You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist's suit against the city stemming from injury after running over a pothole should have been dismissed. The defendants established the city did not have prior written notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendants established the City's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through, inter alia, DOT records, that the City did not have prior written notice of the condition alleged as required by the Administrative Code … and that the City did not affirmatively create the condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City received prior written notice of the alleged condition. Although the plaintiff relied upon a map submitted by the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation which had a straight line, indicating “[r]aised or uneven portion of sidewalk,” in the area where the plaintiff's accident occurred, the map did not give the City prior written notice of the pothole condition alleged by the plaintiff … . The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. Allen v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05811, Second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLISTS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/POTHOLES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF A POTHOLE WHICH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN OVER, DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM ‘STATUTORY RAPE’ TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's manslaughter conviction, determined the prosecutor's repeated use of the term “statutory rape” to describe the charge against the victim deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The defendant raised the justification defense. Defendant had been working with the police to capture the victim, who had confessed to the defendant he was wanted for rape. Defendant shot the victim when he was attempting to turn the victim over to the police. By using the term “statutory rape,” the jury was given the mistaken impression that the rape was not a violent offense:

The County Court correctly determined that the use of the term “statutory rape” when describing the victim's alleged criminal conduct was not proper as such a colloquial term may have been misinterpreted by some jurors to mean that the sexual contact between the victim and his alleged victim was consensual, but illegal solely because of the age difference between them. Indeed, the People had initially contended to the County Court that the crime for which the victim was charged, rape in the second degree… , was not a “violent” crime. Here, because the defendant's defense was based on justification, the County Court was properly concerned that use of the term “statutory rape” by the prosecutor may have been interpreted by jurors to imply that the victim was not violent, and thus properly instructed the potential jurors that the victim was a fugitive charged with rape in the second degree. However, the court's failure to issue curative instructions to the entire jury pool, including those already sworn and seated, was error and deprived the defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial … . People v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 05859, Second Dept 8-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM 'STATUTORY RAPE' TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT))

,

ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING ‘A MAN WITH A GUN’ AND DESCRIBING THE MAN’S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined that defendant's motion to suppress the weapon, identification and statements should have been granted. The police stopped the defendant's car and approached with guns drawn on the basis of an anonymous phone call which described “a man with a gun” and described the car the man was driving, including the license plate number. The Second Department determined the anonymous call did not provide the officers with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stopping and frisking a suspect:

“It is fundamental that in order to stop a vehicle the police must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective evidence, that the occupants were involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . “Reasonable suspicion has been defined as that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand'”… .. “[W]here an anonymous phone tip giving a general description and location of a man with a gun' is the sole predicate, it will generate only a belief that criminal activity is afoot,” and “will not of itself constitute reasonable suspicion thereby warranting a stop and frisk of anyone who happens to fit that description”… . “Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her [or his] allegations turn out to be fabricated, an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity'” … . However, “there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop'” … . Further, reasonable suspicion “requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person” … .

Here, while the individual who reported a man with a gun ultimately disclosed his identity to Officer Travitt, his identity was unknown at the time the police stopped the vehicle and ordered the defendant out of the car at gunpoint … . The police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based only on an anonymous tip of “a man with a gun,” since the tip came from an individual ” who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about [the defendant],'” and the report ” [did] not show that the tipster ha[d] knowledge of concealed criminal activity'” … . People v Bailey, 2018 NY Slip Op 05856, Second Dept 8-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUPPRESSION, ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/REASONABLE SUSPICION (CRIMINAL LAW, ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING 'A MAN WITH A GUN' AND DESCRIBING THE MAN'S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action for specific performance and reformation of a real estate purchase contract should have been granted. However the motion to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action was properly denied. The Second Department determined the limitation of remedies in the real estate contract constituted documentary evidence justifying dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The requirements for sufficiently pleading a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation were explained as well:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “An unambiguous contract provision may qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Here, the parties' contract, which limited the plaintiff's remedies in the event that the defendants were unable to clear defects in title, established a complete defense as a matter of law to the first and third causes of action, seeking specific performance and reformation of the contract based upon mutual mistake, respectively … . …

Where a cause of action is based on a misrepresentation or fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]). Here, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging that the defendants misrepresented that they owned 42-55 27th Street and had the right to convey it, that they made this representation despite knowing that it was false, and that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representation to his detriment. Hiu Ian Cheng v Salguero, 2018 NY Slip Op 05831, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants' motions for summary judgment in this swimming pool injury case was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when he dove into the pool allegedly unaware of a shallow area near the deep area. The builder of the pool and the installer of the pool liner (the Bertolino defendants), as well as the owners of the pool (the Olsen defendants), were sued.  The Bertolino defendants could be liable based upon their contracts with the owners because it was alleged the pool was negligently designed and constructed by them. There also was a question of fact whether the condition was readily observable (raising the duty to protect or warn on the part of the owners):

With respect to the Bertolino defendants, generally, a contractual obligation of a third party does not give rise to liability in tort to persons not a party to the contract… . An exception exists, however, where the contractor created a dangerous condition or increased the risk of harm to others in its undertaking … . Here, the plaintiff's allegation that the Bertolino defendants negligently designed and constructed the subject pool by incorporating the allegedly dangerous condition falls within this exception … . Moreover, the Bertolino defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was not dangerous or that it did not unreasonably increase the risk of harm to those diving off the side of the pool, even though, as their expert opined, it was located outside the “diving water envelope,” which the expert described as the “area without constructed intrusions” … . …

As to the Olsen defendants, “[t]he owner of a private residential swimming pool has a duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . “What accidents are reasonably foreseeable, and what preventive measures should reasonably be taken, are ordinarily questions of fact” … . However, there is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses … . Here, the Olsen defendants, who did not deny notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition at issue was not inherently dangerous and that it was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses … . Grosse v Olsen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05829. second Dept 8-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO NON-PARTY, SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))/SWIMMING POOLS (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACT LAW, DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order to show cause was proper and the judge should not have refused to sign it. The defendants in this foreclosure action properly sought an order to show cause in their action to vacate the default judgment:

The defendants Jacob Hirsch and Blime Hirsch (hereinafter together the Hirsches) defaulted by failing to appear in this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property they owned. A judgment of foreclosure and sale dated December 12, 2014, was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against, among others, the Hirches. On December 3, 2015, the Hirsches presented a proposed order to show cause to the Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), (3), and (4), to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel based upon an alleged conflict of interest, and to cancel the notice of pendency. The proposed order to show cause also sought a temporary restraining order staying the foreclosure sale of the property scheduled for later that day, December 3, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., pending the hearing and determination of their proposed motion. After oral argument, the court declined to sign the proposed order to show cause, with a handwritten notation that the Hirsches failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action and that the Hirsches failed to submit proof of misconduct by the plaintiff's attorney. …

“The court in a proper case may grant an order to show cause, to be served in lieu of a notice of motion, at a time and in a manner specified therein” (CPLR 2214[d]). Whether the circumstances constitute a “proper case” for the use of an order to show cause instead of a notice of motion is a matter within the discretion of the court to which the proposed order is presented … . Here, under the particular circumstances of this case, this was a proper case for the use of an order to show cause, and the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to sign the proposed order to show cause … . Gluck v Hirsch, 2018 NY Slip Op 05828, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214  (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly deemed service complete despite the late filing of the affidavit of service, but further determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. Rather service should have been deemed complete when the court ruled on it and defendant should have been given 30 days from that point to file an answer:

Here, the affidavit of service was not filed within 20 days of either the mailing or affixing; thus, service was never completed … . Since service was never completed, the defendant's time to answer the complaint had not yet started to run and, therefore, she could not be in default … .

However, the “failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004″… . Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deem the affidavit of service timely filed, sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 2004.

In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001 …). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of the defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the order… , “nor may a court give effect to a default judgment that, prior to the curing of the irregularity, was a nullity requiring vacatur” … . Rather, the defendant must be afforded an additional 30 days to appear and answer after service upon her of a copy of the decision and order … . First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Charleston v Tezzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 05826, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant attorneys were not entitled to dismissal of the legal malpractice action based on documentary evidence:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary,' it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … .

Here, the emails and letters submitted in support of the defendant's motion were not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). To the extent that the other evidence submitted was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. First Choice Plumbing Corp. v Miller Law Offs., PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05825, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE  (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT’S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined one of decedent homeowner's children, Nina, who was the executrix of decedent's estate, was entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action pursuant to the homeowner's exemption, but there was a question of fact whether decedent's son, Stephen, was liable as an agent of the owner. Plaintiff, who was hired to paint the interior of decedent's home, alleged Stephen instructed him to use a ladder to enter the house through a window. Plaintiff fell when the ladder slipped out from under him:

… [T]he defendants established the entitlement of Nina, as executrix of the decedent's estate, to the protection of the homeowner's exemption by submitting evidence that the decedent owned the one-family residence at which the work was being performed and that the decedent did not direct or control the work being done … . …

… Stephen did not own the subject residence and, therefore, was not entitled to the homeowner's exemption … . …

… [T]the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) could not be imposed upon Stephen as an agent of the owner. “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured”… . “To impose . . . liability [under the Labor Law], the defendant must have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition” … . Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Stephen had the authority to supervise and control the plaintiff's work. Stephen told the plaintiff which rooms to paint and, according to the plaintiff, directed him to use a ladder to access the house through a window. Diaz v Trevisani, 2018 NY Slip Op 05823, Second Dept 8-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))

,

CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the conditional order requiring that a note of issue or motion be filed by plaintiff bank within ninety days did not meet the requirements of a notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Therefore the administrative dismissal of the foreclosure action was invalid:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought' in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion' by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, the conditional order failed to satisfy the notice requirement on the additional ground that there was “no indication that the plaintiff's counsel was present at the status conference at which the court issued the conditional order of dismissal,” nor was there “evidence that the order was ever properly served upon the plaintiff” … . In the absence of proper notice, “the court was without power to dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal” … . Lastly, the Supreme Court erred in administratively dismissing the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bastelli, 2018 NY Slip Op 05822, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL FORECLOSURE, CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (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