You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this dental malpractice case. The doctrine may apply to one of the dentists (Gold) who retired by imputing to him the continued treatment by other dentists:

“Treatment” does not necessarily terminate upon the last visit, if further care or monitoring of the condition is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient, as manifested by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . Thus, “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment'” … . Even the monitoring of an abnormal condition may be sufficient to support the application of the continuous treatment toll … . The critical inquiry is not whether the defendant failed to make a diagnosis or undertake a course of treatment during the period of limitation, but whether the plaintiff continued to seek treatment for the same or related conditions giving rise to his or her claim of malpractice, during that period… . Accordingly, a defendant cannot defeat the application of the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a correct diagnosis as to the underlying condition, if the defendant treated the plaintiff continuously over the relevant time period for symptoms that are ultimately traced to that condition … .

Here, the plaintiff does not claim merely that the moving defendant failed to diagnose her condition and treat her for it … . Rather, she alleged that between 2009 and 2015, she was treated continuously for symptoms ultimately traced to abnormal and severe periodontal disease. Both the plaintiff’s affidavit and her expert’s affidavit, which referred to numerous specific notations in the plaintiff’s dental records, raised triable issues of fact as to whether a course of treatment for periodontal disease was established and therefore the continuous treatment doctrine would apply to toll the statute of limitations … . Cohen v Gold, 2018 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL FROM A FIRE ESCAPE, OPPOSITION PAPERS RAISED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall from a fire escape and defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The cause of the fall alleged in the opposition papers was deemed a feigned issue of fact:

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . The plaintiff's affidavit, in which she identified the cause of her fall as a “rusted metal shard” from the fire escape ladder, which pierced her hand, presented what appears to be a feigned issue of fact, designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony that her hand was “thrown off” the ladder, but she did not know why … . Under these circumstances, it would be speculative to conclude that any of the alleged statutory and building code violations or dangerous conditions set forth in her expert's affidavit, even if fully credited, proximately caused her accident … . Burns v Linden St. Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06876, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL FROM A FIRE ESCAPE, OPPOSITION PAPERS RAISED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT, DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL FROM A FIRE ESCAPE, OPPOSITION PAPERS RAISED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT, DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (FIRE ESCAPE, NEGLIGENCE, LAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL FROM A FIRE ESCAPE, OPPOSITION PAPERS RAISED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT, DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant lessor of a vehicle involved in an accident (BCL) did not demonstrate it could not be liable under the Graves Amendment for negligent maintenance of the vehicle:

Under the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased vehicle will not be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of that vehicle where the owner proves that it is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles and it was not otherwise negligent… . However, “[t]he Graves Amendment does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the alleged failure to maintain a rented vehicle”… . Accordingly, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action, BCL was required to prove not only that it is in the business of leasing vehicles, but also, that it did not negligently maintain the BCL vehicle … .

BCL failed to sustain its prima facie burden, since the affidavit of its litigation specialist failed to address the plaintiff's negligent maintenance theory of liability, and the copy of the lease documents it submitted stated that Wesner was obligated to have the subject vehicle serviced “by a BCL partner dealer” according to a service schedule established by BCL. Casine v Wesner, 2018 NY Slip Op 06714, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/GRAVES AMENDMENT (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))

IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was in the child's best interests to limit the incarcerated father's contact with the child to telephone calls:

The father had last seen the child in 2011 or 2012, when the mother and child visited the father in a detention facility in Brooklyn. The mother testified that the visit was “extremely stressful” for the child, the jail personnel asked the mother and the child to leave multiple times, and the child was unable to sit for any period of time. After the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court denied the father's petition, and, instead, directed that the father have telephone contact with the child. The father appeals.

The paramount concern in making a parental access determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances … . Parental access with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the best interests of a child, even when that parent is incarcerated … . However, that presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that under all the circumstances parental access would be harmful to the child's welfare, or that the right to parental access has been forfeited … . Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination limiting the father's contact with the child to telephone communication. A preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that in-person parental access at the prison would be harmful to the child's welfare … . Matter of Grimes v Pignalosa-Grimes, 2018 NY Slip Op 06740, Second Dept 10-10-18

FAMILY LAW (IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND DEPT))VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND DEPT))

SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment should not have been granted on grounds that could have been raised in the first motion (which was denied). The court further held that the second motion should not have been deemed a motion to renew, for essentially the same reason:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the judgment, since that branch was premised on grounds that were apparent at the time that the defendant made the prior motion to vacate, but had not been asserted in that prior motion … .

To the extent that the Supreme Court treated the defendant's second motion as one for leave to renew, the court should not have granted leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was to vacate the judgment. Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” … . The Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion … . Here, the defendant failed to proffer any justification for the failure to present the new facts on the original motion. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts would have changed the prior determination … . A.G. Parker, Inc. v 246 Rochester Partners, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06711, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE DEFAULT, MOTION TO (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO  (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))

OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that the Rent Administrator's determination that a video surveillance system can be installed to replace part-time lobby attendants:

The Rent Stabilization Code provides that “[a]n owner may file an application to modify or substitute required services, at no change in the legal regulated rent, . . . on the grounds that: . . . such modification or substitution is not inconsistent with the [Rent Stabilization Law] or this Code” (9 NYCRR 2522.4[e]). A modification of services may be made if the proposed change is an “adequate substitute” … . Here, the DHCR's [New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal] determination that the Rent Administrator did not err in finding that the video surveillance system was an adequate substitute for the part-time lobby attendants was rational, and was not arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Bazile v Rubin, 2018 NY Slip Op 06737, Second Dept 10-10-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (BUILDING SECURITY, OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (SECOND DEPT))/SECURITY (LANDLORD-TENANT, BUILDING SECURITY, OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, BUILDING SECURITY, BUILDING SECURITY, OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (SECOND DEPT))

MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the maternal grandmother met the definition of a person legally responsible for the child's (Talia's) care, against who a neglect finding can properly be made:

Child protective proceedings encompass only abuse or neglect by a person who is a parent or other person legally responsible for the child's care … . A person legally responsible is defined as “the child's custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child's care at the relevant time” (Family Court Act § 1012[g]). “A person is a proper respondent in an article 10 proceeding as an other person legally responsible for the child's care if that person acts as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” … . “Determining whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. Factors such as the frequency and nature of the contact between the child and respondent, the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child's environment, the duration of the respondent's contact with the child, and the respondent's relationship to the child's parent(s) are some of the variables which should be considered and weighed by a court” … . However, “article 10 should not be construed to include persons who assume fleeting or temporary care of a child such as a supervisor of a play-date or an overnight visitor or those persons who provide extended daily care of children in institutional settings, such as teachers” … .

Here, we agree with the Family Court's determination that the maternal grandmother was a person legally responsible for the children. The maternal grandmother came to the parents' home every day and slept over regularly, as many as two to three times per week. On the days that she did not sleep over, the maternal grandmother would come over in the morning and would stay until the paternal grandmother arrived in the afternoon. The maternal grandmother fed Talia, changed her diaper and her clothes, and, along with the mother, bathed Talia several times a week. The mother testified that the maternal grandmother took care of Talia while the mother played with Jonah, and the maternal grandmother was alone with Talia whenever the mother napped or did laundry, and that at least one to two times per week from Talia's birth until April 2014, the maternal grandmother was the only person caring for Talia. Matter of Jonah B. (Riva V.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06736, Second Dept 10-10-18

FAMILY LAW (MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT))/PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF CHILD (FAMILY LAW, MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs did not state causes of action for private and public nuisance based upon the alleged effects of a body of navigable tidal water (Henry Street Basin) which is adjacent to plaintiffs’ and defendant’s properties. Plaintiffs alleged a bulkhead built by defendant was falling into disrepair resulting in sinkholes on plaintiffs’ property:

A nuisance is the actual invasion of interests in land, and it may arise from varying types of conduct” … . In the present case, the private nuisance claim is predicated upon the defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining its property. Where “a nuisance has its origin in negligence, negligence must be proven” … . Duty is an essential element of negligence … .

Here, the defendant had no duty to prevent the natural encroachment of public waters upon Sunlight’s property… . The “maxim” that “requires one so to use his lands as not to injure his neighbor’s . . . does not require one lot owner so to improve his lot that his neighbor can make the most advantageous use of his, or be protected against its natural disadvantages” … . Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action sounding in private nuisance … .

The plaintiffs further failed to state a cause of action sounding in public nuisance. “A public nuisance exists for conduct that amounts to a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right of the public, thereby offending public morals, interfering with the use by the public of a public place or endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ mere allegation that “[t]he deteriorated state of the Bulkhead [was] substantially certain to result in an interference with the public’s use or enjoyment of the Henry Street Basin and/or may endanger or injure the health of persons using the Henry Street Basin” was too conclusory and speculative to set forth a viable cause of action sounding in public nuisance. Sunlight Clinton Realty, LLC v Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06783, Second Dept 10-10-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (NUISANCE, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE (PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted as a matter of law (no showing of a meritorious defense was required) and the motion to vacate the note of issue and the certificate of readiness should have been granted as well:

“As a general rule, a defendant who seeks to vacate a default in appearing at a compliance conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the compliance conference on November 29, 2016, including the fact that he had been hospitalized from mid-September to late October 2016 for injuries sustained in a fall. In addition, notice of the conference was sent to the subject property and, although the defendant's grandson resided there, it was never the defendant's residence and the defendant denied any knowledge of the November 29, 2016, conference. The defendant also demonstrated that he did not receive notice of the adjourned conference date of January 24, 2017, and the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that such notice was, in fact, given to him. Under such circumstances, the defendant's nonappearance for the conference on January 24, 2017, could not constitute a default, as there was no failure to perform a legal duty … . “This is analogous to the situation of a defendant who has not been served with process and suffers a default judgment. In both situations, the default' is a nullity along with the remedy the court renders in response” … . As the defendant's default in appearing at the conference on January 24, 2017, is considered a nullity, vacatur of that default ” is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required'” … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have vacated the default and the notice of inquest as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense was required.

In addition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Since the defendant moved for such relief more than 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, he had to show good cause for vacatur (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]). “To satisfy the requirement of good cause,' the party seeking vacatur must demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice'” … . Sposito v Cutting, 2018 NY Slip Op 06782, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS  (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fraud cause of action against the property insurer which had disclaimed coverage should have been dismissed.  Plaintiff was injured on property owned by defendant Kirit and insured by nonparty Liberty Mutual Insurance. The fraud cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations about the insurance coverage made to plaintiff by Kirit properly survived a motion to dismiss. But the fraud cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations by Kirit to Liberty Mutual should have been dismissed:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud are “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages” … . Moreover, where a cause of action is based on fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]… ).

Here, construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations to be true, and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences … , the complaint adequately stated a cause of action alleging fraud based upon the allegations that the defendants knowingly made misrepresentations to the plaintiff regarding insurance coverage for the renovation project. The complaint stated the misrepresentations with sufficient particularity to clearly inform the defendants of the incidents complained of … . However, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations the defendants made to Liberty Mutual, as the plaintiff failed to adequately allege that the misrepresentations were made for the purpose of being communicated to the plaintiff in order to induce his reliance thereon or that these misrepresentations were relayed to the plaintiff, who then relied upon them … . Robles v Patel, 2018 NY Slip Op 06779, Second Dept 10-10-18

FRAUD (COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (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