You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

BY ENTERING A STIPULATION SETTLING A FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAIVED ANY DEFECT IN SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE STIPULATION WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT OCCUR IN COURT, EMAILS AND PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT MEMORIALIZED THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Campbell had waived any defect in service of process by entering into a stipulation of settlement in this foreclosure action. The court held that the stipulation settling the deficiency judgment, which did not occur in court, was memorialized by emails and the payment of an agreed settlement amount. The dissent argued there was insufficient evidence of a stipulation entered into by Campbell and therefore Campbell’s motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground she was never served with the complaint should have been granted:

… [I]n vacating the settlement of the deficiency judgment “in the interests of justice,” the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that Campbell was not represented by counsel. In fact, Campbell was represented by counsel when she settled and made payment on the deficiency judgment. As part of the settlement, the plaintiff agreed not to proceed in other pending foreclosure actions against Campbell. Additionally, Campbell retained the same attorney with respect to other actions arising out of the settlement. By settling the deficiency judgment, Campbell clearly submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and acknowledged the validity of the judgment… . Therefore, we disagree with the court’s determination granting Campbell’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, the subsequent foreclosure sale, the order of reference, the referee’s deed, and the settlement of the deficiency judgment, the terms of which had been fully performed.

Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, a formal stipulation of settlement need not be contained in the record. Here, the terms of the settlement were contained in contemporaneous emails between the plaintiff’s attorney and Campbell’s attorney, and by a check in the amount on which they had agreed. Campbell does not deny that she paid the amount for which she agreed to settle the deficiency judgment. That fully performed settlement two years before Campbell moved to vacate her default effectively waived her defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her … . Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Campbell, 2018 NY Slip Op 08465, Second Dept 12-12-18

CPLR 2104

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE POSSESSION ACTION AND THE LACHES DEFENSE, THE ACTION INVOLVED LAND THAT WAS ONCE UNDER WATER CREATED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SAND DURING STORMS DECADES AGO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact in this adverse possession case concerning who owned the land and when the adverse possession began. The land in question was once under water and was created by the movement of sand decades ago:

CPLR 212(a) provides that “[a]n action to recover real property or its possession cannot be commenced unless the plaintiff, or his [or her] predecessor in interest, was seized or possessed of the premises within ten years before the commencement of the action.” However, the 10-year limitations period does not begin to run against a record owner of property until the occupiers of the property begin to adversely possess it (see RPAPL 311…).

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint … on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Calculation of the date from which the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiffs’ causes of action requires a threshold determination as to whether the plaintiffs are the record owners of the disputed land, and secondly, whether, and if so, when, the defendants began to adversely possess the land… . The defendants failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiffs are not the record owners of the disputed land for the purposes of determining a date upon which the statute of limitations began to run … . …

The defendants also failed to establish … that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their laches defense. “The essence of the equitable defense of laches is prejudicial delay in the assertion of rights” … . “In order for laches to apply to the failure of an owner of real property to assert his or her interest, it must be shown that [the] plaintiff inexcusably failed to act when [he or] she knew, or should have known, that there was a problem with [his or] her title to the property. In other words, for there to be laches, there must be present elements to create an equitable estoppel'” … .

Here, although the defendants established that the plaintiffs did not commence the action until a lengthy period of time after the alleged avulsive acts had occurred, the defendants failed to eliminate issues of fact as to whether the plaintiffs’ failure to act was excusable, whether the defendants were taking actions to adversely possess the disputed land, and whether and when the plaintiffs should reasonably have become aware of such alleged acts. Strough v Incorporated Vil. of W. Hampton Dunes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08525, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, ,

A BLOCKED TRACHEOSTOMY TUBE IS A FORESEEABLE EVENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANT ANESTHESIOLOGIST WAS TRAINED AND PREPARED, THEREFORE THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action, determined the jury should not have been charged on the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff’s decedent died after her tracheostomy tube became blocked. Because a blocked tracheostomy tube is a foreseeable condition, the emergency doctrine did not apply:

In the days after … surgery, Jones [plaintiff’s decedent] was improving and was out of bed and talking. On March 30, 2007, a nurse and respiratory therapist were removing a Passy-Muir valve (a device designed to allow a patient to speak with a tracheostomy tube in place) and met resistance while attempting to place an inner cannula into the tube. Jones began to experience shortness of breath. Despite attempts to suction the tube and ventilate Jones manually with an Ambu bag, Jones’s oxygen saturation levels continued to drop to the low 60s, and her level of consciousness rapidly decreased. Accordingly, Sher [defendant], an anesthesiologist, and Joann Noto, a physician assistant, were paged. * * *

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine. The emergency doctrine “has been reserved, in a medical context, to situations where a doctor is confronted by a sudden and unforeseen condition’ and is forced to undertake care under less than optimal circumstances,” and is inapplicable where the defendant physician was trained and prepared for the specific emergency … . Here, there is no dispute that it was foreseeable for secretions to block a tracheostomy tube and that Sher was qualified as an anesthesiologist to replace a blocked tracheostomy tube. Indeed, Sher admitted that, in his 30 years of experience, creating airways for patients is what anesthesiologists do. Further, Sher was advised by Noto that a mucus plug was blocking the tracheostomy tube which Sher was ultimately able to replace within seconds. Accordingly, there was no sudden and unforeseen condition for which Sher was not trained or prepared. Crayton v Sher, 2018 NY Slip Op 08461, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this defective ladder products liability case. Defendant Garberg, the owner of the ladder, alleged he purchased the ladder at a specific Home Depot store between 1994 and 1995. Home Depot demonstrate the store in question did not open until 2001. Garberg then submitted an affidavit alleging he either bought ladder after the store opened or he bought the ladder at another Home Depot store (which was identified):

” [L]iability may not be imposed for . . . strict products liability upon a party that is [*2]outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain'”… . Here, Home Depot established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this issue. Garberg’s 2016 affidavit contained assertions made for the first time in opposition to the motion and merely raised feigned issues designed to avoid the consequences of Garberg’s earlier affidavit. Garberg swore to the 2016 affidavit after he settled with the plaintiff, after the close of discovery, and after Home Depot submitted its conclusive proof establishing that he could not have purchased the defective ladder when and where he claimed he had. The 2016 affidavit speculated about a possible purchase at a different Home Depot location that, unlike the Cropsey Avenue location, the parties did not have the opportunity to explore during discovery. Garberg also contradicted his prior unambiguous assertion about the timing of his purchase. His 2016 opposition affidavit was, therefore, insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Rooney v Garberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 08521, Second Dept 11-12-18

 

, , , ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence that defendant exercised dominion of control of the vehicle would rebut the presumption of ownership created by a certificate of title. Here the tile was in defendant’s wife’s name and she was driving at the time of the traffic accident. Plaintiff sought to discover the insurer’s file pursuant to CPLR 3124. Supreme Court should have granted the motion:

“A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 128, 2101[g]; 2108[c]…) . However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that another individual owns the subject vehicle… . This may include evidence that a person other than the title holder exercised “dominion and control” over the vehicle …  .

Here, documents from the insurer concerning the vehicle and the accident are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide an executed authorization for documents in the insurer’s possession concerning the vehicle and the accident … . ​Portillo v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08520, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

EVEN PHYSICALLY SMALL DEFECTS, IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, CAN CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the expert opinion submitted by both sides raised questions of fact whether “beveled edge between the dance floor and the adjoining rug” created a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The court noted that even physically small defects can become dangerous in combination with other factors, including lighting:

The Court of Appeals has recognized that even a physically small defect may be actionable, such as where there is a jagged edge, a rough, irregular surface, the presence of other defects in the vicinity, or poor lighting, or if the defect is located where people are naturally distracted from looking down at their feet … . Attention to the specific circumstances is always required, and undue or exclusive focus on whether a defect is a trap or snare is not appropriate … . …

The plaintiffs submitted the expert affidavit of a professional engineer who inspected the dance floor and carpet area. He measured the static coefficient of friction of the beveled edges of the dance floor, and found that they did not provide proper slip resistance for an individual stepping on it while dancing. Additionally, he found that inadequate lighting contributed to the accident by “not providing visual clues to recognize that the dance floor had terminated with the subject metal edging.” … .

Given the conflicting expert affidavits, and the circumstances of the accident, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the beveled edges of the dance floor constituted a dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall … . Poliziani v Culinary Inst. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 08519, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AFTER FATHER SCREAMED AT COURT PERSONNEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have granted mother’s petition to relocate in this custody modification proceeding without holding a hearing. Family Court granted the petitioner after father appeared and screamed at court personnel:

Where a custodial parent seeks to relocate over the objection of the non-custodial parent, the court must consider each relocation request “on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” … . “In the end, it is for the court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child’s best interests” … .

Although “[a] parent seeking a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing” … , “custody determinations should [g]enerally’ be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “When the allegations of fact in a petition to change custody are controverted, the court must, as a general rule, hold a full hearing” … . Matter of Williams v Jenkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 08491, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

 

, , ,

FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations applied to the planning board’s decision that an environmental impact statement was not necessary and the petition to annul that decision was untimely:

To the extent that the petition alleges the Planning Board’s noncompliance with SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act], the four-month statute of limitations applies (see CPLR 217[1]…). An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decision-maker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … . Here, the statute of limitations began to run with the issuance of the negative declaration for the project on February 19, 2015, as this constituted the Planning Board’s final act under SEQRA and, accordingly, any challenge to the negative declaration had to be commenced within four months of that date … . Matter of Stengel v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08488, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PERSONS COHABITING TOGETHER ARE NOT PER SE REQUIRED TO BE IN WRITING, SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that certain causes of action based upon oral agreements between plaintiff and defendant, who lived together for thirteen years, should not have been dismissed pursuant to the statute of frauds:

We disagree with the Supreme Court as to the applicability of the statute of frauds to the plaintiff’s allegations as to … express oral agreements between the parties, namely those related to her provision of domestic and legal services in exchange for support and sharing of business profits. Agreements between persons cohabiting together are not per se required to be in writing … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s allegations as to the terms of the oral agreements do not otherwise fall within the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). …

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s third cause of action pursuant to the statute of frauds. The third cause of action seeks the return of certain personal items that allegedly were owned by the plaintiff separately prior to her relationship with the defendant. Thus, the property that was the subject of that cause of action was not within the statute of frauds. Baron v Suissa, 2018 NY Slip Op 08453, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

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