You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not establish standing to foreclose. Although the plaintiff proved it had possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought, it did not demonstrate the note was properly endorsed:

Although the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had possession of the original “wet ink” note prior to commencing the instant action …, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the note was properly endorsed. “Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a[n] . . . action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note” … . Here, the instant note bore no endorsements and had no allonges attached. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v PJK Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: If standing to foreclose is contested, a plaintiff must show (1) it was in possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought and (2) the note was properly endorsed in blank or specifically to the plaintiff.

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not make out a prima facie case that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law. Therefore defendants’ summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants, including, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, as well as photographs of the allegedly defective sidewalk condition, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the height differential was physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances did not increase the risks the alleged defect posed … . The evidence submitted did not include objective measurements of the dimensions of the defect, specifically the height of the allegedly misleveled sidewalk. The evidence further failed to sufficiently quantify or estimate the dimensions of the defect. The plaintiff identified the photographs as fairly and accurately representing the allegedly defective sidewalk condition as it existed on the date of the accident. While the photographs demonstrated the irregular nature of the sidewalk … , it is impossible to ascertain or to reasonably infer the extent of the defect from the photographs submitted … .

Therefore, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defect was trivial and not actionable. Abreu v Pursuit Realty Group, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05781, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: Here the photos of the sidewalk defect were not supplemented with objective measurements. The proof did not establish the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE DEMONSTRATING IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN; THEREFORE ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this case alleging sexual abuse by a teacher in 2013 – 2014. A question of fact had been raised about whether the school district knew or should have known of the teacher’s alleged propensity to abuse children:

“Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee” … . “‘[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'” … .

“A school ‘has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision'” … . “‘The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information'” … . “‘The adequacy of a school’s supervision of its students is generally a question left to the trier of fact to resolve, as is the question of whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury'” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the school knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . “‘Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required'” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior, which occurred multiple times throughout the school year in a classroom on the defendants’ premises during school hours … . J.J. v Mineola Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s testimony that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior which occurred multiple times in a classroom was enough to prevent the school from making out a prima facie case that it did not have constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged propensity.

 

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS, AS WELL AS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, the Second Department held that the promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment causes of action did not duplicate the breach of contract causes of action:

Even if a party is not in breach of its express contractual obligations, it may be in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it exercises a contractual right as part of a scheme to deprive the other party of the benefit of its bargain … . “While the duties of good faith and fair dealing do not imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship, they do encompass any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” … . “Technically complying with the terms of a contract while depriving the plaintiff of the benefit of the bargain may constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing” … .

* * *  “‘[E]ven an explicitly discretionary contract right may not be exercised in bad faith so as to frustrate the other party’s right to the benefit under the agreement'” … . The defendant failed to utterly refute the allegations in the complaint that the defendant terminated the consulting agreement without justification or good cause at a time when the completion of the subdivision of the property was only weeks away, despite the plaintiff’s alleged expenditure of hundreds of hours managing the process over the course of two years, and that the defendant acted in derogation of the consulting agreement, including by selling the property for less than its fair market value.

… Where “there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, a plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quantum meruit as well as contract, and will not be required to elect his or her remedies” … . JLO Dev. Corp. v Amalgamated Bank, 2024 NY Slip Op 05577, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: A complaint alleging breach of contract based on a violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will survive a motion to dismiss, despite there being no specific provision of the contract which was alleged to have been breached.

Practice Point: Where there is an issue as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the issue in dispute, the plaintiff may plead promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, in addition to breach of contract.

 

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