You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined two statements alleged by the plaintiffs to have been defamatory were nonactionable opinion (other defamatory statements alleged in the complaint properly survived the motion to dismiss). The court noted that plaintiffs have no burden to prove the allegations in a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss, and further found that the Communications Decency Act did not shield the defendants from liability:

Here, the allegedly defamatory statements set forth in paragraphs 53 and 55 of the complaint—which asserted, among other things, that [the defendant president of the cooperative] was “attempting insult of American laws & freedom” and was attempting to “destroy Trump Village 4 and sell our buildings to the highest bidder after we are bankrupt”—constituted nonactionable expressions of opinion. The statements … were not easily understandable, were largely incapable of being proven true or false, and, in context, signaled to the average reader that the statements were opinion, not fact. …

We reject the defendants’ contention that the allegations of defamation fail to state a cause of action because their statements were protected by qualified privileges, and insufficient facts were alleged to show that they spoke with malice necessary to defeat those privileges … . Since “the burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on [such] a motion'” … . Here, to the extent that the defendants’ statements may be shielded by any qualified privileges, the allegations of malice that were set forth in the complaint and in an affidavit submitted by [the cooperative president] preclude dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action ,,, ,

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Communications Decency Act (47 USC § 230) did not warrant dismissal of the complaint at this juncture. A defendant is “immune from state law liability if (1) it is a provider or user of an interactive computer service’; (2) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as a publisher or speaker’; and (3) the action is based on information provided by another information content provider'” … . “[I]f a defendant service provider is itself the content provider,’ it is not shielded from liability” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants authored the defamatory statements, which would mean that the defendants were content providers within the meaning of the statute … . Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v Bezvoleva, 2018 NY Slip Op 03389, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DEFAMATION (TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child based upon a theory that was not charged in the indictment. The endangering count of the indictment alleged defendant had subjected the victim to several types of sexual touching, but not kissing. The jury was allowed to consider the evidence of kissing. The defendant was acquitted of all counts except the endangering count:

In summation, the People argued, over objection, that the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child was established by the conduct of kissing the complainant. The Supreme Court then instructed the jury, over objection, that in order to find the defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child under the relevant count, the jurors were required to find that the defendant knowingly acted in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the complainant, a child less than 17 years old, by engaging in sexual contact with her, defined, under the general definition in the Penal Law, as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” … . The jury returned a verdict of guilty on that count, and acquitted the defendant of the other counts submitted to it, which charged the defendant, inter alia, with engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse with the complainant.

Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories … . Here, the defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child under a count of the indictment that limited the People to a particular theory or theories of endangering the welfare of a child. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred when it permitted the jury to consider a theory not charged in the indictment—that kissing endangered the complainant’s welfare … . Since the defendant’s conviction may have been based upon an uncharged theory, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Vasquez, 2018 NY Slip Op 03382, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENTS, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the manslaughter and negligent homicide convictions, over a dissent, determined that those convictions, although supported by legally sufficient evidence, were against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, whose blood alcohol level was .12, caused a highway traffic accident. Several drivers stopped and a police officer was at the scene. Another driver, who was in traffic passing by the stopped cars and the police officer, struck a car and the police officer was killed. The Second Department found that the accident in which the officer was killed, which occurred a substantial amount of time after defendant’s accident, was not “temporally proximate” to the defendant’s conduct:

… [T]he People adduced legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions set in motion the events that led to the death of the police officer, and that the defendant’s conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of that result. It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct, including driving while intoxicated, causing the initial collision, failing to stop after the initial collision, and causing a second collision, would cause a dangerous condition on the roadway that would pose a danger to police or other first responders, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the incidents and prior to the securing of the accident scene… . The People adduced legally sufficient evidence of causation as to the counts of manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated criminally negligent homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. …

However, the jury verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence … , we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … . Here, the verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence, particularly in light of the evidence that the driver of the SUV that struck the police officer failed to pay attention to conditions on the roadway, including the presence of multiple stopped vehicles and debris on the road, and approached the accident scene at a speed in excess of the speed at which other vehicles were traveling … . People v Ryan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03380, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of a defendant in this foreclosure action precluded the court from hearing and determining plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, even with respect to the other defendants:

As a general matter, “the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a legal representative for that decedent pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . “[A]ny determination rendered without such a substitution will generally be deemed a nullity”… .

Here, the defendant Michael Costello died before the plaintiff’s motion was made and before the orders appealed from were issued. Since a substitution had not been made, the Supreme Court should not have determined the merits of the plaintiff’s motion, even to the extent that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants … . Furthermore, although this Court has recognized, under certain limited circumstances, that “where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of a case, there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution” … , those circumstances are not present here … . American Airlines Fed. Credit Union v Costello, 2018 NY Slip Op 03335, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (DEATH OF A PARTY, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1015  (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/DEATH OF A PARTY  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTITUTION (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant (Nayak) in this medical malpractice action was properly granted, even though the statute of limitations expired in the interim between filing the summons and complaint and the motion to extend. Plaintiff’s attempt at timely service was found to be defective:

The plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Nayak with the summons and complaint was properly granted in the interest of justice … . When deciding whether to grant an extension of time to serve a summons and complaint in the interest of justice, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … Here, the record established that the plaintiff exercised diligence in timely filing, and in attempting to serve Nayak and notify Nayak and her insurance carrier of the summons and complaint within the 120-day period following the filing of the summons and complaint, although the attempt to serve Nayak was ultimately deemed defective … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff cross-moved for relief, the plaintiff promptly cross-moved for an extension of time to serve Nayak, and there was no identifiable prejudice to Nayak attributable to the delay in service … . Furze v Stapen, 2018 NY Slip Op 03338, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/EXTEND TIME TO SERVE (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 306-b (SERVICE OF PROCESS, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, with an extensive two-justice concurrence not summarized here, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from playing basketball with knowledge of a crack on the court which caused him to trip and fall:

The plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of the accident and an experienced basketball player, testified that he “grew [up] playing on [the subject] court,” and that he was aware of the presence of cracks in the surface of the court prior to his accident. The plaintiff also indicated that he was previously aware of the particular crack over which he tripped. When the plaintiff was asked … if he ever saw “what [his] foot got caught in before this happened,” he responded, “[w]e knew where it was before when it happened.” …

Thus, [defendant] demonstrated that it did not violate its duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in a basketball game on the outdoor court despite his knowledge that doing so could bring him into contact with an open and obvious crack in the playing surface … . We note that this Court has consistently applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine in cases involving similar known or open and obvious conditions in the playing surfaces of various types of courts … .

From the concurrence:

While the plaintiff was casually performing a pre-game layup, his foot allegedly got caught in a deep crack, causing his foot to turn and fracture. The cracked condition of the basketball court was not a risk inherent in the sport of basketball and, in my view, under these circumstances, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable.

However, this Court’s precedent compels dismissal of the complaint, since the plaintiff was aware of the cracks on the court and voluntarily chose to play basketball at this location … . Philius v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03161, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRENCE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRENCE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff firefighter’s motion for summary judgment in this General Municipal Law 205-a, Labor Law 27-a slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he fell because of a gap in a grate at the Homeport Pier. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact about whether the gap was the result of defendant’s (the city’s) negligence:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides a right of action for firefighters who are injured “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence” of a defendant “in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” To make out a valid claim under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintiff must ” [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter'” … .

… [T]he only statute, ordinance, or rule identified by the plaintiff which could support the imposition of liability pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a under the facts of this case was Labor Law § 27-a  …. Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) provides that every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that are “free from recognized hazards” that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This statute may serve as a predicate for a cause of action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that the gap in the grates was a result of negligence by the City. His submissions included evidence that (1) the Homeport Pier was inspected regularly, (2) gaps in the grates were sometimes caused by expansion and contraction of the metal and shifting due to vehicles driving over them, (3) any gaps over an inch were rectified when discovered during regular inspections, and (4) the Homeport Pier and the grates were inspected within two days prior to the plaintiff’s accident. Shea v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03164, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW  (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant abutting property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. The property owner proved it did not create the sidewalk defect and the local code which required abutting property owners to keep sidewalks in good repair did not explicitly impose tort liability on the property owner:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous [or] defective conditions to public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner” … . “An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty” … .

Here, Water View established, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged condition or cause the condition through a special use of the sidewalk. Additionally, although … the Code of the Village of Freeport requires an abutting landowner to keep a sidewalk in good and safe repair, it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . Bousquet v Water View Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))

,

NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it held that the current maximum collectible rent for the subject apartment is $125 per month. The apartment house had been owned and resided in by family members since 1941. The petitioner bought property in 2000:

… [E]ven assuming that the petitioner was aware or should have been aware of the subject apartment’s rent-controlled status at the time he purchased the building, this factor is not determinative. While an owner’s lack of such awareness may be considered in determining the maximum rent … , there is no requirement in 9 NYCRR 2202.7 that an owner lack prior knowledge of the regulated status of its premises in order to receive an increase in the maximum rent. Rather, … that provision solely requires “the presence of unique or peculiar circumstances” … , which are present in this case. Those circumstances have resulted in the same monthly rent of $125 being paid for the subject two-bedroom apartment since 1961, which is clearly substantially lower than rents generally prevailing in the same area for substantially similar housing accommodations … , and “there are issues of fairness and equity” that must be considered in setting an appropriate present day rent for the subject apartment … . Matter of Migliaccio v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03132, Second Dept 5-2-18

​LANDLORD-TENANT (NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))/RENT CONTROL (NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))

THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff testified the A-frame ladder, which he had used before, shook and leaned before he fell. He also testified he did not notice any defects in the ladder. The Second Department held that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (but defendant’s motion should not have been granted):

“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” … . The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided, and whether a particular safety device provided proper protection is generally a question of fact for a jury … . Here, the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated that there are triable issues of fact as to how this accident occurred and it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the alleged failure to provide the plaintiff with proper protection proximately caused his injuries … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers… .

In light of the inconsistencies as to how this accident occurred, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. On this record, the defendants failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the ladder provided proper protection, or that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Yao Zong Wu v Zhen Jia Yang, 2018 NY Slip Op 03169, Second Dept 5-2-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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