You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

TIMELINESS OF A MOTION SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION IS MEASURED BY THE INITIAL MOTION, NOT A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RENEW AFTER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS WERE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PLAINTIFFS FROM RENEWING THE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER PAYROLL DATA TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should not have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of payroll data should have been granted. Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their Labor Law underpayment claims. Their initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss alleging the plaintiffs did not timely move to renew their motion for class certification. The Second Department held that it is the initial motion for class certification which determines timeliness, not any subsequent motion to renew. The court further held that defendants were effectively preventing plaintiffs from renewing their motion by refusing to turn over the payroll data:

The time limitation to file a motion for class certification “applies only to a motion for the initial certification of the class” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification was timely made. Moreover, while the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion, the defendants refused to provide material sought by the plaintiffs which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether the matter may proceed as a class action … . The items of discovery sought are material and necessary to the determination of whether the plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”… , and the evaluation of whether prosecuting or defending separate actions would be impractical or inefficient and any “difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action” … . Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

,

DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO CONTROL HIS COLLEGE-AGE GRANDSON IN THIS ROAD RAGE INCIDENT, THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, HOWEVER THE AIDING-AND-ABETTING ASSAULT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Mancuso’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence cause of action was properly granted, but the motion for summary judgment on the aiding-and-abetting-assault cause of action should not have been granted. The action stemmed from a road rage incident. Defendant Mancuso was driving and his college-age grandson, Vaccaro, was a passenger. The grandson got out of the car and hit plaintiff in the face:

Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not owe a duty to the plaintiff by virtue of the relationship Mancuso had with Vaccaro. The fact that Mancuso could have exercised control over Vaccaro, his college-aged grandson, did not create a duty to do so … . In addition, the mere fact that Vaccaro was a passenger in Mancuso’s vehicle did not create a duty on the part of Mancuso to control Vaccaro’s conduct … . …

To be liable for an assault under an aiding and abetting theory, a defendant must have committed some overt act, either by words or conduct, in furtherance of the assault … . Here, Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not commit an overt act in furtherance of Vaccaro’s assault on the plaintiff … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Mancuso’s actions preceding the assault constituted an overt act in furtherance of the assault … . McKiernan v Vaccaro, 2019 NY Slip Op 00267, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE LADDER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s (Loretta’s) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly denied, and the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict. Apparently plaintiff alleged the A-frame latter toppled over when he was attempting to install a pipe. The facts of the case were not discussed, but there were questions of fact whether the ladder was an adequate safety device and, if not, whether the ladder was the proximate cause of the fall:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, as there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the ladder furnished to Loretta was adequate to protect him from the hazards arising from his work. The jury could have credited Loretta’s deposition and trial testimony that he did not remember if he was twisting the vertical pipe at the time of the accident, as well as the trial testimony of the plaintiff’s engineering expert that, if the ladder did not topple over as Loretta was twisting the vertical pipe, the expert’s opinion that the ladder was an inadequate safety device would be different, to rationally conclude that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the ladder was an inadequate safety device. We also agree with the court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A fair interpretation of the evidence could have led the jury to reach its verdict that the ladder was an adequate safety device. Accordingly, we agree with the court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) … . Loretta v Split Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00265, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action properly survived a motion to dismiss. The defendant sought permission from the Village’s Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review to add an exterior stairway to her house. At the public meeting plaintiff, defendant’s neighbor, objected to the stairway. Then defendant made some remarks directly to plaintiff which, in essence, accused plaintiff of setting up a camera to view defendant’s daughter’s bedroom. The Second Department noted that statements at a public meeting before a municipal body are generally absolutely privileged. But here the statements had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” … .

“Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker’s official participation in the processes of government” … . “The absolute privilege generally is reserved for communications made by individuals participating in a public function, such as executive, legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This protection is designed to ensure that such persons’ own personal interests—especially fear of a civil action, whether successful or otherwise—do not have an adverse impact upon the discharge of their public function” … .

Here, as a threshold matter, the challenged statements, considered in the context in which they were made, tended to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.

The challenged statements, which were made in the context of a contested application before a municipal body whose determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 …, would ordinarily be subject to absolute privilege… . Nevertheless, the absolute privilege embraces only those statements that may possibly be or become material or pertinent to the matters before the Board, construed under an extremely liberal standard… . Upon our review of the papers and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, we discern “not one scintilla of evidence present upon which to base the possible pertinency of [the] defendant’s statement[s]”… . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged statements are not subject to an absolute privilege … . Gugliotta v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00261, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city did not demonstrate that it had relinquished control over the parking lot where plaintiff allegedly fell into an access pit. The access pit was exposed because a snow removal contractor pushed the cover off when plowing snow. The city had a license agreement with an athletic club, Fitmar, which required Fitmar to maintain the parking lot. Fitmar had hired the snow removal contractor. The city argued it was an out of possession landlord and the parking lot was solely Fitmar’s responsibility. The Second Department held that the parking lot was subject to a license agreement, not a lease, and therefore the out of possession landlord doctrine did not apply. The Second Department went on to find that the terms of the license agreement did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the city had relinquished control over the maintenance of the parking lot:

… [T]he license agreement granted Fitmar a license to use the premises, and not a leasehold interest … . Thus, the standard applied to out-of-possession landlords is inapplicable here … . Rather, the City, “as landowner, remains in presumptive control over its property and subject to the attendant obligations of ownership until it is found that control was relinquished” … .

The City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. While the license agreement assigned responsibility for maintenance of the premises, and specifically of the parking lot, to Fitmar, it vested the City with ultimate approval authority over Fitmar’s operating procedures. The City had unfettered access to the premises and could sponsor or promote its own special events at the premises. The agreement required a yearly inspection of the premises by the City to determine the extent of any repairs to be performed by Fitmar, and the City was permitted to inspect the premises at any time and direct Fitmar to undertake repairs. The City could maintain field personnel at the premises to observe the means and methods of anticipated construction work by Fitmar, and also reserved the right for the City to perform construction or maintenance work at the premises at any time. Fitmar’s former general manager testified at his deposition that the City conducted regular inspections of the premises, and that representatives of the Parks Department would often show up unannounced to conduct inspections. Agbosasa v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00250, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATION IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS FATAL ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT ACCEPTED IN EVIDENCE A COPY OF THE POLICY WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined that the best evidence rule was violated when the court accepted a copy of the insurance policy. The plaintiff insurer (PLM) sought a declaration it was not obligated to defend the property owner in the action brought by a worker who fell through a skylight and was killed:

The copy of the policy admitted into evidence … did not specify a location for which the policy applied. Moreover, the copy of the policy admitted into evidence provided a different description of an endorsement titled “Exclusion- Designated Ongoing Operations” than a copy of the policy that PLM had produced during discovery. …

The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven … . Under an exception to the rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … .

Here, PLM failed to offer any explanation as to the unavailability of the primary evidence, i.e., the original policy. PLM also did not establish that the copy of the policy proffered at trial was a “reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … . Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00292, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INDICATED HIS FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE LADDER, PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE WHILE HOLDING A PIECE OF SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against the homeowner (Recio) was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he fell from the third rung of a six-foot A-frame ladder. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated the ladder did not fail. Plaintiff simply lost his balance while holding a piece of sheetrock:

Recio demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which showed that the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was not defective or inadequate and that the ladder did not otherwise fail to provide protection. The evidence showed that the plaintiff fell because he lost his balance … . Pacheco v Recio, 2019 NY Slip Op 00291, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father’s objections to the support magistrate’s nonfinal order should have been denied and explained the relevant criteria:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), “[s]pecific, written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt of the order.” “[O]bjections from nonfinal orders made by a Support Magistrate are typically not reviewed unless they could lead to irreparable harm” … . Here, the father’s claim that he would be forced to incur attorney fees and spend time away from work litigating a case that would ultimately be dismissed does not rise to the level of irreparable harm  … . Therefore, the Family Court should have denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s nonfinal order. Matter of Tobing v May, 2019 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHO LEFT SCHOOL AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, training and retention causes of action against the school district should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff is a special needs student who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The infant plaintiff left school, went home and attempted suicide. The school district argued plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the IDEA. The Second Department held that the negligence causes of action were not subject to the administrative requirements of the IDEA:

“An IEP is developed jointly by a school official, the child’s teacher and parents, and, where appropriate, the child. It details the special needs of a disabled child and the services which are to be provided to serve the individual needs of that child” … . Because parents and school officials sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for resolving disputes… . If a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome after having exhausted the IDEA’s administrative remedies, the parent may then seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court… . The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to actions brought explicitly pursuant to the IDEA. 20 USC § 1415(l) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.”

Here, the complaint alleges only common-law causes of action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention, and loss of consortium. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies before commencing the instant action … . Matter of P.S. v Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00282, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine did not allow plaintiff in this medical malpractice action to sue an anesthesiology group (Atanitic) as a defendant after the statute of limitations had been expired. Atlantic had been added as a defendant after the statute ran when it was discovered that a defendant anesthesiolgist, DeBrady, worked for Atlantic at the time the procedure was performed on plaintiff. DeBrady’s motion for summary judgment was not opposed and was granted. But Supreme Court held that Atlantic could remain a defendant because of the potential liability of another employee of Atlantic, non-party Cantalupo. The Second Department held that Atlantic’s liability was based solely upon respondeat superior as the employer of DeBrady, who was no longer a defendant. The court noted that, although the complaint named a “John Doe, MD,” Cantalupo could not be substituted as a party because plaintiff never moved to substitute Cantalupo and the requirements of CPLR 1024 were not met:

In order for a cause of action asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date a claim was asserted against another defendant, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) the [cause of action] arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (… see CPLR 203[b]). In malpractice actions, such as this one, “the defendants are considered united in interest when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other”… . The second prong of the relation-back doctrine requires unity of interest with a party in the action … .

Since Atlantic was made a party to the action after the expiration of the statute of limitations based solely on its unity of interest with DeBrady, who was timely served, Atlantic’s liability in the instant action cannot be predicated upon vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of other employees of Atlantic who are not parties to this action, including nonparty Cantalupo. Accordingly, Atlantic demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, upon dismissal of the action as against DeBrady … . Ferrara v Jerome Zisfein, 2019 NY Slip Op 00096, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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