You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several 42 USC 1983 causes of action against individual police officers should not have been dismissed. The Second Department noted allegations that individual police officers violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights need not be based upon a municipal policy or custom. Plaintiff alleged the officers fabricated evidence and conspired with the district attorney’s office to deprive him of his right to a fair trial and his right to be free from continued detention:

The plaintiff alleged … that the individual defendants, with knowledge that the plaintiff was not guilty, improperly caused the neup witness to identify the plaintiff as the shooter and thereafter caused him to be prosecuted. … [T]he allegations in the complaint were sufficient to plead the personal involvement of the individual defendants in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial … . Moreover, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that this cause of action was defective for failing to satisfy the “policy or custom” standard. Since the plaintiff was asserting a cause of action against the individual defendants in their individual capacities for an alleged constitutional violation … he was not required to allege facts satisfying that standard … . * * *

… [T]he complaint sufficiently stated a viable cause of action alleging a violation of the plaintiff’s right to be free from continued detention insofar as asserted against the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the individual defendants knowingly concealed, among other things, evidence regarding the improper lineup identification, thereby “suppress[ing] evidence that was favorable to the plaintiff during the criminal proceeding” … . …

[U]nder the intra-corporate or intra-enterprise conspiracy doctrine,” and subject to certain exceptions, employees of “a public entity generally cannot conspire with [other] employees or agents” of the same entity, since “all are considered a single entity” … . Here, however, the doctrine is inapplicable because the plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants, members of the New York City Police Department, conspired with employees of a distinct governmental entity, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office … . Pressley v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06563, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Causes of action asserting the violation of constitutional rights by individual police officers, as opposed to by the police department as a municipal entity, need not allege the violations were pursuant to a department policy or custom.

Practice Point: Although a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights cannot be based upon an agreement among police officers in a single department, it can be based upon an agreement among police officers and district attorneys.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this reforeclosure action:

Where the interest of a necessary party has not been foreclosed upon in a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the purchaser of the foreclosed property has two potential remedies: a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352, or a reforeclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1503. RPAPL 1503 provides … that, when real property has been sold at a foreclosure sale ‘and it appears from the public records or from the allegations of the complaint that such judgment, sale or conveyance was or may have been, for any reason, void or voidable as against any person, including an owner of the real property mortgaged, the purchaser . . . may maintain an action as provided in this article to determine the right of any person to set aside such judgment, sale or conveyance or to enforce an equity of redemption or to recover possession of the property, or the right of any junior mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage'” … . “[T]o prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action ‘was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the [foreclosure] plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he [or she] claims was not actually prejudiced thereby'” … .

Here, US Bank’s [plaintiff’s] predecessor in interest allowed the notice of pendency in the foreclosure action to lapse. During that lapse, Wilkshire obtained and recorded title to the property by a referee’s deed pursuant to the foreclosure of a lien for unpaid homeowners association dues. Subsequently, US Bank filed a new notice of pendency, which was not served upon Wilkshire. Thereafter, US Bank obtained an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the foreclosure action. On its motion for summary judgment in the instant action, US Bank failed to submit any evidence to establish, prima facie, that the defect in the foreclosure action was not due to willful neglect by itself or by its predecessors in interest. Thus, US Bank failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . U.S. Bank N.A. v 18 Wilkshire Circle, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06372, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some discussion of the remedies of “strict foreclosure” and “reforeclosure” under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) where there was some defect in the original foreclosure proceedings.

 

,

WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that there was no time limit for bringing a motion to renew:

Contrary to the court’s determination, “[e]xcept where a motion to renew is based upon a change in the law, which is not the case here, CPLR 2221 does not impose a time limit for making a motion for leave to renew” … . Since the plaintiff’s prior motion had been denied with leave to renew, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate a reasonable justification for his failure to submit the new facts on the prior motion … . Smith v Realty on Fox Croft Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06371, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If a motion to renew is not based upon a change in the law, there is no time limit for bringing the motion.

 

,

A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the issuance of a permanent injunction was error because the injury can be adequately compensated by money damages:

“‘A permanent injunction is a drastic remedy which may be granted only where the plaintiff demonstrates that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction'” …  To establish prima facie entitlement to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) that there was a violation of a right presently occurring, or threatened and imminent; (b) that he or she has no adequate remedy at law; (c) that serious and irreparable harm will result absent the injunction; and (d) that the equities are balanced in his or her favor … . Further, irreparable injury, for the purposes of equity, means any injury for which money damages are insufficient … . In contrast, where an injury can be adequately compensated by money damages, injunctive relief is inappropriate … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to allege any noneconomic damages. Rockefeller v Leon, 2024 NY Slip Op 06370, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If plaintiffs do not allege any noneconomic damages, a permanent injunction is not an appropriate remedy.

 

,

THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) must be given the opportunity to be present during guardianship proceedings:

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian of the person and property of her adult daughter Nima B. R., an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the AIP). At a hearing on the petition, which was conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIP was not present. Although the AIP had indicated to her counsel that she intended to appear, she advised her counsel that she was not feeling well and needed an extra hour to get to the courthouse, and subsequently advised her counsel that she did not feel well and would not be attending. The Supreme Court conducted the hearing in the AIP’s absence, finding that she had “voluntarily absented herself” and noting that she was represented by counsel, had no burden of proof, and was not required to testify. …

Guardianship proceedings, as a drastic intervention in a person’s liberty, must adhere to proper procedural standards … . Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(c) provides that a hearing to determine whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary for an alleged incapacitated person “must be conducted in the presence of the person alleged to be incapacitated,” including at the alleged incapacitated person’s place of residence if necessary … . “There is an ‘overarching value in a court having the opportunity to observe, firsthand, the allegedly incapacitated person'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter … for a new hearing at which the AIP shall be afforded an opportunity to be present and a new determination thereafter. Matter of Nima B.R. (Rae-Garwood), 2024 NY Slip Op 06347, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: An alleged incapacitated person (AIP) has the right to be present at a guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. Here the AIP said she was not feeling well and would not attend. The matter was remitted for a new hearing after affording the AIP the opportunity to attend.

 

, , , ,

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical subcontractor, Mikoma Tech, did not prove it was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. Therefore plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract or under a quantum meruit theory and could not foreclose on mechanic’s liens:

… [T]he complaint … failed to allege that Mikoma Tech was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. As Mikoma Tech was not licensed to perform electrical work in the City, it may not recover against the defendants under a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory and has forfeited the right to foreclose on mechanic’s liens … . Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06332, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The rule requiring a license to perform electrical work in New York City is strictly construed. The unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment and cannot foreclose mechanic’s liens.

 

, , , ,

THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the battery cause of action in this Civil Rights Law (18 USC 1983) case should not have been dismissed. The lawsuit stemmed from the police allegedly pushing plaintiff to the ground, striking her, handcuffing her and tasing her. The 18 USC 1983 cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not prove the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. However, the battery cause of action should not have been dismissed:

However … a jury could rationally conclude that the defendants are liable for battery. “‘To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature'” … . “[A]n assault and battery cause of action may be based on contact during an unlawful arrest” … .

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the detention was not privileged under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, and the trial evidence showed that the officers engaged in contact with the plaintiff during the allegedly unlawful detention. The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to allow the jury to rationally conclude that the two officers were acting within the scope of their official duties at the relevant time. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the cause of action alleging battery … . Mac v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 06330, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: A municipality cannot be held liable pursuant to 18 USC 1983 for the actions of police officers under a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiff must show the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy.

Practice Point: A municipality may be liable for battery committed by police officers acting within the scope of their employment.

 

, ,

ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OR OTHER IMPROPER RESULTS, A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice should have been granted:

The plaintiff and the defendants own abutting real properties located in Brooklyn. In 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants, among other things, erected a concrete wall and planted grass and trees on portions of the plaintiff’s property without the plaintiff’s permission. The defendants, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim for adverse possession of the disputed portions of the plaintiff’s property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. In an order dated November 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice is within the sound discretion of the court … . “Generally such motions should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, as there was no showing of substantial prejudice or other improper results … . KNG Realty NY Co., LLC v Halpern, 2024 NY Slip Op 06329, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If there is no showing of substantial prejudice, a motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted.​

 

,

THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, WAS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE PROPERLY DISCLAIMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the representation that the insured property was a two-family dwelling when, in fact, it was a three-family dwelling, was a material misrepresentation and was a proper basis for denying coverage for fire damage:

“‘[T]o establish its right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must demonstrate that the insured made a material misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented'” … . “‘To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application'” … . “‘[E]ven innocent misrepresentations, if material, are sufficient to allow an insurer to defeat recovery under the insurance contract'” … .

Here, MIC [the insurer] demonstrated, prima facie, that the application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises was a two-family dwelling and that this misrepresentation was material … . … MIC established that the material misrepresentation was attributable to her, since, even if the application for insurance had been submitted without her actual or apparent authority, she ratified the representations contained in the application by accepting the policy for a two-family dwelling … . Estiverne v MIC Gen. Ins. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06327, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: Even an innocent misrepresentation supports the denial of insurance coverage if it was material.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was unaware of the misrepresentation. The court held she ratified the misrepresentation when she accepted the insurance policy.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A LADDER WHICH FELL BECAUSE IT WAS PLACED ON A SLIPPERY MAT; PLAINTFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was working at ground level. A coworker placed a ladder on a mat which was covered with cow manure and started climbing the ladder. The ladder slipped on the mat and fell, hitting plaintiff on the head:

​The failure to properly place and secure the ladder amounted to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Moreover, the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff was injured when the ladder “proved inadequate to shield [him] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . …

… [T]he coworker’s improper placement of the ladder was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) as to sever the causal nexus between the defendant’s statutory violation and the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant work was not a hard hat job or that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection played no role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck in the head by the ladder … .

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm. Slippery surfaces and insecure objects such as bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings.” Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the rubber mat covered with cow manure and hay was not a slippery surface for the purpose of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii). …

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . … When a claim is based on an alleged dangerous condition of a work site, the defendant may be liable where he or she had actual or constructive notice of the condition or created the condition … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . Here, the defendant’s conclusory statements in his affidavit that he did not recall having entered the barn on the day of the accident and that he was unaware of the plaintiff’s accident were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition … . Wright v Pennings, 2024 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A coworker placed a ladder on a slippery mat and the ladder fell and struck plaintiff when the coworker started to climb it. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The coworker’s actions did not sever the causal connection between the statutory violation (an unsecured ladder) and plaintiff’s injuries.

 

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