You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s (BT Holdings’) cause of action for a declaratory judgment declaring a local law invalid should have been dismissed because petitioner did not file a notice of claim as required by CPLR 9802:

Contrary to BT Holdings’ contention, the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to the causes of action for declaratory relief … . Matter of BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2018 NY Slip Op 04544, Second Dept 6-20-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant seller did not demonstrate the plaintiff buyer would not have been ready, willing and able to close on the property in this specific performance action. Pointing to the requirements of the plaintiff’s commitment letter was not enough to warrant summary judgment in defendant’s favor:

Even when a seller repudiates a contract, the buyer asserting a cause of action for specific performance or to recover damages for breach of contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform… . As the movant on a motion for summary judgment, however, it was the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the absence of any issues of fact and make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff would not and could not perform … . Here, the defendant did not meet its prima facie burden. The defendant relied solely upon the nonconforming commitment letter, which does not conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff would not have been able to satisfy the conditions prior to or at the closing. Mendoza v Sterling Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04543, Second Dept 6-20-18

REAL ESTATE (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE,  DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/COMMITMENT LETTER (REAL ESTATE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether ladders were available at the work site such that plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to install sheetrock. Plaintiff was injured when the bucket tipped and he fell:

“Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident. In such cases, plaintiff’s own negligence is the sole proximate cause of his injury”… .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition, in which he testified that there were ladders and Bakers scaffolds kept on the job site. Lorde v Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 6-20-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statutory criteria in CPLR 3216 were not met and the court should not have dismissed the action for neglect to prosecute:

The Supreme Court issued a compliance conference order dated December 3, 2014, directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue on or before May 15, 2015, and warning that the failure to do so “shall result in dismissal of the action for unreasonably neglecting to proceed, without further notice.” …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . “Effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216” … . One such precondition is that where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, as here, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the compliance conference order did not set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff. Accordingly, since one of the statutory preconditions to dismissal was not met, the court should not have directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Goetz v Public Serv. Truck Renting, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine operated to toll the statute of limitations in this breach of contract/breach of warranty of habitability action involving damage to plaintiff’s cooperative apartment during a 2004 renovation. Plaintiff alleged the damage had never been repaired and brought his action in 2016. The Second Department held that the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations but damages were recoverable for only the six years preceding the commencement of the action:

The continuing wrong doctrine “is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . “In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants’ contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises … . However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff’s recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action … . Garron v Bristol House, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04533, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF  (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a change of venue on discretionary grounds was not brought in the correct county and should not have been granted. The issue was properly before the appellate court despite not having been raised below:

It is undisputed that, pursuant to CPLR 503(a), venue of the Ulster County Action is properly in Ulster County, where Bacci, one of the Ulster plaintiffs, resided at the time the action was commenced … . A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county (see CPLR 2212[a]…). The Fenstermen parties, therefore, were required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) either in Ulster County, where the Ulster County Action was pending, in another county in the 3rd Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Ulster County (see CPLR 2212[a] …). Since Ulster County and Nassau County are not contiguous, and Nassau County is not in the 3rd Judicial District, the Fensterman parties’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County … . Although not argued by the parties in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, but argued on appeal, we reach this issue in the exercise of our discretion because it appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided or explained if raised in the Supreme Court … . Fensterman v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 503 (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2212  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/VENUE  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s knee injury stemming from carrying a heavy beam down stairs was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1). The court further found that defendant general contractor (Talisen) did not exercise sufficient supervisory control over plaintiff’s work to be liable under Labor Law 200 or common law negligence:

Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty imposed on an owner or a general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or a contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work. General supervisory authority to oversee the progress of the work is insufficient to impose liability… . ” A defendant has the authority to control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed'” … . If the challenged means and methods of the work are those of a subcontractor, and the owner or contractor exercises no supervisory control over the work, no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 or the common law … .

In this case, Talisen met its prima facie burden of demonstrating a lack of sufficient supervisory control over the plaintiff’s work to subject it to liability under either Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. In support of its motion, Talisen presented the deposition testimony of its project superintendent as well as the owner of Premier showing that decisions regarding the means and methods for carrying the beam were the responsibility of Premier. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sullivan v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 04591, Second Dept 6-20-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))

KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted and defendant’s (Premier’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his knee carrying a heavy steel beam down some stairs. The court held that the incident was not encompassed by Labor Law 240 (1):

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since he failed to demonstrate that his injury was caused by an elevation-related hazard encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s evidence demonstrated that the cause of his injury was the weight of the beam he was carrying. The mere fact that the plaintiff was injured by the weight of a heavy object being lifted or carried does not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly held, implicitly and explicitly, that it is not enough that a plaintiff’s injury flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person, even where a device specified by the statute might have prevented the accident” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

Premier established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action through evidence that the plaintiff was injured by the weight of the beam as opposed to an elevation-related risk … . Sullivan v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 04590, Second Dept 6-20-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined no special relationship had been formed between the police department and plaintiff’s decedent, who was killed by her husband after she alerted the police he had contacted her in violation of an order of protection. The husband had previously taken plaintiff’s decedent and their two teenage daughters hostage and threatened them with knives and a shotgun. The police department was immune from suit:

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . The elements required to establish such a duty are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, while the police endeavored to contact the husband in order to instruct him not to further communicate with the decedent, the police did not promise to arrest the husband and the decedent could not have justifiably relied upon assurances of police protection … . Axt v Hyde Park Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (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