criminal possession of a firearm conviction, determined criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts:

CPL 300.30(4) provides that “[c]oncurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” … . CPL 300.40(3)(b) provides, in relevant part, that with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Here, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law §§ 265.03[1][b]; 265.01-b[1]). Because the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the charge of criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Walker, 2025 NY Slip Op 02225, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Criminal possession of a weapon second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts requiring vacation of the criminal possession of a firearm conviction.

 

,

THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the propriety of service issue and dismissed the proceeding on that ground:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the proceeding/action on the ground of a defect in service. Lack of personal jurisdiction is an affirmative defense that can be waived by, among other things, “appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss” … . “When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court” … .

Since the respondents did not object to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over them in an answer or in their cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the petition/complaint, the court should not have, sua sponte, raised the issue of the propriety of service … . Further, the respondents waived any objection to the propriety of service by appearing in the proceeding/action and cross-moving to dismiss the petition/complaint without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Matter of Weiss v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 02210, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Defective service is an affirmative defense which, if not raised by a party, is waived. A judge cannot raise and decide the issue sua sponte.

 

,

HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the bank’s (mortgagee’s) counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, an equitable lien and an equitable mortgage should have been dismissed. The bank was seeking reimbursement for costs associated with maintaining the mortgaged property which had allegedly been abandoned. Essentially, the Second Department held that the existence of the mortgage agreement, a contract, precluded recovery on the equitable theories, even though two of the three parties did not sign the mortgage agreement:

On September 6, 2005, the defendant Gladys Villa (hereinafter the borrower) executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Ossining (hereinafter the property). By bargain and sale deed dated March 8, 2006, the borrower retained a one-third interest in the premises for herself and conveyed the remaining interest to the plaintiffs, Miguel Auquilla and Hilda Guzman (hereinafter together the owners), as tenants in common. The borrower and the owners allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the note and the mortgage by failing to make the monthly payments due in December 2009, and thereafter. * * *

The mortgagee’s theory that the mortgage agreement does not govern the dispute since it was executed by the borrower and not by the owners is a novel one in this Court, but is ultimately unpersuasive. Although this Court has not explicitly recognized such a rule in this context, we now hold that there can be no quasi contract claim by a mortgagee against a third-party nonsignatory owner of property encumbered by a mortgage, the terms of which covers the subject matter of the dispute. Auquilla v Villa, 2025 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Where there is a contract which binds both signatories and third-party nonsignatories, quasi-contractual theories of recovery are not available.

 

,

SUPREME COURT HELD A HEARSAY STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE “UNDER STRESS OF EXCITEMENT” AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated a piece of duct, which should have been secured, fell and knocked him off the ladder. The defendant alleged that plaintiff told the foreman he fell because he jumped down several rungs. That hearsay statement was admitted as an excited utterance. The First Department held the statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and should not have been admitted in evidence:

Defendant submitted the affidavit of its foreman, who averred that after the accident, plaintiff told him that he, plaintiff, fell from the ladder because he had jumped down several rungs. Supreme Court admitted this statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, finding that it raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This finding was error. According to the foreman, plaintiff was taking a break and told the foreman that he felt “fine” when he made the statement. Thus, there was no evidence that plaintiff made the purported hearsay statement “under the stress of excitement” … . As defendant did not argue any other valid basis for admitting the hearsay statement, it is “insufficient to defeat summary judgment” … , and there was no other admissible evidence in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Vivar v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02051, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: Here, whether the defendant raised a question of fact in this ladder-fall case turned on whether plaintiff’s alleged statement that he fell because he “jumped down several rungs” was admissible as an excited utterance. The First Department determined the alleged hearsay statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and was inadmissible. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

,

HERE THE PARTY WHO WAS AWARDED COSTS ON APPEAL WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PROCURING THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the party who has been awarded costs on appeal is entitled the cost of procuring the transcripts included in the record on appeal:

Pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13), a party to whom costs are awarded on appeal is entitled to tax his or her necessary disbursements for “reasonable and necessary expenses as are taxable according to the course and practice of the court, by express provision of law or by order of the court.” Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to disbursements for the expense of procuring trial transcripts for the purpose of preparing a record on appeal pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13) … . Thandi v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 01967, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Here is a concrete example of what it means to be awarded “costs” after an appeal.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner, 6810 Wai, was liable for an action by an independent contractor hired to repair the facade of defendant’s building. Defendant operated a bar on the ground floor of the building. The independent contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff, who was entering the bar:

[T]he well-settled general rule provides that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because it has no right to supervise or control the work” … . “An exception to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe” … . “Where, for example, premises are open to the public, the owner has a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress” … .

Here, 6810 Wai failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, as its submissions demonstrated that it had a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. The ground floor hookah bar was open to the public during the construction work, which created a nondelegable duty to the general public to maintain a safe ingress and egress, and, thus, 6810 Wai could be held liable for any negligence of its independent contractor … . Sultan v 6810 Wai, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01966, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The owner of property which is open to the public has a nondelegable duty to maintain safe ingress and egress. Here the building owner operated a bar on the first floor of a building. The owner had hired an independent contractor to repair the facade of the building. The contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff. The building owner could be held liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.

 

,

UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the Certificates of Compliance filed by the People were improper and the statement of readiness was  illusory because evidence which could be used to impeach the credibility of one of the arresting officers (Lt. Ruiz) was not turned over. The indictment was dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. The opinion is comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

This appeal concerns the new disclosure obligations in criminal cases, enacted by the New York State Legislature, effective January 1, 2020, as part of sweeping criminal justice reform legislation under the new CPL article 245 … . The new legislation provides, inter alia, for “[a]utomatic” disclosure by the People to the defendant of “all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case” that are in the People’s possession or control (CPL 245.20[1]). Specifically, this appeal concerns CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), which requires that the People disclose “[a]ll evidence and information” that “tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness.” We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the People were required to disclose, pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), underlying records from a prior case where one of the prosecution witnesses was found to be incredible, and that the Supreme Court properly determined, based upon the record before it, that the People’s certificates of compliance were improper, properly struck a statement of readiness as illusory, and properly granted the defendants’ motions, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that they were deprived of their statutory right to a speedy trial. * * *

This Court holds that the underlying records in the case in which Lt. Ruiz’s testimony was found to be incredible did relate to the subject matter of this case for impeachment purposes … . Here, the underlying records pertaining to Lt. Ruiz’s incredible testimony, including the transcript of his testimony, did relate to the subject matter of the case because the material went toward the weight of the credibility of the witness and could be used for impeachment purposes. Therefore, the People were required to provide the records. People v Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a comprehensive discussion of the People’s obligation to provide “automatic” disclosure of evidence which can be used to impeach the credibility of an arresting officer.

 

, ,

THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop which culminated in the pursuit of the defendant and the seizure of the firearm in defendant’s possession. The testimony of the arresting officer, Tofalli, at the suppression hearing was deemed unworthy of belief. Therefore the People did not meet their initial burden at the hearing, i.e., proving the legality of the police conduct:

“‘In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . Reasonable suspicion exists where there is a “quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man [or woman] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” … . “A suspect’s flight alone or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might suggest a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit,” and “[p]ursuit is only authorized when flight is combined with circumstances indicating that the suspect might be engaged in criminal activity” … .

Here, the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Tofalli’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Tofalli’s testimony that when the defendant pulled up his pants he was able to see an “L-shape” outline in the defendant’s waistband while the initial target was standing two feet in front of the defendant directly between Tofalli and the defendant defies common sense and strains credulity. Moreover, Tofalli’s testimony was inconsistent with the notes he made in his memo book, arrest reports generated after the incident, and his testimony before the grand jury, none of which made any mention of the initial target … , and was further inconsistent with the recording obtained from Tofalli’s body-worn camera, which revealed that prior to his interaction with the initial target, the defendant was not touching his pants, and does not depict the defendant’s T-shirt tightening around an “L-shape” object. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we find Tofalli’s testimony unworthy of belief … . People v Black, 2025 NY Slip Op 01943, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The flight of the subject of a street stop, without some other indication of criminal activity, does not justify pursuit.

Practice Point: If the police testimony at the suppression hearing is not worthy of belief, the People have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Suppression must be granted.

 

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