You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) must be given the opportunity to be present during guardianship proceedings:

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian of the person and property of her adult daughter Nima B. R., an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the AIP). At a hearing on the petition, which was conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIP was not present. Although the AIP had indicated to her counsel that she intended to appear, she advised her counsel that she was not feeling well and needed an extra hour to get to the courthouse, and subsequently advised her counsel that she did not feel well and would not be attending. The Supreme Court conducted the hearing in the AIP’s absence, finding that she had “voluntarily absented herself” and noting that she was represented by counsel, had no burden of proof, and was not required to testify. …

Guardianship proceedings, as a drastic intervention in a person’s liberty, must adhere to proper procedural standards … . Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(c) provides that a hearing to determine whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary for an alleged incapacitated person “must be conducted in the presence of the person alleged to be incapacitated,” including at the alleged incapacitated person’s place of residence if necessary … . “There is an ‘overarching value in a court having the opportunity to observe, firsthand, the allegedly incapacitated person'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter … for a new hearing at which the AIP shall be afforded an opportunity to be present and a new determination thereafter. Matter of Nima B.R. (Rae-Garwood), 2024 NY Slip Op 06347, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: An alleged incapacitated person (AIP) has the right to be present at a guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. Here the AIP said she was not feeling well and would not attend. The matter was remitted for a new hearing after affording the AIP the opportunity to attend.

 

, , , ,

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical subcontractor, Mikoma Tech, did not prove it was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. Therefore plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract or under a quantum meruit theory and could not foreclose on mechanic’s liens:

… [T]he complaint … failed to allege that Mikoma Tech was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. As Mikoma Tech was not licensed to perform electrical work in the City, it may not recover against the defendants under a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory and has forfeited the right to foreclose on mechanic’s liens … . Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06332, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The rule requiring a license to perform electrical work in New York City is strictly construed. The unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment and cannot foreclose mechanic’s liens.

 

, , , ,

THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the battery cause of action in this Civil Rights Law (18 USC 1983) case should not have been dismissed. The lawsuit stemmed from the police allegedly pushing plaintiff to the ground, striking her, handcuffing her and tasing her. The 18 USC 1983 cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not prove the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. However, the battery cause of action should not have been dismissed:

However … a jury could rationally conclude that the defendants are liable for battery. “‘To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature'” … . “[A]n assault and battery cause of action may be based on contact during an unlawful arrest” … .

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the detention was not privileged under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, and the trial evidence showed that the officers engaged in contact with the plaintiff during the allegedly unlawful detention. The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to allow the jury to rationally conclude that the two officers were acting within the scope of their official duties at the relevant time. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the cause of action alleging battery … . Mac v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 06330, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: A municipality cannot be held liable pursuant to 18 USC 1983 for the actions of police officers under a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiff must show the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy.

Practice Point: A municipality may be liable for battery committed by police officers acting within the scope of their employment.

 

, ,

ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OR OTHER IMPROPER RESULTS, A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice should have been granted:

The plaintiff and the defendants own abutting real properties located in Brooklyn. In 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants, among other things, erected a concrete wall and planted grass and trees on portions of the plaintiff’s property without the plaintiff’s permission. The defendants, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim for adverse possession of the disputed portions of the plaintiff’s property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. In an order dated November 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice is within the sound discretion of the court … . “Generally such motions should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, as there was no showing of substantial prejudice or other improper results … . KNG Realty NY Co., LLC v Halpern, 2024 NY Slip Op 06329, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If there is no showing of substantial prejudice, a motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted.​

 

,

THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, WAS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE PROPERLY DISCLAIMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the representation that the insured property was a two-family dwelling when, in fact, it was a three-family dwelling, was a material misrepresentation and was a proper basis for denying coverage for fire damage:

“‘[T]o establish its right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must demonstrate that the insured made a material misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented'” … . “‘To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application'” … . “‘[E]ven innocent misrepresentations, if material, are sufficient to allow an insurer to defeat recovery under the insurance contract'” … .

Here, MIC [the insurer] demonstrated, prima facie, that the application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises was a two-family dwelling and that this misrepresentation was material … . … MIC established that the material misrepresentation was attributable to her, since, even if the application for insurance had been submitted without her actual or apparent authority, she ratified the representations contained in the application by accepting the policy for a two-family dwelling … . Estiverne v MIC Gen. Ins. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06327, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: Even an innocent misrepresentation supports the denial of insurance coverage if it was material.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was unaware of the misrepresentation. The court held she ratified the misrepresentation when she accepted the insurance policy.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A LADDER WHICH FELL BECAUSE IT WAS PLACED ON A SLIPPERY MAT; PLAINTFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was working at ground level. A coworker placed a ladder on a mat which was covered with cow manure and started climbing the ladder. The ladder slipped on the mat and fell, hitting plaintiff on the head:

​The failure to properly place and secure the ladder amounted to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Moreover, the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff was injured when the ladder “proved inadequate to shield [him] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . …

… [T]he coworker’s improper placement of the ladder was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) as to sever the causal nexus between the defendant’s statutory violation and the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant work was not a hard hat job or that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection played no role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck in the head by the ladder … .

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm. Slippery surfaces and insecure objects such as bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings.” Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the rubber mat covered with cow manure and hay was not a slippery surface for the purpose of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii). …

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . … When a claim is based on an alleged dangerous condition of a work site, the defendant may be liable where he or she had actual or constructive notice of the condition or created the condition … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . Here, the defendant’s conclusory statements in his affidavit that he did not recall having entered the barn on the day of the accident and that he was unaware of the plaintiff’s accident were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition … . Wright v Pennings, 2024 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A coworker placed a ladder on a slippery mat and the ladder fell and struck plaintiff when the coworker started to climb it. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The coworker’s actions did not sever the causal connection between the statutory violation (an unsecured ladder) and plaintiff’s injuries.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; HOWEVER, ABSENT A CONTRACT PROVISION, OR A STATUTE OR COURT RULE ALLOWING THE AWARD, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been awarded attorney’s fees in this breach of contract action because the contract did not so provide:

“New York follows the general rule that attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute, or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .

Here, the contract did not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees that resulted from the instant litigation, and the plaintiff failed to establish that a statute or court rule would entitle her to an award of attorneys’ fees. Wolf v Vestra SPV3, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: The general rule in New York is, absent a contract provision or a statute or court rule allowing the award of attorney’s fees, the winner of a lawsuit cannot collect attorney’s fees from the loser.

 

,

A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHICH DOES NOT STATE THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WOULD BE THE BASIS OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS INEFFECTIVE AND CAN BE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal should have be vacated because it did not indicate that plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss:

“‘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'” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), 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'” … .

Here, the conditional dismissal order did not contain the requisite language advising that the failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . Under these circumstances, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional dismissal order … . Wells Fargo Bank v Wasersztrom, 2024 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A conditional order of dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR must include a statement that the failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss the complaint. If that language is not in the conditional order, the order may be vacated.​

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE HAD BEEN APPEALED; DEFENDANT WAS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE AND WAS THEREFORE INSULATED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE APPELLATE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Bartlett) was a purchaser in good faith and for value of the foreclosed property. The foreclosure was reversed on appeal. Defendant, as the fee owner of the property, was insulated from the effects of the reversal:

Where a judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on appeal, the successful appellant may seek restitution of the real property lost by the judgment (see CPLR 5015[d]; 5523). However, where the real property was sold pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the title is held by “a purchaser in good faith and for value,” recovery is limited to the value of the real property (id. § 5523). In the absence of a stay of the sale or an outstanding notice of pendency, title of the purchaser in good faith and for value “is . . . insulate[d] . . . from the effects of an appellate reversal” … .

Here, in support of its cross-motion, Bartlett established, through an affidavit of its member, that Bartlett acquired title to the property subsequent to a foreclosure sale, without actual knowledge of a successful appeal by the plaintiffs in the underlying action that resulted in a vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale … . The affidavit also demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not obtained a stay of the foreclosure sale in the underlying action. Under these circumstances, Bartlett established … that it was a purchaser in good faith and for value entitled to the protection of CPLR 5523 … . Puretz v Mae, 2024 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A buyer of foreclosed property who had no knowledge the judgment of foreclosure had been appealed is insulated from the effects of a reversal on appeal. The buyer, as a purchaser in good faith for value, is the fee owner of the property.

 

,

THE PEOPLE’S “READY FOR TRIAL” STATEMENT, MADE BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED, WAS CONCEDEDLY ILLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the People conceded the statement of readiness for trial was illusory. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds should have been granted:

“Ready for trial” for purposes of CPL 30.30 means “present readiness, not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” … . “A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock” … .

Here, as the People correctly concede, their statement of readiness filed on November 9, 2021, before the filing of the indictment, was illusory and thus ineffective to stop the speedy trial clock … . The People also acknowledge that they did not thereafter declare their readiness until after the six-month period had expired and, therefore, that the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial should have been granted … . People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A “ready for trial” statement which is a prediction or an expectation of future readiness is illusory and invalid.

 

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