You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

A COURT’S POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONMOVING PARTY IS LIMITED TO THE CAUSES OF ACTION OR ISSUES IN THE MOTIONS BEFORE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court’s power to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party is constrained by the causes of action or issues raised in the motions before it:

Although the court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the “power to search the record and afford a nonmoving party summary relief is not . . . boundless” … . Thus, “a court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Here, the court improperly considered an issue that was not the subject of the motion before it … . Mejia v 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A court cannot search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or an issue not raised in the motions before it.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ claim that plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason supported defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense in this rear-end collision case:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted his affidavit, in which he averred that his vehicle, after having been stopped at an intersection for approximately 20 to 30 seconds, was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident because he stopped suddenly for no apparent reason … . Martinez v Colonna, 2024 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision, defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly does not rebut the presumption defendant was negligent. But defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason raises a question of fact in support of defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

 

, , ,

THE LANDOWNER ABUTTNG A SIDEWALK IN NYC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK; HERE THE LANDOWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT DID NOT AVER WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landowner failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of snow and ice:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes a nondelegable duty on certain landowners, which includes 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, to maintain sidewalks abutting their land, including the removal of snow and ice …  “[T]he duty applies with full force notwithstanding an owner’s transfer of possession to a lessee or maintenance agreement with a nonowner” … . Landowners, however, are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalk, as “section 7-210 adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation” … .

“A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … .  “A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, did not have constructive notice of the alleged snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish when the sidewalk was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the plaintiff fell … . Marinis v Loschiavo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05970, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code a landowner abutting a sidewalk has a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, which includes removal of ice and snow. The landowner can demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of ice and snow by proof the sidewalk was inspected or cleaned close in time to the slip and fall, not the case here.

 

, ,

IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW SHE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DAMAGES TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint, noted that the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a dismissal motion:

The plaintiffs alleged … that they retained the defendants to represent them in an action to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiff … allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident (hereinafter the underlying action) and that due to the defendants’ failures to pursue a theory based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509(3), the plaintiffs were not able to obtain a verdict in their favor in the underlying action. * * *

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must allege that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney’s negligence” … . “A plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Kowalski v Gold Benes, LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op 05967, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In this legal malpractice case, the court noted the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a motion to dismiss.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint. Therefore the court never had jurisdiction over the defendant:

… [T]he plaintiff was on notice in December 2018 that service upon the defendant allegedly was defective when the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff nonetheless waited nearly 10 months thereafter to move for an extension of time to serve the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion was made more than two months after the hearing before the special referee concluded, even though the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant had been residing in Canada for decades … . Although the statute of limitations had already expired by the time the plaintiff moved for an extension of time, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it diligently prosecuted this action … . “Moreover, . . . the plaintiff submitted no evidence that [the defendant] had actual notice of the action against her within the 120-day service period” … . Further, the plaintiff failed to rebut the inference [*3]of substantial prejudice to the defendant that arose from the protracted delay in obtaining such notice … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant.

Since the defendant was not properly served with the summons and complaint and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time to effectuate service, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service of process. In those instances in which process has not been served upon a defendant, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Labin, 2024 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the analytical criteria for determining whether a motion to extend the time to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint should be granted.

 

, ,

THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT MADE IN BAD FAITH AND DID NOT PREJUDICE THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANT; THEREFORE AMENDMENT OF THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the erroneous incident-date in the notice of claim did not justify dismissal of the action in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The error was not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant:

The Transit defendants … moved … pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … on the ground that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), as it incorrectly listed the date of the accident as March 5, 2016, instead of April 5, 2016, and identified the plaintiff as “Maria Hernandez,” instead of “Maria Hernandez-Panell.” …

General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that a notice of claim set forth … “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident” … . Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, there is no indication that the date originally listed in the notice of claim as the accident date was set forth in bad faith, and the Transit defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the error … . Moreover, the plaintiff supplied the correct date of the accident at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and Public Authorities Law § 1212(5) … . Hernandez-Panell v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Errors in a notice of claim against a municipality should not result in dismissal of the action if the errors were not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant clothing store (Gap) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent-hiring-supervision complaint. Plaintiff alleged a store employee, Medel, attempted to record her on a cell phone as she was changing in a fitting room. The negligent hiring cause of action alleged Gap did not do a background check before hiring Medel, which was alleged to have been in violation of store policy:

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the store defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against them. “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … . Here, the submissions of the store defendants in support of their motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have notice of any propensity of Medel to commit misconduct … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Gap or Old Navy knew or should have known that Medel had a propensity to commit misconduct … . The plaintiff’s contention, via the affidavit of her expert, that neither Gap nor Old Navy appeared to have conducted a background check prior to hiring Medel, as was their apparent internal policy before hiring any employees, is without merit. “There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that a background check of Medel would have revealed a propensity to commit misconduct … . Hashimi v Gap, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A negligent hiring cause of action based on the allegation the employer did not conduct a background check, without more, will not survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must demonstrate the employer knew of facts which should have triggered a background check.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded plaintiff in this property-damage case. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s vehicle struck a brick wall and fence on plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff’s affidavit did not state it was based on first-hand knowledge and the uncertified police report was inadmissible:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . “‘A conclusory affidavit or an affidavit by an individual without personal knowledge of the facts does not establish the proponent’s prima facie burden’ on a motion for summary judgment” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory affidavit, which failed to set forth whether he had firsthand knowledge of the event, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that a vehicle operated by the defendant struck a brick wall and fence located on the plaintiff’s property … . The uncertified police accident report submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion was not admissible … . Felle v Maxaner, 2024 NY Slip Op 05959, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Affidavits which do mot make clear the allegations are based on first-hand knowledge will not support summary judgment.

Practice Point: Uncertified police reports are not admissible.

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to identify police officers as the “John Doe, Jane Doe” defendants in this 18 USC 1983 false arrest and unlawful search case should not have been granted. The statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply—police officers are not united in interest with the city:

CPLR 1024 provides that a “party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.” “Yet, ‘parties are not to resort to the “Jane Doe” procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so. Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the “Jane Doe’s” name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party'” … .

Here, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the defendants were identified in the second amended complaint. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the relation-back doctrine does not apply, because the defendants are not united in interest with the City … . The City “cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983, and there is no unity of interest in the absence of a relationship giving rise to such vicarious liability” … . Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he made diligent efforts to ascertain the defendants’ identities prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations or that the City hindered any such efforts … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s prior orders allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add the then-unknown defendants by name within a certain time period are not binding on these issues. The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind an appellate court … . Agosto v Maria, 2024 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Here the motion to amend the complaint to identify “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants as police officers should have been denied because the statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply because police officers are not united in interest with the city which employs them.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS, RENDERING IT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Buono’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted: Buono’s expert’s affidavit did not address all the allegations in the bill of particulars, rendering it conclusory and speculative:

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must establish, prima facie, either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries” … . “In order to sustain this burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars” … . Here, Buono failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging medical malpractice insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff specifically alleged in his bill of particulars, inter alia, that Buono was negligent in abandoning the plaintiff in the operating room before the procedure was completed. In support of his motion, Buono submitted an affirmation of an expert who opined that Buono did not depart from good and accepted medical practice because, “as an assistant, DR. BUONO was entitled to leave the operating room as soon as his services were no longer required.” That opinion, however, failed to address certain evidence, including medical records and deposition testimony of Brady and Buono, that raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Buono was the assistant or the surgeon performing the procedure. As such, the expert’s opinion is conclusory, speculative, and wholly insufficient to establish Buono’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The expert also failed to establish that Buono’s alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Woehrle v Buono, 2024 NY Slip Op 05815, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action an expert affidavit in support of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment must address all the allegations in the pleadings or it will be deemed conclusory and speculative.

Similar issue and result in Bonocore v Ravindranath, 2024 NY Slip Op 05824, First Dept 11-21-24.

 

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