You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

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

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the sand and debris in a walkway in this slip and fall case. Therefore their motions for summary judgment were properly denied:

 “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . [Defendant’s] submissions in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, a lack of constructive notice. The affidavit of its association president merely referenced his general inspection practices and failed to indicate when the area of the walkway where the alleged slip and fall occurred was last inspected or cleaned relative to the accident … . Butts v SJF, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02491, Second Dept 4-3-19

, ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

… [T]he landlord met her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition transcript which demonstrated, prima facie, that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The plaintiff’s theory that she slipped on water dripping from the ceiling was speculative in light of, inter alia, her deposition testimony that she “personally didn’t see any water dripping, but there must have been a drip from the ceiling because the ground was wet.” Moreover, [third-party defendant] testified at his deposition that, although there had been a prior water leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen, that leak was not near the location of the plaintiff’s accident. Bilska v Truszkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS INSPECTED OR TREATED ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. The defendant presented evidence of the manager’s and superintendent’s general practices but did not present evidence was inspected or treated on the day of the fall:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] 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” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s site manager merely referred to her general practice of traversing the breezeway where the accident allegedly occurred, one to two times per week, but provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the area prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . … The superintendent’s testimony failed to provide specific details of his snow removal efforts and salting near the time of the incident, and, thus, was too general to establish lack of constructive notice … . Ahmetaj v Mountainview Condominium, 2019 NY Slip Op 02489, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s first cause of action was properly dismissed because it alleged a theory of liability in this slip and fall case that was not alleged in the notice of claim. Apparently the plaintiff fell after getting off defendants’ bus:

[In the notice of claim] the plaintiff alleged … that the accident was caused by “the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of . . . New York City Transit Authority in the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, construction, renovation, supervision and control of the aforesaid location.” …

… [T]he … defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action … by submitting proof that the amended notice of claim contained no allegation that the bus operator was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to alight … . Rojas v Hazzard, 2019 NY Slip Op 02573, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S HEALTH AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS NEVER PLACED IN CONTROVERSY AND THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WAS NOT WAIVED BY A LETTER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY INDICATING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM DEMENTIA, ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant driver’s (Rozansky’s) medical condition at the time of this 2004 traffic accident was not “in controversy” and therefore the driver’s medical records were not discoverable. Rozansky, who subsequently died, had, in 2006, submitted a letter from his social worker to plaintiff’s attorney claiming he suffered from dementia, anxiety and depression, allegedly to be excused from a deposition, but otherwise the issue of the Rozansky’s health was not raised:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that Rozansky’s condition at the time of the accident was “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121(a) … . Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs had met that burden, neither Rozansky nor his estate waived the privilege attached to the medical records, as the defendant has not asserted a counterclaim or sought to excuse Rozansky’s conduct at the time of the accident on the basis of some condition … . Contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleagues, Rozansky did not place his mental condition at the time of the accident “in controversy” or waive the privilege attached to his medical records by allegedly declining to be deposed … . Neither Rozansky nor his estate have sought to excuse his conduct at the time of the accident … , due to any condition. At best, Rozansky placed his mental condition in September 2006 at issue by allegedly refusing to appear for a deposition … . The plaintiffs could have moved at that time to compel the deposition and challenged the social worker’s diagnosis. Instead, nine years after the social worker’s letter, and six years after Rozansky’s death, and after filing three notes of issue over the course of some seven years, indicating that discovery was complete and the case was ready for trial, the plaintiffs purported to use the mechanism of a trial subpoena to compel production of Rozansky’s medical records from October 22, 1999, to the present. We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that Rozansky’s alleged invocation of dementia in September 2006, by submission of a letter from his social worker, established a waiver of the privilege attached to his medical records from October 22, 1999. Peterson v Estate of John Rozansky, 2019 NY Slip Op 02568, Second Department, 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