You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition to have her child returned after removal should have been granted. The child had been removed because of concern the home was not safety-proofed. Mother demonstrated she had taken adequate steps to safety-proof the home. The court noted that, although the child had been returned, the appeal was not academic because of the stigma associated with removing the child:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health'”… . The court must “weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal” … . “The court must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child’s best interests'”… .

Here, the record fails to provide a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s determination… . Any concerns that the parents’ substantial efforts to safety-proof their home were inadequate and subjected the child to possible risk of ingesting harmful substances did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not have been mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. This is especially so under the circumstances of this case, where the petitioner had been directed to assist the family in safety-proofing the home and failed to do so … . Additionally, the mother presented evidence at the hearing establishing that she had taken substantial measures to safety-proof the home after the child was removed, and had taken the child to the doctor and dentist. Therefore, the evidence did not establish that the return of the child posed an imminent risk to his life or health, since the offending circumstances had been remedied … . Matter of Saad A. (Umda M.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08292, Second Dept 12-5-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an adverse inference jury instruction, not striking the answer, was the appropriate sanction in this negligent supervision case. Plaintiffs, coguardians of a blind and disabled adult (Nicholas), alleged negligent supervision and training of an employee (Escajadillo) of the respite care facility where Nicholas fractured his leg. Rosa’s employment records had been negligently destroyed by the facility:

Striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct and, in order to impose such a sanction, the court ” will consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . In contrast, where the moving party has not been deprived of the ability to establish his or her case or defense, a less severe sanction is appropriate … . Where evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed, adverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate … .

Here, because the plaintiffs asserted causes of action alleging negligent training and supervision, the defendants’ knowledge of any prior wrongdoing by its employees and information concerning their training are issues central to the plaintiffs’ causes of action, and the employees’ personnel files would be critical in determining those issues … . In support of their motion, the plaintiffs established that the defendants improperly failed to “suspend [their] routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents'” … , resulting in the negligent destruction of Escajadillo’s personnel file. However, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were deprived of the ability to establish their case. Accordingly, the drastic sanction of striking the defendants’ answer is not appropriate … , but the lesser sanction of directing that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to Escajadillo’s personnel file is warranted … . Squillacioti v Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08343, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (NEGLIGENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SPOLIATION, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly relied upon the results of a Frye hearing involving the same expert (and judge) in a prior trial. The expert was allowed to testify plaintiff’s injuries could not have been caused by the traffic accident. There was a defense verdict:

“The long-recognized rule of Frye v United States . . . is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field” … . “General acceptance can be demonstrated through scientific or legal writings, judicial opinions, or expert opinions other than that of the proffered expert” … . Further, even if the proffered expert opinion is based upon accepted methods, it must satisfy “the admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case” … .

In this case, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to permit the expert’s testimony without first holding a hearing to determine its admissibility … . “A court need not hold a Frye hearing where[, as in the case at bar,] it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony” … . Moreover, in this particular case, there was a proper foundation for the admission of the expert’s opinion. Shah v Rahman, 2018 NY Slip Op 08342, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))

,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision, student injury case should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff was playing touch football during recess in a designated area near the playground. The student was injured when, outside the designated area, he dove to catch the ball and struck a piece of playground equipment:

… [T]he defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the risk of colliding into the playground equipment located near the edge of the field was inherent in the activity of playing touch football on the field. Although the risks inherent in a sport include those “associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it” … , the playground equipment was not a part of the football field or related to the game… . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged negligent supervision in permitting the students to play football near the playground did not “create[ ] a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . In addition, while the infant plaintiff was a willing participant in the game, in light of his age, it cannot presently be determined as a matter of law that he was aware of and appreciated the risks involved in the activity in which he was engaged … .

Further, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff’s accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, thereby negating any alleged lack of supervision as the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Rather, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff “was participating in a prohibited activity for an extended period of time and more intense supervision may have prevented the accident” … . M.P. v Mineola Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 08119, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed the defense jury verdict in a case preceded by defendant’s guilty plea to endangering the welfare of an incompetent or physically disabled person. It was alleged that defendant (Tiger), a nurse, scalded a 10-year-old severely disabled child (Alejandra) by bathing the child in hot water. After defendant pled guilty she moved set aside her conviction and submitted evidence the child suffered an allergic reaction which was misinterpreted as skin burns. The Appellate Division granted the motion to set aside the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the “actual innocence” defense is not available after a guilty plea. In the subsequent civil trial, plaintiff had brought a motion in limine requesting that the guilty plea be given collateral estoppel effect and that the defendant be prohibited from presenting evidence of the allergic reaction. Supreme Court essentially granted the motion but allowed cross-examination of the plaintiff’s experts about the allergic reaction. The Second Department determined the motion in limine was actually an untimely motion for summary judgment. But in light of the defense verdict, no further action by the appellate court was necessary:

During the trial in this action, the defendants sought to establish that Alejandra’s injuries were not caused by scalding water, relying upon medical records and cross-examining the plaintiff’s expert witnesses as to whether Alejandra’s injuries were the result of toxic epidermal necrolysis (hereinafter TEN), a type of severe skin reaction, purportedly caused by a drug Alejandra had been prescribed prior to the incident in question. Of note, Alejandra’s skin was biopsied at the hospital one day after the incident, and a pathology report, which the defendants did not discover until very late during the litigation, concluded that the biopsy was, inter alia, consistent with a diagnosis of TEN. Tiger has sought to set aside her conviction based upon, inter alia, the conclusions asserted in the belatedly discovered pathology report … . …

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court failed to give the criminal plea proper collateral estoppel effect and that the sole question for the jury should have been the amount of damages. On the eve of trial, the plaintiff sought an in limine ruling, based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel, that Tiger’s criminal plea conclusively established that she was negligent as a matter of law and that her negligence proximately caused Alejandra’s injuries. Further, the plaintiff argued that the defendants should be precluded from introducing any evidence that Alejandra’s injuries were caused by TEN. The court, in effect, granted the plaintiff’s application in part, by submitting only the question of proximate cause to the jury and, thus, in effect, awarding the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Tiger’s negligence. The court further ruled that the defendants were precluded from introducing evidence regarding TEN in their case-in-chief, but permitted them to cross-examine the plaintiff’s experts regarding the medical records concluding that Alejandra’s injuries were caused by TEN.

We agree with the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff’s pretrial application, characterized as one for in limine relief, was the functional equivalent of an untimely motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability … . “[A] motion in limine is an inappropriate substitute for a motion for summary judgment” … . Further, “in the absence of any showing of good cause’ for the late filing of such a motion (CPLR 3212[a]) the Supreme Court should have denied the motion”… . We note that, in light of the verdict in favor of the defendants, we do not otherwise review the propriety of the court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s in limine application. Farias-Alvarez v Interim Healthcare of Greater N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08115, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY  (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY  (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY  (SECOND DEPT))

,

CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that neither plaintiff nor defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this dispute over an plaintiff’s ingress and egress easement over defendants’ land. The court explained the criteria for interpretation of an express easement and a prescriptive easement. The court noted that plaintiff was properly sanctioned for her counsel’s conduct in filing an amended complaint which differed from the complaint approved by the court:

,,, [T]he plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint, arguing, in effect, that the language of the express easement should be amended to include certain curves in the right of way that were necessary to permit utility and delivery trucks to access the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argued that she had obtained a prescriptive easement over the portions of the defendants’ property which underlaid the proposed curves. The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to an expansion of the easement, by prescription or otherwise. …

“Easements by express grant are construed to give effect to the parties’ intent, as manifested by the language of the grant” … . “The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement”… . “Where, as here, an easement provides for the ingress and egress of motor vehicles, it is granted in general terms and the extent of its use includes any reasonable use necessary and convenient for the purpose for which it is created'” … .

“An easement by prescription may be demonstrated by clear and convincing proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period” … . DiDonato v Dyckman, 2018 NY Slip Op 08113, Second Dept 11-28-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (EASEMENTS, CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPRESS EASEMENTS ( CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS (CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) motion to dismiss causes of action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act should have been granted. The underlying action was brought by disabled residents of an adult-care facility which was being closed. The matter settled and the facility closed rendering further proceedings academic. Supreme Court had held that the state claims were moot, but the federal claims were viable under an exception to the mootness doctrine:

The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. That exception permits a court to pass on moot issues when there exists: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . If one or more of these elements is missing, the exception does not apply… .

Here, there is no likelihood of repetition because the issues are fact-specific … . Furthermore, because the issues are fact-specific, they are not substantial and novel … .

The plaintiffs contend that their federal law causes of action are not fact-specific, in that they challenge the validity of the regulations pursuant to which the DOH approves of any closure plan for an assisted living residence … . The plaintiffs contend that the regulations themselves violate the mandate in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act that services be administered in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the resident … . However, this facial challenge to the DOH’s closure regulations is time-barred … .

The issues presented here also do not typically evade review… . An injunction maintaining the status quo was an effective procedure here and would be in a future case raising similar issues. The issues here only became moot when the plaintiffs voluntarily opted to settle their claims against the LLC … . Berger v Prospect Park Residence, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08110, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The mortgage included conditions precedent to the acceleration of the debt and plaintiff’s papers did not demonstrate satisfaction of the conditions precedent:

The mortgage required that the lender give notice of a date by which the borrower must correct a default in order to avoid acceleration. It further required that the date specified in the notice “be at least 30 days from the date on which the notice is given.” The mortgage also provided that notice by first-class mail “is considered given” on the date mailed.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with this condition precedent to accelerating the mortgage. Specifically, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff presented conflicting evidence as to whether it mailed the notice at least 30 days before the date specified in that notice. Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s own evidence submitted in support of the motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff complied with the 30-day notice provision, the plaintiff’s motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. FSB v Yisroel, 2018 NY Slip Op 08174, Second Dept 11-28-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORECLOSURE, (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the action stemming from plaintiff church’s defrocking and ejecting defendant nun from a convent was not justiciable in the New York courts because inquiry into religious doctrine or practice was required. Defendant nun had complained about sexual harassment by a priest and alleged she was retaliated against by the plaintiff church:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” … . A court may, however, properly preside over a dispute involving a religious body only when the dispute may be resolved utilizing neutral principles of law … .

Here, the summary proceedings for eviction and the action, inter alia, for ejectment are inextricably intertwined with the determinations of the ecclesiastical court, particularly its 2008 determination defrocking the defendant and ordering her to vacate the convent. Therefore, this consolidated action involves review of an ecclesiastical determination that may not be resolved by resort to neutral principles of law … . Moreover, this matter does not involve a purely religious determination requiring this Court to accept the actions of the ecclesiastical court as final and binding … . Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v Sukharevskaya, 2018 NY Slip Op 08167, Second Dept 11-28-18

RELIGION (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELIGION, (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation back doctrine did not apply to an attempt to amend the answer to add a fraud cause of action against Tam, an officer of plaintiff corporation, because Tam and the corporation were not united in interest. Tam had signed the contract at issue as an officer, not in his individual capacity:

” The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim 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'” … . The original counterclaim asserted against the plaintiff alleged that plaintiff breached contractual obligations for which Tam—an officer of the corporation—was not individually liable … . “There is no legal theory of vicarious liability for breach of contract” by “an agent of a disclosed principal” … . Tam, when signing the contract in issue, did so as president of the plaintiff, and not individually. Therefore, the cross movants are not united in interest. Further, since Tam signed the contract, [defendant] was aware of Tam’s identity at the time the original answer was served. Therefore, failure to join Tam cannot be attributable to a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties … . Thus, the addition of Tam as a party to this action was improper. Roco G.C. Corp. v Bridge View Tower, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08164, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ( FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/UNITED IN INTEREST  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

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