You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN AN ANDERS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO NONFRIVOLOUS ISSUES WARRANTING APPEAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL, HERE THE MISSING ISSUE WAS DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, announced a new rule concerning when new counsel should be assigned because an Anders brief did not demonstrate the absence of any issues which could be raised on appeal. The defendant had pled guilty and received the agreed upon sentence, which was the minimum sentence allowed. The defendant had also waived his right to appeal. The Anders brief addressed the plea and sentence (finding no appealable issues) but did not address the waiver of appeal. The Second Department determined there was no need to assign new counsel to the appeal because whether the waiver of appeal was valid or not, the result would not be affected:

… [A]n Anders brief will not be deemed deficient under Step 1 of the Matter of Giovanni S. [89 AD3d at 252] analysis when assigned counsel fails to identify an issue, if it is demonstrable from the face of the brief that the missing issue would be inconsequential. We do not suggest that this new “Matter of Giovanni S.-Murray rule” be applied where any missing issue would not be inconsequential. Since the brief would be sufficient under these circumstances, the court would then proceed to Step 2 of the Matter of Giovanni S. analysis, which requires an independent review of the record to determine whether counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct. This refinement safeguards the indelible right of a criminal defendant to a conscientious, effective, and zealous advocate that lies at the heart of Anders protection … . At the same time, it recognizes a measure of practicality, that congested courts operating under tight budgets, with limited personnel, and finite taxpayer money, not be required to engage in Sisyphean efforts that cannot, as a matter of law, lead anywhere. People v Murray, 2019 NY Slip Op 01101, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, but defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. “The plaintiff allege[d] that he was injured … when a differential block and chain fell onto his head as he and his coworkers were preparing a hoisting apparatus to remove and replace a broken roll-up gate on the defendants’ premises:”

” [T]he statutory requirement that workers be provided with proper protection extends not only to the hazards of building materials falling,’ but to the hazards of defective parts of safety devices falling from an elevated level to the ground'” … . Here, the defendants are liable whether the plaintiff’s coworker accidently dropped the differential while preparing to use the hoisting apparatus to remove the old roll-up gate, or the differential fell because it was inadequately secured … . …

However, unlike Labor Law § 240, which includes repair work, Labor Law § 241(6) is limited to those areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is being performed (compare Labor Law § 240[1], with Labor Law § 241[6]). In this case, Labor Law § 241(6) is inapplicable because the plaintiff was not performing work in the context of construction, demolition, or excavation … . Barrios v 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01046, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE INSIDE THE BUILDING SHE WAS WORKING IN, THE JURY COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THE ICE WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS BASED ON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence was properly denied in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. Plaintiff’s job was removing asbestos from a building. After getting out of her asbestos suit in the decontamination room and walking in the interior of the building she slipped and fell on ice. The Second Department held that the jury could have rationally concluded someone participating in the construction project was negligent:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the jury verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence and for judgment as a matter of law. There was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . The jury could have credited the plaintiff’s trial testimony that she slipped on a large patch of ice on the floor of a building that did not have heating on a cold January day, and therefore, rationally conclude that “someone within the chain of the construction project was negligent in not exercising reasonable care, or acting within a reasonable time, to prevent or remediate the hazard, and that plaintiff’s slipping, falling and subsequent injury proximately resulted from such negligence” … . Bocanegra v Chest Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01048, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT, INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the prior action for foreclosure accelerated the debt and the subsequent stipulation of discontinuance did not de-accelerate the debt. The instant foreclosure action was therefore time-barred:

… [D]efendant established that the six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt on April 21, 2008, the date the plaintiff accelerated the mortgage debt by commencing the prior action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence this action until December 15, 2015, more than six years later, the defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that this action was untimely … . The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely … .

The plaintiff failed to meet its burden. Contrary to its contention, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether it affirmatively revoked its election to accelerate the mortgage within the six-year limitations period. Its execution of the stipulation of discontinuance did not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act to revoke its election to accelerate, since the stipulation was silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and did not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Craig, 2019 NY Slip Op 00846 [169 AD3d 627], Second Dept 2-6-19

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff was sweeping the floor at an auto wrecking ship when “a piece of a skidloader being used to hoist a car engine broke and fell onto him:”

Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable to “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The dismantling of a vehicle unrelated to a building or a structure is not a protected activity under that statute … . Further, the sweeping being performed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident cannot be characterized as “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute, as it was the type of routine maintenance that occurs in any type of premises, did not require specialized tools, and could be accomplished “using tools commonly found in a domestic setting”… . Thus, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Labor Law § 241(6) only provides protection “to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed”… . The plaintiff was not engaged in construction or excavation at the time of the accident, and the “the mere act of dismantling a vehicle, whether a boat, a car or otherwise, unrelated to any other project, is not the sort of demolition intended to be covered by Labor Law § 241 (6)” … . Thus, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The defendant’s submissions demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant did not supervise or control the work, and the injury-causing defect was the result of the methods being used by Jet to remove and transport a car engine … . Guevarra v Wreckers Realty, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00859, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

ONE INCH GAP AT THE TOP OF EXTERIOR STEPS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined this slip and fall case properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged her foot was caught in a one-inch gap at the top of exterior steps:

While testifying at her deposition, the plaintiff identified photographs that demonstrated that the gap was at least one inch wide and at least one inch deep and three feet long, and ran the entire length of the steps. The defendants’ witness, Monsignor Jamie Gigantiello, testified that he had been assigned and came to the defendant St. Bernard Church in January 2013. Gigantiello testified that upon his arrival, he found that the church building and rectory needed work, and his focus was on renovating those buildings. He further testified that, despite being on the site daily and making regular observations and inspections as he traversed the area, he did not notice thegap before the plaintiff’s accident, but noticed it every time he traversed the area thereafter. He also identified the same photographs of the gap that were identified by the plaintiff, and agreed that they accurately depicted the condition that he observed following the accident. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject steps were not in a defective condition and that the defendants did not have constructive notice, as a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defective condition … . Fasano v St. Bernard Church, 2019 NY Slip Op 00856, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PLAYGROUND INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have considered evidence submitted by the defendant in its reply papers and further determined that the negligent maintenance cause of action properly survived summary judgment in this playground injury case. Infant plaintiff was injured when she fell from playground equipment during recess. The negligent supervision cause of action was dismissed. But there was evidence the area beneath the playground equipment was dangerous:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to not consider the evidence submitted by the defendant in its reply papers. “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief” … . The evidence submitted by the defendant in its reply papers addressed arguments made by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert in opposition to its motion. Thus, the court should have considered the evidence. …

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent maintenance of its premises by submitting evidence which demonstrated that it adequately maintained the playground, and that it did not create an unsafe or defective condition … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by the submission of her expert’s affidavit which opined, in part, that the ground cover beneath the apparatus from which the plaintiff fell was inherently dangerous as installed and/or maintained, because it did not meet standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (see General Business Law § 399-dd). Boland v North Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CRUMBLING ASPHALT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate they lacked constructive notice of the crumbling asphalt around a sewer grate in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . In a premises liability case, a defendant who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the condition that allegedly caused the accident nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence… . “To provide constructive notice, a dangerous condition must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition, but failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they created the condition or had constructive notice of it … .Stepkowski v Holy Trinity Diocesan High Sch., 2019 NY Slip Op 00924, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff was treated by an ophthalmologist for eye pain. The doctor suspected glaucoma. Six months later plaintiff was diagnosed with meningioma, a noncancerous tumor of the membranes surrounding the brain. Plaintiff’s expert did not lay a foundation for an opinion that the meningioma could have been treated with radiation, rather than surgery, had it been discovered earlier:

” While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field . . . the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable'” … . “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who was board certified in ophthalmology, was qualified to, and did, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether [defendants] deviated from the accepted standard of care in failing to refer the plaintiff to a neurologist to further evaluate his symptoms. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s meningioma could have been treated by radiation instead of surgery if it had been detected in November 2014. The plaintiff’s expert failed to articulate that he had any training in the treatment of meningiomas or what, if anything, he did to familiarize himself with the applicable standard of care. The affidavit, therefore, lacked probative value and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any departure from the accepted standard of care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Simpson v Edghill, 2019 NY Slip Op 00923, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

, ,

SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Fairway) should not have been sanctioned (adverse inference jury instruction) for spoliation of evidence, i.e., videotape depicting areas outside the store. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in an area near the entrance to the store. The videotape from the camera which captured the fall was provided to plaintiff. The videotape from the other cameras depicting other areas outside the store was not preserved:

The plaintiff’s January 3, 2013, letter specifically requested that Fairway preserve “any and all video footage depicting the location of my client’s accident.” Ten hours of video footage depicting the exact location of the accident before the fall occurred, including footage of the accident itself, were preserved by Fairway and subsequently disclosed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not initially request that video footage of other locations also be preserved, so Fairway was not on notice that such footage might be needed for future litigation … . In addition, the plaintiff has not established that the absence of such footage deprived her of the ability to prove her case … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff did not establish that sanctions against Fairway were warranted … . Sarris v Fairway Group Plainview, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00922, Second Dept 2-5-19

 

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