You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that public policy precluded plaintiff from recovering child support overpayments:

“There is strong public policy in this state, which the [Child Support Standards Act] did not alter, against restitution or recoupment of the overpayment of child support” … . The rationale behind this policy is that child support payments are deemed to have been used to support the children, so “no funds exist from which one may recoup moneys so expended”… . “[R]ecoupment of child support payments is only appropriate under limited circumstances'” … .

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any circumstances which counter this state’s strong public policy against reimbursement of child support overpayments … . The plaintiff could have requested a modification of his child support obligation in accordance with the stipulation, but failed to do so … . Fortgang v Fortgang, 2019 NY Slip Op 02068, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the sanction imposed for plaintiff’s failure to turn over audio files and transcripts she was apparently relying upon to prove employment discrimination should not have gone beyond the terms of the conditional order of preclusion:

“A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide certain discovery by a date certain, or face the sanctions specified in the order” … . ” With this conditioning, the court relieves itself of the unrewarding inquiry into whether a party’s resistance was willful'” … . “When a plaintiff fails to timely comply with a conditional order of preclusion, the conditional order becomes absolute” … .

… [W]here, as here, a conditional order of preclusion specifies a penalty for the failure to comply, absent a change in circumstances, it is inappropriate for the court to impose a harsher penalty … . The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in barring the plaintiff from offering any evidence for any claim premised on the introduction of or which relies on the audio files the plaintiff failed to produce. Instead, the appropriate sanction was the one set forth in the conditional order of preclusion, which precluded the plaintiff from using the audio files and corresponding transcripts at trial unless she produced these items by a date certain, which she failed to do. Felice v Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02067, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FACE PLATE WHICH FELL OFF AN AIR CONDITIONER, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SEOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although a prima facie case was made out under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the defendant raised questions of fact. Plaintiff was injured when a face plate fell off an air conditioner:

… [A]lthough the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that a face plate falling off an air conditioner is an event of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence… , the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the face plate could have fallen off the air conditioner because of the slamming of the door and not as a result of negligence … .

Furthermore, while the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the elevated air-conditioning unit was in the defendants’ exclusive control … , the defendants raised a triable issue of fact through their submissions, which demonstrated that outside contractors were responsible for the repairs and installations of air conditioning units in the school. Exclusive control is not established when third-party contractors have access to an instrumentality causing injuries … . Dilligard v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02064, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of an employee who claimed that the plaintiff’s business records showed that RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, the documentary evidence submitted in support of those claims redacted certain tracking numbers and failed to establish, prima facie, that the notices were mailed by first-class mail … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Succes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02058, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the city in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No such motion was before the court:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the City, which did not move for such relief. “A court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Since no party made any motion with respect to the plaintiff’s direct cause of action against the City contained in the amended complaint, the court should not have granted relief with respect to that cause of action … . Cerbone v Lauriano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02056, Second Dept 3-20-29

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ACTION TO RECOVER PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSURED WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the life insurance policy was never canceled and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in the action to recover the proceeds:

As relevant here, Insurance Law § 3211 provides that “[n]o policy of life insurance . . . delivered or issued for delivery in this state . . . shall terminate or lapse by reason of default in payment of any premium . . . in less than one year after such default, unless, for scheduled premium policies, a notice shall have been duly mailed at least fifteen and not more than forty-five days prior to the day when such payment becomes due” (Insurance Law § 3211[a][1]). The notice required shall “be duly mailed to the last known address of the policyowner” … . …

“The burden of proving valid cancellation of an insurance policy is upon the insurance company disclaiming coverage based on cancellation” … . We agree with the Supreme Court that William Penn failed to meet that burden and, therefore, was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The evidence submitted on the motion and cross motion established that William Penn was aware that the policyholder had changed his address, but it failed to send a notice of premium due to that last known address at least fifteen days prior to the day when such payment became due … . Consequently, in accordance with the statute, the policy remained in effect for one year after the March 14, 2012, premium due date (see Insurance Law § 3211[a][1]). Since the policy was in effect on the date of the policyholder’s death, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against William Penn … . Bradley v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 02054, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted, despite defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State:

There was no evidence that the defendant received actual notice of the summons delivered to the Secretary of State, which does not constitute personal delivery, in time to defend this action ). Although the defendant did not explain why it failed to update its address with the Secretary of State, “there is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay” … . Furthermore, there is no basis in the record to conclude that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid service, especially since the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defendant’s Westchester County… business address at least two months before the summons and complaint were filed in this action and, thus, could have attempted to serve the defendant personally pursuant to CPLR 311 … . Nor is there any evidence that the defendant was placed on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Berardi Stone Setting, Inc. v Stonewall Contr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED WHEEL STOP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case was properly denied. There was a question of fact whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of an elevated plastic wheel stop:

The appellants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the elevated and broken wheel stop over which the plaintiff alleged she fell. They failed to present evidence of when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the subject accident occurred … . Baviello v Patterson Auto Convenience Store, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02052, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision action against the school bus company and the school district should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff (J.W.) was injured by another student on the bus:

… [T]he bus company defendants and the school district established, prima facie, that they did not have sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether J. W.’s injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the bus driver and bus monitor’s alleged failure to respond appropriately as the events unfolded … , and whether the bus driver and bus monitor took “energetic steps to intervene” in the fight … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion of the bus company defendants and the school district for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Williams v Student Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02146, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty law firm, Kaufman, should have been allowed to withdraw as counsel for defendants T & V and Komninos based upon defendant’s failure to pay attorney’s fees and failure to cooperate:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the law firm’s unopposed motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for T & V and Komninos. An attorney may be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable legal fees (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[c][5] … ). Likewise, an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client “fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[c][7] … ).

Here, the law firm established that T & V and Komninos failed in their obligation to pay the legal fees earned by the law firm and further failed to cooperate in their representation. Moreover, T & V and Komninos did not oppose that branch of the law firm’s motion which was for leave to withdraw as their counsel. Accordingly, that branch of the motion which was for leave to withdraw as counsel for T & V and Komninos should have been granted … . Villata v Kokkinos, 2019 NY Slip Op 02143, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

​

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