You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence should not have been denied and an adverse inference jury instruction was appropriate. Plaintiff alleged a “soft-close” mechanism on a van malfunctioned causing her finger to be crushed. After the “soft-close” mechanism was replaced it was destroyed:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The defendant sustained its burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the soft-close automatic door mechanism on the driver’s side door at the time of its destruction in September 2015, when the plaintiff had the mechanism replaced, that the evidence was negligently destroyed before the defendant had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the litigation … . Nevertheless, since the defendant’s ability to prove its defense was not fatally compromised by the destruction of the evidence… , the appropriate sanction for the spoliation herein is not to strike the complaint, but rather to direct that an adverse inference charge be given against the plaintiff at trial with respect to the unavailable evidence … . Richter v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08163, Second Dept 11-28-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE INFERENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this foreclosure action, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that a party (Moreno) was a necessary party and should not have dismissed the complaint against the other defendants on that ground:

Bromley [plaintiff] argues, in effect, that it was denied due process as a result of being unable to contest whether Dual Properties is the fee owner and whether Moreno is a necessary party.

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Here, the record does not support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Moreno’s ownership of the property was “uncontested.” In any event, the court’s determination that Moreno was a necessary party prejudiced Bromley in that “it was never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the remaining defendants for failure to join a necessary party. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Moreno, 2018 NY Slip Op 08107, Second Dept 11-28-18

FORECLOSURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent (worth reading), affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction. The dissent made it clear there was a strong right to counsel issue that, because it involved facts that are not on the record, must be brought in a motion to vacate the conviction. The dissent also argued defendant was deprived of a fair trial because he appeared in the same prison-issue clothes for eight days:

From the Dissent:

Since the Supreme Court was informed at the time of arraignment in Queens County that the defendant had established an attorney-client relationship with Eaddy in both the Kings County and Queens County cases, it was incumbent upon the court to assign her as counsel unless she was not ready, willing, or able to accept the assignment… . At the time of arraignment, there was no risk that Eaddy’s participation would have delayed or disrupted the proceedings, created any conflict of interest, or resulted in prejudice to the prosecution or the defense. To the contrary, Eaddy’s familiarity with the defendant and the case, as well as the defendant’s preference for her as his assigned counsel, would most likely have expedited matters. Indeed, the attorney who was assigned to represent the defendant at the arraignment, Siff, was eventually discharged in March 2011 and replaced with Coppin, with whom the defendant expressed dissatisfaction and requested further substitution.

Instead of inquiring as to Eaddy’s availability at the time of arraignment, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s request for the constitutionally impermissible reason that the defendant was too indigent to pay for her services  … . * * *

Here, there is no question that the clothing worn by the defendant was prison-issued clothing. The defendant wore the same green top and bottom for three days of jury selection and more than five days of trial testimony. Even the Supreme Court described the defendant’s clothing as “that thing.” Based upon the description of the clothes and the fact that the defendant wore the same clothes for at least eight days, a reasonable juror could only conclude that the clothing was prison garb. Given the defendant’s objection to wearing dirty prison clothes, I conclude that he preserved his contention for appellate review, and that, as a matter of law, he was deprived of a fair trial … . People v Ellis, 2018 NY Slip Op 08143, Second Dept 11-28-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, PRISON CLOTHES, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CLOTHES (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department determined the denial of a special use permit for the construction of a gas station was not supported by substantial evidence:

The subject two-acre parcel of land, upon which is located a used auto sales dealership, an automotive repair shop, and an area for the storage of cars and boats, is located in a business district in which gasoline service stations are a permitted use with a special permit. * * *

Unlike a variance, a special permit does not entail a use of the property forbidden by the zoning ordinance but, instead, constitutes a recognition of a use which the ordinance permits under stated conditions … . Thus, the burden of proof on an applicant seeking a special permit is lighter than that required for a hardship variance… . In reviewing a town board’s determination on special permit applications, we are “limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion,” and we “consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the [b]oard’s determination” … . “A denial of a special . . . permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection”… .

Here, the material findings of the Town Board were not supported by substantial evidence. With regard to the alleged increased volume of traffic, there was no showing that the proposed use of a gasoline service station would have a greater impact on traffic than would other uses unconditionally permitted … . While there was evidence that traffic would be increased by 3%, there was no evidence indicating that the proposed use would have any greater impact than would other permitted uses. Thus, the alleged increase in traffic volume was an improper ground for the denial of the special permit. Matter of QuickChek Corp. v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 08136, Second Dept 11-28-18

ZONING (DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMITS (LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC, INCREASED (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Ibrahims, the driver and owner of the second car in a four-car chain-reaction rear-end accident, were entitled to summary judgment. The accident occurred in Pennsylvania but all parties were residents of New York. Supreme Court, sua sponte, held that Pennsylvania law applied and the Ibrahims summary judgment motion must be denied under Pennsylvania law. The Second Department noted that none of the parties raised the choice of law issue and therefore the parties must be deemed to have consented to the applicability of New York law:

The Supreme Court should not have raised the issue of Pennsylvania law of its own accord, and should not have based its determination of the motion on a ground that was neither raised nor briefed by the parties … . “Parties to a civil litigation, in the absence of a strong countervailing public policy, may consent, formally or by their conduct, to the law to be applied” … . By failing to raise a choice of law issue in opposition to Ibrahim’s motion for summary judgment, the codefendants are deemed to have consented to the application of New York law… .

In this case, Ibrahim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he brought his vehicle safely to a stop behind the lead vehicle before being struck in the rear by the Goldman vehicle … . Abdou v Malone, 2018 NY Slip Op 08106, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHOICE OF LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CHOICE OF LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (HE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , , , , ,

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for permission to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. After criminal charges were dismissed, eight months after the deadline for filing a notice of claim, petitioner sought to bring an action alleging violations of 42 USC 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution. The Second Department found that a notice of claim is not required for the 42 USC 1983 action, the statute of limitations had expired on the assault and battery actions, reports documenting an investigation did not provide the city with timely notice of the essential facts of the claim, the excuse for the delay was not reasonable, and petitioner did not show the city was not prejudiced by the delay:

The branch of the petition which sought leave to serve a late notice of claim to assert, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, violations of the petitioner’s federal civil and constitutional rights, should have been denied as unnecessary… . Such a claim is not subject to the State statutory notice of claim requirement … . …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the relevant state law claims within 90 days after they arose or a reasonable time thereafter. Actual knowledge could not be readily inferred from two reports dated June 18, 2015, documenting an internal investigation conducted by the police department to determine how a firearm was allegedly carried into, and concealed within, the station house, that “a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [City]” against the plaintiff … . Moreover, the mere alleged existence of other police reports and records, without evidence of their content, and the involvement of the City’s police officers in the alleged incident, without more, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City … .

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s incarceration did not constitute such an excuse, since the relevant state law claims did not accrue, and the petitioner’s time to serve a notice of claim did not begin to run, until he was released from custody … . Matter of Nicholson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08134, Second Dept 11-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))//MALICIOUS PROSECUTION  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this child support and maintenance arrears proceeding, determined that father was never properly advised of his right to counsel by the support magistrate. It was not sufficient that father was told the matter could be adjourned to allow him to speak to an attorney or that father could get in touch with legal aid:

… [W]hen the father first appeared in the Family Court, the Support Magistrate informed him that he had the right to request an adjournment to hire or speak with an attorney, or he could proceed to represent himself. The father elected to proceed representing himself, and no further advisement or inquiry was made by the court. At the next appearance, the Support Magistrate indicated that she would give the father contact information for the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, but she did not advise the father of his right to have counsel assigned by the court if he was financially unable to retain counsel. Several months later, when the parties appeared for the fact-finding hearing, both pro se, the Support Magistrate again advised the father that he had the right to request an adjournment to hire or speak with an attorney, or he could waive that right and represent himself. The father stated that he would represent himself, no further advisement or inquiry was made, and the fact-finding hearing was held, with both parties proceeding pro se.

By representing himself, the father was necessarily forgoing the benefits associated with the right to counsel … . Although a party may waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation, prior to permitting a party to proceed pro se, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the party’s waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . A waiver is valid where the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel … .

Here, the record demonstrates that the father was not advised of his right to assigned counsel, as required. Further, there is no indication that he validly waived his right to counsel. Under these circumstances, the father was deprived of his right to counsel and reversal is required, without regard to the merits of his position in the enforcement proceeding … . Matter of Gallousis v Gallousis, 2018 NY Slip Op 08129. Second Dept 11-28-18

FAMILY LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FAMILY LAW, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/MAINTENANCE  (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the employment discrimination determination, held that the action against the employer, Food Corp., was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply. Complainant had originally named Trade Fair as her employer and then added Food Corp. more than a year after her termination:

Food Corp. does not dispute that the first prong of the relation-back test was satisfied, because the claims against Food Corp. arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as those asserted against Trade Fair. The complainant also established the third prong of the test by presenting evidence suggesting that Food Corp. had notice of the proceeding before the statute of limitations expired, and that Food Corp. should have known that, but for the complainant’s mistake in omitting it as a respondent in her complaint, the proceeding would have been timely commenced against it as well.

However, the complainant failed to satisfy the second prong of the relation-back test, because Food Corp. and Trade Fair were not united in interest. Respondents are “united in interest only when their interest in the subject-matter [of the proceeding] is such that [the respondents] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other'” … . “[T]he question of unity of interest is to be determined from an examination of (1) the jural relationship of the parties whose interests are said to be united and (2) the nature of the claim asserted against them by the [complainant]” … . Respondents are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a defense different from that of the original party … . Here, the Commissioner dismissed the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against Trade Fair on the grounds that the complainant never interacted with or took direction from Trade Fair’s employees, and that Trade Fair was not the complainant’s employer. In contrast, the Commissioner determined that Food Corp. was the complainant’s employer because Food Corp.’s personnel hired and fired the complainant and controlled the complainant’s daily workplace activities. Thus, the record makes clear that Food Corp.’s and Trade Fair’s interests in the administrative proceeding did not stand or fall together … . Matter of 130-10 Food Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 08123, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the law office failure excuse was insufficient to warrant vacating the order of discontinuance:

While courts have discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice… , “[a] court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgments is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud,] mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … .

Here, the plaintiff asserted that the action was erroneously discontinued by prior counsel due to confusion generated by an impending substitution of counsel. “Where a party asserts law office failure, it must provide a detailed and credible explanation of the default'”… , and conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are insufficient … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the uncorroborated representation by its current counsel that the action was erroneously discontinued by prior counsel did not constitute a detailed and credible explanation warranting vacatur of the order of discontinuance and restoration of the action … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of discontinuance and to restore the action to the active calendar. IndyMac Bank, FSB v Izzo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08014, Second Dept 11-21-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (VACATE DISCONTINUANCE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE, MOTION TO VACATE  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ “law office failure” excuse was sufficient to warrant granting the motion to vacate the default judgments:

“A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), and thereupon to serve a late answer, must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action”… . The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and in the exercise of that discretion, the court may accept law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005… ). Here, the defaulting defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse, based upon law office failure arising from a miscommunication between their former counsel and their present counsel, for their default in answering the complaint or otherwise appearing in the action … .

The defaulting defendants also demonstrated that they had a potentially meritorious defense. …

Under the circumstances here, particularly in light of the evidence that the defaulting defendants’ delay was not willful, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs resulting from the defaulting defendants’ short delay in appearing and seeking to answer the complaint, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defaulting defendants’ motion to vacate their default and to compel the plaintiffs to accept their late answer … . Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avenue C Med., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08010, Second Dept 11-21-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015, CPLR 2005 (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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