You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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))

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea was properly granted. Defendant demonstrated he was not informed of the possibility he would be subject to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) which could result in further confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law upon the completion of his sentence:

… [T]he defendant, through evidence presented at the hearing, including his testimony, made the factual showing necessary to demonstrate that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary. When the defendant pleaded guilty, he had already been adjudicated a level three predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act … based on a prior conviction. In addition, … the defendant here was made the subject of a SOMTA proceeding. The defendant testified at the hearing that he would not have taken the plea bargain had he known of SOMTA. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant showed that “the prospect of SOMTA confinement was realistic enough that it reasonably could have caused him, and in fact would have caused him, to reject an otherwise acceptable plea bargain” … . People v Balcerak, 2018 NY Slip Op 03138, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT (SOMTA) (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was ineffective, despite defendant’s signing of a written waiver:

… [T]he record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty … . Furthermore, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant executed written appeal waiver forms, the transcript of the plea proceedings shows that the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waivers or discussed them with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of their contents … . People v Medina, 2018 NY Slip Op 03151, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LAW OFFICE FAILURE NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims should not have granted claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in this highway accident case. Plaintiff’s motorcycle skidded off the road and truck a guardrail. The accident report stated that plaintiff lost control of the motorcycle “for an unknown reason.” The notice of claim should have filed within 90 days, but, due to law office failure, the attempt to file was made two and a half years late. Law office failure is not an adequate excuse. The accident report did not alert the state to the essential facts of the claim, and claimant did not show the state was not prejudiced by the delay:

Court of Claims Act § 10(3) requires that a claim to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of an officer or employee of the state must be served upon the attorney general within 90 days after the accrual of such claim. However, “Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim” … . The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable, the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . Casey v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03120, Second Dept 5-2-18

​COURT OF CLAIMS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to allege there was a waiver of the requirement that the option to renew the lease be in writing. Therefore the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The motion to amend the complaint was properly denied because the amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The proposed amendment did not allege the existence of a specific agreement with the defendant. However, the motion to amend was not frivolous conduct and Supreme Court should not have awarded sanctions to defendant:

“Although a party may waive his or her rights under an agreement or decree, waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … . Moreover, with respect to the plaintiff’s allegations that [defendant’s representative] stated that the defendant would not object to the assignment [of the lease to the prospective purchaser of plaintiff’s business], subject to, inter alia, a credit check, “a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . …

The plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was palpably insufficient and devoid of merit. The plaintiff failed to allege that (1) it actually came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser six months prior to the expiration of the lease, (2) it gave the defendant notice of its intention to exercise the option within six months of the expiration of the lease, irrespective of whether it came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser, or (3) the proposed purchaser was creditworthy. …

… [T]he plaintiff’s conduct in moving for leave to amend the complaint and/or replead was not, under the circumstances, “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) … . NHD Nigani, LLC v Angelina Zabel Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03135, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SANCTIONS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ own motion papers raised a question of fact whether defendants intended to be bound by an unexecuted limited liability company operating agreement. Therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action was properly denied without reference to the opposing papers:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the agreement does not, on its face, demonstrate that the parties did not intend to be bound absent formal execution … . Moreover, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted emails exchanged between the parties and their respective attorneys. The defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties had agreed upon the major terms of the agreement and whether the parties began to perform the agreement. Accordingly, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the parties did not intend to be bound by the terms of the agreement … . Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers … . 223 Sam, LLC v 223 15th St., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03118, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CONTRACT LAW (UNEXECUTED AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNEXECUTED CONTRACTS (DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNSIGNED CONTRACTS (DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to remove a personal injury action from Civil Court to Supreme Court (King’s County) should not have been granted because no motion to amend the ad damnum clause was made. The court noted that because the defendant was never served with notice of entry of the order granting plaintiff’s motion, the notice of appeal was timely filed:

The plaintiff … moved pursuant to CPLR 325(b) to remove the action to the Supreme Court, Kings County. In the order appealed … , the Supreme Court granted the motion. It is undisputed that a written notice of entry of the order … was never served on the defendant.

Since the defendant was not served with a proper notice of entry, the defendant’s time to appeal never commenced running, and its notice of appeal was therefore timely filed (see CPLR 5513[a]…).

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325(b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the plaintiff’s motion to remove the action to the Supreme Court should have been denied … . Hart v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03123, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/REMOVAL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 325 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined defendant bank’s (Capital One’s) motion for summary judgment in this forged-check negligence action was properly denied (without the need to consider the opposing papers). One of plaintiff corporation’s employees forged company checks made out to herself amounting to over $84,000. Plaintiff sued the bank for negligence pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 4:

Under article 4 of the UCC, with regard to repeated forgeries by the same wrongdoer, the customer’s failure to exercise reasonable care and promptness in examining its bank statements and to timely notify the bank of the forgeries in accordance with UCC 4-406(2)(b) generally will result in the customer being precluded from asserting claims against the bank in connection with the loss associated with any such forgeries … . However, the loss of repeated forgeries may be shifted back to the bank in the circumstance where the bank failed to use ordinary care in paying the forged checks … . With regard to the issue of ordinary care, UCC 4-103(3) provides that “in the absence of special instructions, action or non-action consistent with clearing house rules and the like or with a general banking usage not disapproved by this Article, prima facie constitutes the exercise of ordinary care.” Thus, under this “safe harbor” provision, a bank can ensure that its conduct at least prima facie meets an ordinary care standard, by showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or practices … . However, it is the bank, as the party that benefits from the “safe harbor” provision, that bears the burden of proving general clearing house rules or general banking usage in order to establish ordinary care … . …

Capital One did not meet its burden of showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or general clearing house rules, and therefore, it failed to demonstrate prima facie that it exercised ordinary care in paying the forged checks … .Capital One’s submissions failed to provide any evidentiary basis that its processing of the forged checks comported with general banking usage. Redgrave Elec. Maintenance, Inc. v Capital One, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 0316, Second Dept 5-2-18

​BANKING LAW (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BANKING LAW, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORGED CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (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