You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Defendant Lucia Wager made a left turn into plaintiff’s path in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1141. The unsourced statement in the medical record concerning plaintiff’s speed was not related to his diagnosis or treatment and should not have been admitted:

… [T]he plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that Lucia Wager violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when she made a left turn directly into the path of the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle. Lucia Wager was negligent in failing to see what was there to be seen, and in attempting to make a left turn when it was hazardous to do so … . Regardless of who entered the intersection first, the injured plaintiff, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Lucia Wager would obey traffic laws which required her to yield … . In opposition, the defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Lucia Wager had a nonnegligent explanation for colliding with the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle  … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the statement contained in the injured plaintiff’s medical record as to how fast his motorcycle was traveling at the time of the collision was not admissible as an admission, since the source of the information was not identified and it did not contain information that was germane to his diagnosis or treatment … . Ming-Fai Jon v Wager, 2018 NY Slip Op 07304, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ( DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL RECORDS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL RECORDS (NEGLIGENCE, STATEMENTS , DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/ADMISSIONS (NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL RECORDS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant general contractor’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by plaintiff subcontractor, based upon the subcontractor’s failure to allege it was licensed to do home improvement work, should have been granted:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3015(e), a complaint that seeks to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract or to recover in quantum meruit for home improvement services is subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) if it does not allege compliance with the licensing requirement” … . Moreover, a home improvement contractor who fails to possess and plead possession of a valid license as required by relevant laws may not commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien … .

Here, the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was duly licensed in the Town of East Hampton at the time the services were rendered … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff did not dispute that it did not possess the necessary license. The plaintiff’s contention that the work it performed was not for home improvement but, rather, was for the construction of a new home for which a home improvement contracting license was not necessary, is without merit. The Town Code defines “home improvement” as including, inter alia, “[n]ew home construction” … . Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants are entitled to the protection of CPLR 3015(e) and the applicable licensing requirements … . Kristeel, Inc. v Seaview Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07296, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3015 (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS (PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MECHANIC’S LIENS (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LICENSES, HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES  (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant town did not demonstrate the hump over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell was open and obvious. Therefore the town’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The Town had installed a drain to keep water off this particular ballfield and covered the drain with asphalt, creating a hump. This hump extended to the area between the players’ benches and the entrance to the ballfield on the third base side. The injured plaintiff was attempting to move through the entrance on the third base side when he tripped and fell over the hump. …

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition … . There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of [his or her] senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, the Town failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition of the hump was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . In support of the motion, the Town submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the testimony of the injured plaintiff at his hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and at his deposition. The injured plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, the hump was completely covered with dirt and sand and players were standing around it, thus obscuring his view of the hump. Since the Town failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to submit evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact … . Dillon v Town of Smithtown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department determined a stipulation of settlement entered by plaintiff’s attorney was a binding contract. The fact that plaintiff changed her mind before the stipulation was filed was of no consequence. Plaintiff made no effort to demonstrate the contract was invalid due to duress, fraud, mistake or overreaching:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. CPLR 2104 provides that, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” Here, there is no dispute that on October 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s former counsel had actual authority from his client to enter into the stipulation discontinuing the action on her behalf … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff’s intent to discontinue the action as of October 30, 2015, notwithstanding that she changed her mind prior to the filing of the stipulation on November 2, 2015 … , even though it did not effect a discontinuance until it was filed with the clerk of the court on November 2, 2015 (CPLR 3217[a][2]). In seeking to vacate the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, mistake, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable … . Demetriou v Wolfer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07288, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2103, CPLR 3217 (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT)

, , ,

DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof of damages stemming from the alleged breach of a home improvement contract, and the restitution and punitive damages awards were improper. The statutory General Business Law awards, including attorney’s fees, were applicable:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving damages for breach of contract. The appropriate measure of damages for breach of a home improvement contract by the contractor for defective construction is the cost to repair the defects … , as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Here, the plaintiff did not proffer competent evidence to establish her costs to repair the defendants’ defective work as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Accordingly, the damages award in the sum of $9,358.96 for breach of contract must be set aside.

We also agree with the defendants that the jury improperly awarded the sum of $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, representing the total sum paid by the plaintiff under the home improvement contract before the defendants abandoned the project, since restitution damages are not provided for under that statute … .

Further, we agree with the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages. Although the jury found that the defendants were liable for breach of contract, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was egregious, directed toward the plaintiff, and part of a pattern directed at the public … . Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff’s case rested on allegations of fraud, she failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was so gross, wanton, or willful, or of such high moral culpability, as to justify an award of punitive damages … . Crippen v Adamao2018 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 10-31-18

CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action were property dismissed. Although defendant (Domnitser) may not have intended to strike plaintiff in an altercation with others, the complaint alleged only intentional conduct by the defendant:

Although “the same act may constitute battery or negligence depending on whether or not it was intentional, . . . there cannot be recovery for both”… . As such, “if the only inference that may be drawn from plaintiff’s evidence is that defendant’s contact with plaintiff was intentional, plaintiff may recover only in battery and the issue of negligence should not be submitted to the jury”. Accordingly, “[o]nce intentional offensive contact has been established, the actor is liable for battery, not negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of Domnitser’s intentional acts which were directed toward third parties during the physical altercation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, even if Domnitser lacked any intent to make physical contact with, or otherwise injure, the plaintiff, the conduct attributed to Domnitser in the amended complaint, even as amplified by the plaintiff’s affidavit, constituted intentional, rather than negligent, conduct … . …

“A cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires a plaintiff to show a breach of a duty owed to him [or her] which unreasonably endangered his [or her] physical safety, or caused him [or her] to fear for his [or her] own safety” … . A negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action “must fail where, as here, [n]o allegations of negligence appear in the pleadings'” … . Borrerro v Haks Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07282, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NEGLIGENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case should have been granted. Infant plaintiff, Deb B, a special education student, alleged she was sexually assaulted by another special education student outside the school building before classes started. Deb B.’s education plan did not provide for a school aide to escort her to school from the bus or between classes:

After arriving at school one morning, she entered the building in the company of JG, another special education student who had been a passenger with her on the same school bus. After stopping by the school’s cafeteria, and before the first-period class, JG asked Deb B. to accompany him outside the school building to the bleachers near the athletic field, and Deb B. agreed to do so. Deb B. alleges that JG then sexually assaulted her while they were on the bleachers. …

“Under the doctrine that a school district acts in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty’ to the students themselves” … . Thus, schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “Schools are not, however, insurers of students’ safety and cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students'” … . “The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information” … . …

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted evidence that Deb B.’s individualized education plan did not provide for a school aide to escort her from the school bus to the school building or to escort her throughout the building as she moved between classes. Deb B.’s mother testified that she was aware that Deb B. was not so escorted, and that she had no expectation that this would be done. The evidence submitted by the defendants also indicated that Deb B. had no history of leaving the school building improperly. Finally, neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars alleged that JG had a propensity to engage in dangerous conduct, or that the defendants knew or should have known of any such propensity … . Deb B. v Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 07280, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the denial of a cross motion as untimely was improper because plaintiff did not mail the motion papers 21 days before the return date:

The plaintiff served its motion by regular mail on March 17, 2016, with a return date of April 6, 2016. In order to make effective its demand for seven days’ notice of answering papers or a cross motion (see CPLR 2214[b]; CPLR 2215), the plaintiff was required to have mailed its motion papers at least 21 days prior to the return date (seeCPLR 2103[b][2]; CPLR 2214[b]… ). The plaintiff mailed its motion papers only 20 days before the return date. Thus, the cross motion, which was served six days before the return date, was timely (see CPLR 2215). Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP v Mandel, 2018 NY Slip Op 07349, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CROSS MOTIONS (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2013, 2014, 2015 (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

,

TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed the counts of the sexual-offense indictment which were rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence. The counts alleging sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was 13 were not duplicitous on the face of the indictment, but the complainant testified sexual intercourse occurred at least 20 times during each month alleged in the relevant counts. The convictions for the counts where the complainant testified only one act occurred were upheld:

Counts 28 through 47 and counts 49 through 58 of the indictment are valid on their face. However, at trial, the complainant testified that when she was 13 years old, the then 26-year-old defendant had sexual intercourse with her and engaged in oral sex with her at least 20 times per month, i.e., at least 20 times during the one-month period encompassed by each of those counts. Thus, the complainant’s testimony demonstrated that each of those counts was premised upon multiple acts of rape and criminal sexual act, and they are, therefore, void for duplicitousness … . Accordingly, we vacate the convictions of rape in the second degree under counts 28 through 47 of the indictment and criminal sexual act in the second degree under counts 49 through 58 of the indictment, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and dismiss those counts in the indictment.

The defendant was also charged under count 27 of the indictment with committing rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30[1]) by, being 18 years old or more, engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with a person less than 15 years old between March 11, 2011, and March 31, 2011. Count 48 of the indictment charged the defendant with committing criminal sexual act in the second degree …  by, being 18 years old or more, engaging in oral sexual conduct with a person less than 15 years old between March 11, 2011, and March 31, 2011.

Where a crime, such as rape or criminal sexual act, “is made out by the commission of one act, that act must be the only offense alleged in the count” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, counts 27 and 48 of the indictment were not duplicitous on their face, since they each charged the defendant with a single act … . Further, since the complainant testified at trial that a single act of rape and a single oral sexual act occurred during the period of March 11, 2011, to March 31, 2011, acts which formed the basis of counts 27 and 48 of the indictment, these counts are not duplicitous … . People v Gerardi, 2018 NY Slip Op 07325, Second Dept 10-31-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS,  TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/DUPLICITOUS INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/RAPE (DUPLICITOUS INDICTMENT, TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))

COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the company which hired plaintiff’s employer, New York Plumbing, and the property owner,, Park Plaza, were liable for plaintiff’s fall, pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). New York Plumbing was liable because it had the authority to supervise plaintiff’s work, even if it did not exercise that authority. Park Plaza was not entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against New York Plumbing because it did not demonstrated New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff fell from the top of a temporary oil storage tank which was being emptied and cleaned:

Contrary to New York Plumbing’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that New York Plumbing had the authority to exercise control over the plaintiff’s work, even if it did not actually do so, and that New York Plumbing was therefore a proper defendant under the Labor Law … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) when he was injured … .

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the Park Plaza defendants [the property owner] and New York Plumbing. The plaintiff submitted evidence that he fell from a 12-to 16-foot high surface, and that he had not been provided with safety devices to protect him from such a fall … . …

The plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) … . The Park Plaza defendants and New York Plumbing failed to establish, prima facie, that a slippery condition on the oil tank was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall … .

Finally, the Park Plaza defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cross claim for common-law indemnification against New York Plumbing, as their submissions did not establish, prima facie, that New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over the plaintiff’s work … . Padilla v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07317, Second Dept 10-31-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (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