You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS WHICH REPEAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT ARE “SUPPLEMENTAL,” NOT “AMENDED,” COMPLAINTS; DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ANSWER THE INITIAL COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure proceeding was not in default. The defendant answered the first complaint but did not answer two subsequent complaints which were designated “amended complaints,” Amended complaints require an answer, but “supplemental complaints” do not require an answer. Here the “amended complaints” merely repeated the allegations in the original complaint, making them “supplemental,” not “amended,” complaints:

“Generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original pleading, the defendant’s original answer has no effect, and a new responsive pleading is substituted for the original answer. In contrast, a supplemental complaint does not supersede the original pleading and the answer which had already been served at the time the supplemental pleading was interposed remains in effect” … . Here, insofar as asserted against the defendant, the purported amended complaints merely repeated the same allegations against the defendant that were made in the original complaint and, thus, are properly characterized as supplemental complaints … . As the defendant had already answered the allegations asserted, no further answer was required within the meaning of CPLR 3025(d). Thus, the defendant was not in default. U.S. Bank N.A. v Deblinger, 2025 NY Slip Op 01126, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: “Amended” complaints require a new answer, “supplemental” complaints do not. Here, although the subsequent complaints were designated “amended,” they in fact were “supplemental” because they merely repeated the allegations in the first complaint.

 

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic stop was proper (inoperable brake light) but the search of defendant’s person, based on the odor of marijuana, was not:

… [T]he officer’s testimony was insufficient to establish that there was probable cause for the search of the defendant’s person. As the law existed in 2020, “the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, [was alone] sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, however, the officer did not testify that he had any training or experience in detecting the odor of marihuana … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. People v McLeod, 2025 NY Slip Op 01108, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Under the law as it was in 2020, the search of a person could be justified by the odor of marijuana, but only if the officer was qualified by training and experience to recognize the odor of marijuana. Here the officer did not testify he was qualified to recognize the odor of marihuana. Therefore, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

,

THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT “SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET OTHER FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES” WAS NOT TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON) AND WAS THEREFORE DELETED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, deleting a condition of probation, determined that the condition that defendant “support dependents and meet other family responsibilities” was not tailored to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon):

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation ‘shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so'” … . “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant’s rehabilitation'” … .

Here, under the circumstances of this case, Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,” was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life … . People v Sobers, 2025 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Probation conditions must be tailored to the offense to which defendant pled guilty. Here the condition that defendant support dependents and meet family responsibilities was not relevant to the offense (criminal possession of a weapon).​

 

THE FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH SERVED AS A PREDICATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER DESIGNATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM INVOLVED BE OPERABLE; THE RELEVANT NEW YORK FELONY OFFENSE INCLUDES OPERABILITY AS AN ELEMENT; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A VALID PREDICATE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second-felony-offender designation, determined the federal crime constituting the predicate offense was not a felony in New York  One of the elements of the relevant New York felony was that the firearm involved in the offense be operable. That element was missing from the federal offense:

“Penal Law § 70.06 requires the imposition of enhanced sentences for those found to be predicate felons” … . Among other criteria, for the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction, the conviction must have been in New York of a felony, “or in any other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed” (Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][i]). “Since New York authorizes sentences exceeding one year only for felonies, the second prong of this statutory test requires an inquiry to determine whether the foreign conviction has an equivalent among New York’s felony-level crimes” … . “As a general rule, this inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes’ elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable … and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 00977, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s prior federal offense did not require that the firearm involve be operable. The corresponding New York felony requires operability. Therefore the federal offense could not serve as a predicate offense for a second-felony-offender designation.

 

, ,

DENYING FATHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY AND HIS RIGHT TO A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied father’s request for an adjournment of the custody modification proceedings. Father was effectively denied his right to testify:

“The granting of an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the hearing court upon a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” … . “The determination to grant or deny an adjournment will not be overturned absent an improvident exercise of discretion” … . While adjournments are within the discretion of the hearing court, the range of that discretion is narrowed where a fundamental right of the parties is involved … . Generally, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody and visitation order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required, where due process requires that a parent be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard … .

After balancing the relevant factors, we find that under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s request for an adjournment, as the court’s denial of the requests for adjournment deprived the father entirely of his right to testify on his own behalf in the custody modification hearing, thereby depriving him of a full and fair evidentiary hearing … . Matter of Panizo v Douglas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00966, Second Dept, 2-19-25

Practice Point: Although the decision to grant or deny a request for an adjournment is discretionary, here the denial of the request effectively deprived father of his right to a full and fair evidentiary hearing in this custody modification proceeding, requiring reversal.

 

, ,

BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case against a school (Central Yeshiva), determined the complaint did not state causes of action for negligence or negligent retention of the teacher (Charitonov) who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiff. Bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse are not enough to avoid dismissal:

Here, the complaint failed to state causes of action alleging negligence and negligent retention, supervision, and direction against Central Yeshiva, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity to commit the alleged wrongful acts and failed to provide any factual allegations from which it could be inferred that Central Yeshiva had prior notice of similar conduct at its dormitory … . The complaint merely asserted bare legal conclusions that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity for improper conduct without providing any factual allegations that Charitonov’s abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate any basis to allow him to conduct discovery prior to directing dismissal of those causes of action (see CPLR 3211[d] …). Doe v Educational Inst. Oholei Torah, 2025 NY Slip Op 00948, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case against a school stemming from the abuse of a child by a teacher, bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse do not state a cause of action for negligence or negligent retention. The complaint must include supporting factual allegations.

 

, ,

WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action was subject to a three-year, not a six-year, statute of limitations and was time-barred:

“‘New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims'” … . Rather, “[t]he statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought” … . Generally, “[a] cause of action [alleging] breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a six-year statute of limitations where the relief sought is equitable in nature (see CPLR 213[1]), or by a three-year statute of limitations where the only relief sought is money damages (see CPLR 214[4])” … . “Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” … . “The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . Berejka v Huntington Med. Group, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 00942, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where the relief sought for breach of fiduciary duty is equitable, or where fraud is an essential element, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Where the only relief sought is money damages, the applicable statute of limitations in three years.

 

,

WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE, RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC WHERE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO COURT-ORDERED DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Although plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, no 90-day notice had been served nor had the court ordered dismissal of the action:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “In the absence of those two circumstances, the court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue” … . Adams v Frankel, 2025 NY Slip Op 00939, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where plaintiff fails to fails to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic where no 90-day notice has been served and dismissal has not been ordered by the court.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action should not have been dismissed because it was in the form of a proceeding rather than an action. Supreme Court should have converted the proceeding into the proper form:

The petitioner commenced this purported proceeding by the filing of an order to show cause and a petition, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice. In opposition to the order to show cause and the petition, the respondent submitted an affirmation of counsel, in which counsel argued, among other things, that the proceeding should be dismissed because it was not brought in the proper form. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Although this matter was improperly commenced in the form of a proceeding instead of an action, dismissal is not required. “Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), a proceeding should not be dismissed ‘solely because it is not brought in the proper form,’ and the court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form” … . Accordingly, we convert this proceeding into an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice, with the order to show cause deemed to be the summons and the petition deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] …), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the respondent an opportunity to serve and file an answer within 20 days of service upon it of this decision and order with notice of entry … . Matter of Robinson v NYU Langone Hosps., 2025 NY Slip Op 00870, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: A proceeding brought in the wrong form can be converted to the proper form by the court pursuant to CPLR 103 (c).

 

, , , ,

THE 2024 AMENDMENTS WHICH SET A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT APPLY TO CLAIMS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the 2024 amendments (the “chapter amendments”), which set forth a standard for determining claims alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment, applied retroactively to claims pending when the amendments were enacted and are constitutional:

First, we must determine whether so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment unit applies to actions such as this one, which were commenced before the effective date of the chapter amendments but were pending before a court on the effective date. We hold that it does.

Next, we must determine whether the defendant established that so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment unit is unconstitutional on its face or whether it would be unconstitutional to apply that portion of the chapter amendments to this action. We hold that the defendant did not establish that the relevant portion of the chapter amendments is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this action.

Finally, applying the standard set forth in the chapter amendments, we must determine whether the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartment units such that the formula set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §§ 2522.6(b)(3) and 2526.1(g) (hereinafter the default formula) should be used to calculate the legal regulated rent and any rent overcharges. We hold that the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-13-25

 

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