You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother's guardianship petition should not have been dismissed simply because paternity had not been established. Mother was seeking special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for her child:

… [M]other filed a petition … to be appointed the guardian of the subject child for the purpose of obtaining an order, inter alia, so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) … . In an order dated April 9, 2018, the Family Court dismissed the petition, without a hearing, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action because the putative father's paternity had not been established. …

We disagree with the Family Court's determination to dismiss the petition, in which the mother sought to be appointed guardian of her child. A natural parent may be appointed guardian of his or her child (see Family Ct Act § 661[a]…), and the mere fact that paternity has not been established for the putative father does not preclude the mother's guardianship petition … .

Accordingly, since the Family Court dismissed the guardianship petition without conducting a hearing or considering the child's best interests, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court … for an expedited hearing and a new determination thereafter of the guardianship petition … . Matter of Olga L.G.M. (Santos T.F.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06093, Second Dept 9-19-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY LAW, (MOTHER'S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))

CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE’S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a contract provision about the use of property by a Catholic school (CTK) was ambiguous about other allowed uses (daycare, charter school, etc.) and therefore the plaintiff's (the Diocese's) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

It cannot be said that the language of the 1976 Agreement requiring CTK to “maintain and operate a Catholic high school in and upon the entire premises herein described and . . . use the same for no other purpose not customarily or usually associated with such use” has ” a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion,'” particularly given the time that has passed and the changes in circumstances since the negotiation of the 1976 Agreement… . CTK came forward with evidence of other instances where unused or underused portions of Catholic schools were rented to charter schools, raising a triable issue of fact as to whether such a use is customarily and usually associated with the operation of a Catholic school under the budgetary and enrollment constraints currently facing schools within the Diocese. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v Christ the King Regional High Sch., 2018 NY Slip Op 06130, Second Dept 9-19-18

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE'S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the student-petitioner's due process rights were not violated when the state college (SUNY Purchase] refused to adjourn a disciplinary hearing because petitioner's attorney could not be present. Petitioner was accused of having sex with another student without her consent. After the hearing the petitioner was found responsible and expelled. The dissent argued that the failure to grant the requested three-hour adjournment so petitioner's counsel could attend the hearing deprived petitioner of due process:

In disciplinary proceedings at public colleges, ” [d]ue process requires that the [accused students] be given the names of the witnesses against them, the opportunity to present a defense, and the results and finding of the hearing'” …  Due process does not require colleges to provide accused students with legal representation at disciplinary hearings … . Purchase's rules, the legality of which the petitioner does not challenge, allow for an attorney to be present and advise an accused student at a disciplinary hearing, but not to represent the student or interact with anyone at the hearing other than the accused student. Here, the petitioner had hired an attorney as of September 30, 2014. … [t]he petitioner was notified on September 30, 2014, that the hearing would likely be scheduled for October 6 or 7, and was informed of the exact time of the hearing on October 2, 2014. He alleges that he did not request an adjournment until “on or about” October 5, 2014, which was two days before the date of the hearing. Under these circumstances, contrary to the suggestion of our dissenting colleagues, the petitioner was not denied the opportunity to have an attorney present at the hearing … .

Purchase's determination that the petitioner committed the charged violations was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]…).

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the penalty of expulsion was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see CPLR 7803[3]…). Matter of Bursch v Purchase Coll. of the State Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 06090, Second Dept 9-19-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (DISCIPLINARY CHARGES, STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE'S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT))

,

HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant's (RB Juice's] truck was a proximate cause of the vehicle accident which injured plaintiff. Although the police report indicated the truck was not a proximate cause, the officer did not witness the collision and therefore the officer's conclusions were inadmissible hearsay:

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … , and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, RB Juice failed to establish, prima facie, that its truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. In support of the motion, RB Juice submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, her husband, its employees, and the responding police officer, as well as a copy of the police accident report prepared by the responding police officer. The evidence submitted by RB Juice revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as what its box truck was doing at the time of the accident and how the accident occurred … . With respect to the deposition testimony of the responding police officer, who did not witness the accident, about the section of the police accident report in which he identified “passing or lane usage improper” by the plaintiff as a contributing factor to the happening of the accident, and attributed no contributing factors to the operation of the box truck, such testimony and the related section of the police accident report constituted inadmissible hearsay. Since the source of the information contained in this section of the police accident report was not identified, it could not be established whether the source of the information had a duty to make the statement or whether some other hearsay exception applied … . Further, that information bore directly on the ultimate issue to be decided by the factfinder … . Ardanuy v RB Juice, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06074, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (HEARSAY, (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE REPORT, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, HEARSAY IN POLICE REPORT ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the abutting property owners (Lomangino and Joro) and the city were entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The raised concrete with bolts coming out of it, over which plaintiff allegedly tripped, was the base of a lamp post which was never replaced. The object was not part of the sidewalk, so the property owners were not required to maintain it. The city did not have written notice of the defect, so it was not liable. Con Ed, however, was not entitled to summary judgment because it submitted Lomangino's deposition in which he testified Con Ed had installed the object:

Lomangino and Joro established, prima facie, that the defect upon which the plaintiff tripped was not part of the sidewalk within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210… . Lomangino and Joro also established that Lomangino did not create the allegedly dangerous condition, that the condition was not the result of his negligent repair, and that Lomangino did not make any special use of the subject area … . …

The plaintiff also contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the City defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them because (1) the prior written notice law is inapplicable, and (2) there are triable issues of fact as to whether the City defendants created the defective condition by knocking down the former lamppost during snowplow operations in the winter of 1998. “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) limits the City's duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location”… . Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the prior written notice rule includes “any encumbrances” or “attachments” to the sidewalk (Administrative Code § 7-201[c][2]), and thus encompasses the lamppost foundation at issue here … . Madonia v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06088, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/UTILITIES (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A LAMP POST BASE IN THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CON ED INSTALLED THE BASE AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a stipulation of settlement was properly enforced because the attorney had the apparent authority to sign the stipulation on the client’s behalf:

“An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him [or her] or his [or her] attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered” (CPLR 2104). A stipulation of settlement signed by an attorney may bind his or her client even if it exceeds the attorney’s actual authority if the attorney had apparent authority to act on his or her client’s behalf … . Here, the plaintiff is bound by the stipulation of settlement signed by her former attorney, as the record supports the finding that even if the attorney lacked actual authority to enter into the stipulation of settlement on the plaintiff’s behalf, he had apparent authority to do so (see CPLR 2104 …). Anghel v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06073, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (ATTORNEYS, STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT)/STIPULATION (ATTORNEYS, AGENCY, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (AGENCY, ATTORNEYS, STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2104 (STIPULATION, ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN AN ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this foreclosure action, noted that the statute limitations defense is waived if not raised in an answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss:

In July 2014, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendant Anthony Palazzotto. Palazzotto defaulted in answering or appearing, and the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference. Palazzotto opposed the motion, and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred … . He argued that the debt was accelerated in 2008, when a prior action was commenced to foreclose the same mortgage. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, and granted Palazzotto's cross motion. …

The plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to a default judgment and an order of reference by submitting proof of service of a copy of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the causes of action, including that the defendant defaulted on his payment obligations, and proof that neither he nor any of the other defendants had otherwise appeared or answered the complaint within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321[1]; CPLR 3215[f]…).

Palazzotto waived a statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in an answer or in a timely pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 3211[a][5]…). 21st Mtge. Corp. v Palazzotto, 2018 NY Slip Op 06072, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN AN ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN AN ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF’S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the delay in complying with a conditional discovery order did not justify Supreme Court's refusing to vacate the dismissal and allow the amendment of plaintiff's bill of particulars. The delay was short and the law office failure excuse was adequate:

“To obtain relief from a conditional order of preclusion, the defaulting party must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to produce the requested items and the existence of a potentially meritorious claim or defense” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in concluding that the law office failure of the plaintiff's former counsel was not a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's short delay in complying with the directives of the conditional order … . Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action to recover lost wages … .

Further, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars to allege that she had sustained property damage as a result of her alleged exposure to toxic mold and fungi at the defendants' premises. “Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . “Where this standard is met, [t]he sufficiency or underlying merit of the proposed amendment is to be examined no further'” … . Here, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the defendants, since the proposed amendment arose out of the same facts as those set forth in the complaint … . Liese v Hennessey, 2018 NY Slip Op 06087, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))

,

SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined (1) seller did not demonstrate the time of the essence letter gave buyer sufficient time and (2) seller did not demonstrate the ability to close on that date. Therefore seller's motion for summary judgment in this specific performance action was properly denied:

In order to make time of the essence, “there must be a clear, distinct, and unequivocal notice to that effect giving the other party a reasonable time in which to act”… . “What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case” … . “Included within a court's determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number of days provided for performance” … . “The determination of reasonableness must by its very nature be determined on a case-by-case basis” … . “[T]he question of what constitutes a reasonable time is usually a question of fact” … .

Here, the seller failed to establish, prima facie, that the time of the essence letter provided the buyer with a reasonable time within which to close … . Furthermore, the seller's submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the property was the subject of ongoing administrative proceedings, in violation of the contract of sale, which could be completely resolved at the scheduled closing or within a reasonable time thereafter … . Under these circumstances, the seller failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it was ready, willing, and able to convey title in accordance with the contract of sale … . Rodrigues NBA, LLC v Allied XV, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06129, Second Depy 9-19-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/ CONTRACT LAW (REAL PROPERTY, SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))PURCHASE AGREEMENT (REAL PROPERTY, SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL PROPERTY, SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL PROPERTY, SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS’ LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the defendant insurer should have been granted. Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with the insureds [Onwuzurulke and Noel]. The defendant insurer disclaimed coverage on the basis of the insureds' alleged lack of cooperation with the investigation. The Second Department held that insurer did not demonstrate the lack of cooperation on the part of one of the insureds and did not make a timely disclaimer:

“To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured's cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured's cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction” … . ” [M]ere efforts by the insurer and mere inaction on the part of the insured, without more, are insufficient to establish non-cooperation'” … .

The defendant met these requirements with regard to Onwuzurulke. The defendant hired an investigator to locate Onwuzurulke, the investigator communicated with him, and Onwuzurulke refused to cooperate. However, with regard to Noel, the defendant failed to meet its “heavy” burden of “proving lack of cooperation”… . defendant repeatedly sent letters to an address where Noel did not reside. Further, the defendant's investigator searched for Noel under an incorrect name.

In any event, the defendant's disclaimer of coverage with regard to both Noel and Onwuzurulke was untimely. Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) provides that, when an insurer disclaims liability or denies coverage for bodily injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring within the state, “it shall give written notice as soon as is reasonably possible of such disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant.” “The timeliness of an insurer's disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . “[T]he issue of whether a disclaimer was unreasonably delayed is generally a question of fact, requiring an assessment of all relevant circumstances”… . However, “an insurer's explanation [for the delay in disclaiming] is insufficient as a matter of law where the basis for denying coverage was or should have been readily apparent before the onset of delay”… . Robinson v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 06128, Second Dept 9-19-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS' LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NONCOOPERATION (INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS' LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS' LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS' LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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