You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case in the interest of justice. The defendants (Kirschen, Roberts and Winthrop) were involved in emergency treatment of the plaintiff for back pain. Subsequently surgery was performed by two additional (non-party) doctors (Obedian and Sonstein) to deal with an abscess on plaintiff’s spine. At trial the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s experts about the possible negligence of the surgeons, which was deemed reversible error. The Second Department further held plaintiff’s experts should not have been allowed to testify as experts in emergency medicine because no specialized knowledge of emergency medicine was demonstrated:

” A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise'”… . In considering such a motion, “[t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … . …

… [T]the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were capable of any reasonable or practicable division of allocation among Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop, and Obedian and Sonstein … . Thus, if, as Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop propose, a jury were to find that Obedian and Sonstein departed from accepted medical practice and that this departure was a substantial factor in depriving the plaintiff of a substantial chance for an improved outcome, Obedian and Sonstein could be found at fault together with Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of Obedian and Sonstein was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop from cross-examining two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on this issue deprived Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop of “substantial justice” … . Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is.. 2019 NY Slip Op 00093, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BY MERELY POINTING OUT ALLEGED GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant did not make a prima facie showing that plaintiff bank lacked standing in this foreclosure action, as opposed to pointing to alleged gaps in plaintiff’s case. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“On a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied'” … . “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” … . Here, the defendant merely pointed to alleged gaps in the plaintiff’s case and failed to meet her burden of establishing, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law … . Cenlar FSB v Lanzbom, 2019 NY Slip Op 00092, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Nationstar’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Defendant alleged in her answer that plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. Therefore, in moving for summary judgment, the band was required to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 and its evidence of compliance was insufficient because it did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

“Generally, in moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default” … . However, where, as here, a defendant raises the issue of compliance with RPAPL 1304 as an affirmative defense, the moving party is also required to make a prima facie showing of strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . * * *

Here, Nationstar relied on the affidavit of its employee, Michael Woods, who averred, in relevant part, that “the 90-day notices required by statute were mailed to [d]efendant by regular and certified mail to the last known mailing address and to the property address on January 3, 2013,” and that the letters “were sent in separate envelopes from any other mailing or notice.” However, the record contains a single 90-day notice, bearing the plaintiff’s letterhead and addressed to the defendant at the subject property, with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail. Moreover, Woods—who is not an employee of the plaintiff—did not aver in his affidavit to having any familiarity with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures. Bank of Am., N.A. v Bittle, 2019 NY Slip Op 00086, Second Dept 1-9-19

Similar issue and result in Bank of Am., N.A. v Kljajic, 2019 NY Slip Op 00087, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

AWARDING FATHER SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that awarding sole legal custody to father did not have a sound and substantial basis in the record and mother’s petition for sole legal custody should have been granted:

“Findings of the Family Court which have a sound and substantial basis in the record are generally entitled to great deference on appeal because any custody determination depends to a great extent on the court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties”… . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination awarding the father sole legal and physical custody of the child does not have a sound and substantial basis in the record. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the parties had not been sharing custody of the child equally. Instead, the record reflects that the mother had been the child’s primary caregiver for the majority of his life until the court granted the father’s petition and that, at the time of the hearing, the father had the child on certain weekends. The evidence in the record also demonstrates that the court failed to take into consideration the custody arrangement in place at the time of the hearing, or even the 50/50 arrangement which was requested by the father during the proceeding.

Moreover, the record demonstrates that the mother had taken a proactive role in the child’s well being and development, developing well-thought-out plans to address the child’s issues regarding medical care, schooling, and socialization … . At the time of the hearing, the father had no concrete plans for the child’s education, medical care, or social development. Matter of Lintao v Delgado, 2019 NY Slip Op 00125, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND THE INJURY TO BE PERMANENT BUT DID NOT AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING TOO LOW, MAY HAVE BEEN AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMPROMISE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting a new trial, determined the jury’s damages verdict in this rear-end collision, traffic accident case should have been granted. The jury found that plaintiff suffered a permanent injury but did not award plaintiff with damages for future pain and suffering. The Second Department further determined the $12,500 verdict for past pain and suffering was too low:

A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence… . Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, as the verdict with respect to those damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the jury’s finding that his injuries were permanent in nature and were proximately caused by the accident … . Furthermore, whereas the jury was presented with conflicting evidence and theories as to the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inexplicably low, it appears that the verdict with respect to damages for past pain and suffering may have been the result of an impermissible compromise … . Avissato v McDaniel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00084, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the allegation that petitioner did not leave the yard when directed to do so was not supported by substantial evidence:

“A prison disciplinary determination must be supported by substantial evidence, meaning that in order to sustain a determination of guilt, a court must find that the disciplinary authorities have offered such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . A written misbehavior report made by an employee who observed an incident or ascertained the facts can constitute substantial evidence of an inmate’s misconduct so long as it is sufficiently relevant and probative … . Here, the record did not contain substantial evidence supporting the charges against the petitioner inasmuch as it failed to establish that the petitioner was one of the inmates who participated in the demonstration and refused to leave the yard when ordered to do so … . Matter of Johnson v Griffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00123, Second Dept 1-9-19

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Con Ed’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6), Labor Law 200 and common law negligence action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using an excavator in a narrow, sloped area when the excavator tipped over into a creek. The terms of a contract raised questions of fact about Con Ed’s supervisory authority and responsibilities:

Con Ed did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code § 23-4.2(c), which requires supervision for certain excavation work, was inapplicable here, nor did it demonstrate, prima facie, that this regulation was not violated … . Further, Con Ed did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code §§ 23-4.2(a) and 23-4.4(a), which require, inter alia, proper footing for certain work using excavators and similar equipment, were inapplicable here, or that these regulations were not violated in this case … . Con Ed also did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code §§ 23-9.4(c), and 23-9.5(a), which require, inter alia, the use of shoring and/or temporary sheeting for certain excavation work, were inapplicable here, or that these regulations were not violated in this case … . Further, Con Ed did not show that any alleged violations of the aforementioned regulations did not constitute a proximate cause of the occurrence … . Any comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff does not preclude liability founded upon a violation of Labor Law § 241(6)  … . * * *

There are “two broad categories of actions that implicate the provisions of Labor Law § 200” … . The first category involves worker injuries arising out of alleged dangerous or defective conditions on the premises where the work is performed … . In those circumstances, “[f]or liability to be imposed on the property owner, there must be evidence showing that the property owner either created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it without remedying it within a reasonable time” … . “The second broad category of actions under Labor Law § 200 involves injuries occasioned by the use of dangerous or defective equipment at the job site” … . A property owner will be held liable under this category only if it possessed the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work … . The requisite supervision or control exists for Labor Law § 200 purposes when the property owner bears responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed … . “The determinative factor is whether the party had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right'” … . Moscati v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00112, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question fact whether defendant construction manager (Walsh) exercised sufficient supervision and control to be liable for plaintiff’s injury when he fell from a scaffold in this Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) action:

A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), or 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the plaintiff’s injury … . Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Walsh had the authority to supervise or control the activity that brought about the plaintiff’s injury … . Among other things, in a “Project Management Services Proposal” agreement (hereinafter the agreement) entered into between Walsh and Bakers Dozen, Walsh agreed, inter alia, to provide certain services as “agent” of Bakers Dozen. The agreement further stated that, during the construction implementation phase, Walsh would “[i]ssue directives, clarifications and notices” and “monitor the site as required to maintain the progress of construction work.” Maurisaca v Bowery at Spring Partners, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 00109, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE WAS ASSAULTED, ALLEGED THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED THE BUILDING THROUGH A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ENTRANCE, THE LANDLORD’S DUTY TO PROTECT TENANTS EXTENDS TO GUESTS OF TENANTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this third-party assault case, determined the personal injury and wrongful death action against the landlord should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was delivering “meals on wheels” in the building when he was assaulted, allegedly by an intruder who allegedly entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm,’ including a third party’s foreseeable criminal conduct” … . This duty extends to the guests of a tenant … . A tenant or guest may recover damages, however, only on a showing that the landlord’s negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury… . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment of a matter of law by presenting evidence that the lock on the only entrance to 341 Dumont Avenue was operable on the day of the incident … . In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the decedent’s assailant was an intruder who entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance … . Aminova v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00083, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence in this dog bite case was properly denied. Infant plaintiff was bitten in the face when the dog jumped and attempted to bite the food in plaintiff’s hand. The jury found that the dog did not have vicious propensities. The evidence that the dog only became excited and rambunctious around food supported the jury’s verdict:

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when ” the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . The discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict must be exercised with considerable caution, “for in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict”… . Additionally, in making this determination courts should keep in mind that “[i]t is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that ” the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities'” … . This knowledge may be established with evidence of “prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice” … . However, “normal canine behavior” does not establish vicious propensities, and “rambunctious behavior will show awareness of a vicious propensity only if it is the very behavior that resulted in [a] plaintiff’s injury” … . M.B. v Hanson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00106, 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