You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted, but defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been denied. Plaintiff was on the ground cutting a fallen tree when the tree sprang up, split and struck plaintiff’s leg. The tree had to be removed to get to the catenary wires near a railroad line. The wires are considered a “structure” within the meaning of the Labor Law. Because the accident was not the result of gravity Labor Law 240 (1) did not apply. But because removal of the tree was ancillary to work on the wires, Labor Law 241 (6) applied:

… [Defendant] did establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were “not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . Rather, the plaintiff’s injuries resulted when the tree was first propelled upward by the sudden release in tension of the catenary wires and then split in two, striking the plaintiff’s leg … . …

“Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . ” [T]he courts have generally held that the scope of Labor Law § 241(6) is governed by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13), which defines construction work expansively'”… . Under that regulation, construction work consists of “[a]ll work of the types performed in the construction, erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures” … . Since the plaintiff was engaged in activities ancillary to the repair of the catenary wires, the provisions of Labor Law § 241(6) are also applicable to this case. Accordingly, Metro-North failed to establish, prima facie, that Labor Law § 241(6) was inapplicable to the plaintiff’s activities, and that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) insofar as asserted against Metro-North should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . De Jesus v Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 2018 NY Slip Op 02150, Second Dept 3-28-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/TREE CUTTING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure proceeding, determined the homeowner had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction and therefore the judge erred by, sua sponte, dismissing the complaint on that ground:

The Supreme Court erred in sua sponte raising and considering the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The homeowner waived this defense by failing to move to dismiss the complaint on this ground within 60 days of serving his answer … . As the homeowner waived this defense, it was error for the court, sua sponte, to direct dismissal of the complaint on this basis … .

Since, in the order appealed from, the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference was, in effect, denied as academic in light of the Supreme Court’s directing dismissal of the complaint, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of the plaintiff’s motion on the merits … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cajas, 2018 NY Slip Op 02159, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, FORECLOSURE, HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION, LACK OF PERSONAL (JUDGES, FORECLOSURE, HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL, FORECLOSURE, HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, FORECLOSURE, HOMEOWNER WAIVED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s twice filing for bankruptcy tolled the statute of limitations for the foreclosure action, making the foreclosure action timely. Therefore, the bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage was properly granted:

Section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) provides that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title” … . The filing of a petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code imposes “an automatic stay of any mortgage foreclosure actions” … . CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed . . . by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” Pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay tolls the limitations period for foreclosure actions … .

Here, in support of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), U.S. Bank submitted copies of the plaintiff’s petitions filed in the Bankruptcy Court, together with copies of the orders dismissing the first bankruptcy proceeding and releasing the subject property from the bankruptcy estate in the second bankruptcy proceeding, thereby establishing that, pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the statute of limitations had been tolled for over 4½ years. Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 02153, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, RPAPL 1501 ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the statute of limitations for bringing a foreclosure action, although tolled when bankruptcy proceedings were active, was not tolled when a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of the property was in effect. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred:

Under CPLR 204(a), “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . The bankruptcy stay of 11 USC § 362(c) operates under CPLR 204(a) to stay the commencement, or continuation, of a foreclosure action … . Thus, the periods during which bankruptcy stays were in effect were not part of the time counted in the calculation of the running of the statute of limitations … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, however, the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect when the [borrowers] moved to dismiss the first foreclosure action did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. That order prevented the plaintiff from selling the property at auction, but only in the context of the first foreclosure action. The temporary restraining order did not prevent the plaintiff from discontinuing the first foreclosure action and commencing a new action… . Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled under CPLR 204(a) to have the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect excluded from the statute of limitations, and the total time elapsed from the acceleration of the mortgage debt until the second foreclosure action was commenced exceeded six years, even when the periods attributable to the bankruptcy stays are excluded. U.S. Bank N.A. v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 02155, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff, an administrative law judge for the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, stated a cause of action for age discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), (2) plaintiff’s failure to file a Notice of Claim required dismissal of the cause of action alleging a free speech violation of the State Constitution, and (3) plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a First Amendment retaliation cause of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983, should have been granted:

The allegations that there was disparate treatment of older employees, including the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s disciplinary charges were based, in part, on age discrimination, sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover for age discrimination pursuant to the NYCHRL … . …

The plaintiff’s failure to serve a notice of claim requires dismissal of the cause of action alleging violations of the State Constitution … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others … . Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and, thus, the notice of claim requirement applied … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert an alternative First Amendment retaliation cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, for which a notice of claim is not required… . In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . Mirro v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02154, Second Dept 3-28-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATIO.. N, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983) (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/RETALIATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined two lawsuits (the Davids plaintiffs and the Wright plaintiffs) brought on behalf of New York public school students, alleging that certain statutes and policies concerning the hiring and firing of teachers leads to the retention of ineffective teachers, properly survived motions to dismiss. The statutes were alleged to violate the right to a sound basic education guaranteed by the NY Constitution:

… [T]he Davids plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the [teacher] Dismissal Statutes and the LIFO [last in first out] Statute separately and together violate the right to a sound basic education protected by the Education Article of the NY Constitution. In addition, the Wright plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the Challenged Statutes violate the NY Constitution. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7). Davids v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02168, Second Dept 3-28-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (NY) (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/TEACHERS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/SOUND BASIC EDUCATION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligent supervision lawsuit against the city by an inmate who was assaulted by another inmate was properly dismissed. The attack was not foreseeable from the standpoint of the correctional facility personnel:

A municipality owes a duty of care to inmates in correctional facilities to safeguard them from attacks from other inmates … . This duty, however, does not place the municipality in the role of insurers of inmate safety … . Rather, “the scope of the [municipality’s] duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable” … . Foreseeability includes what the defendant municipality knew or should have known … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable. In this regard, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the plaintiff’s assailant was not a known gang member, had no prior incidents of fighting or aggressive behavior while at Rikers Island, and was not classified as high risk for fighting. Additionally, their submissions established that the plaintiff did not know or see his assailant, who, without provocation, punched him in the jaw, and that at the time there was a correction officer present providing the proper level of supervision in accordance with the applicable standard of “active supervision” as defined in the State Commission of Correction Minimum Standards and Regulations for Management of County Jails and Penitentiaries … . McAllister v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01909, Second Dept 3-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SUPERVISION OF INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, SUPERVISION, MUNICIPAL LAW,  CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, SUPERVISION, SUPERVISION OF INMATES, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (INMATE ON INMATE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING CERTIFIED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AND THE DEPOSITION OF A NONPARTY, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND THE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendants made out a prima facie case that they did not create or have notice of the icy condition where plaintiff fell, the plaintiff, with submissions which included certified climatological data and the deposition of the nonparty witness, raised questions of fact about the weather conditions, the presence of ice and defendants’ notice:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created the alleged ice condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted certified climatological data and the deposition testimony of the nonparty witness Fredy Calle, which raised triable issues of fact as to what the weather conditions were like preceding the accident, whether ice was present on the landing at the time of the accident, how long the ice may have been present, and whether the defendants had notice of the alleged ice condition that proximately caused the plaintiff to fall … . Monje v Guaraca, 2018 NY Slip Op 01911, Second Dept 3-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING CERTIFIED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AND THE DEPOSITION OF A NONPARTY, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND THE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING CERTIFIED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AND THE DEPOSITION OF A NONPARTY, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND THE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (SLIP AND FALL,  PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, INCLUDING CERTIFIED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AND THE DEPOSITION OF A NONPARTY, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND THE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the difference in elevation which caused plaintiff to fall was not inherently dangerous and was readily observable:

… [T]he plaintiff, while walking on a walkway after parking his car at a lot located on the Citi Field complex in Queens, allegedly was injured within the defendants’ exterior grounds when he fell due to a difference in elevation between the walkway, which consisted of patio pavers, and an abutting tree bed … . …

… [T]here is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the difference in elevation between the surface of the walkway and the surface of the tree bed was not inherently dangerous and was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses … . Costidis v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01901, Second Dept 3-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a cell phone tower lease with a municipality did not expire. An extension of the lease was ratified by the municipality when it continued to accept lease payments after the expiration of the first five-year term:

… [I]n seeking a declaration that the lease expired … , the plaintiffs alleged that the Village’s Board of Trustees … only authorized the lease for a term of five years. Indeed, the resolution provided that “the term of the leases [sic] shall not exceed a period of five (5) years from the date upon which it is executed.” The lease, however, provided that the initial term of the lease “will be five (5) years from the Commencement Date'” … , “and shall automatically renew for up to ten (10) additional terms of five (5) years each.

Verizon and AG separately moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lease did not expire … , because the Village ratified the lease by accepting rental payments, issuing building permits, and granting variance applications in connection with the construction of the cell tower. …

“A contract that is not approved by a relevant municipal or governmental body, as required by law, rule, or regulation, may be ratified by the municipality or government body by subsequent conduct, such as by making payments pursuant to the contract” … . Giunta v AG Towers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01905, Second Dept 3-21-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RATIFICATION, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/RATIFICATION (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTRACT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (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