You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Both the defendant driver (Abbott) and the plaintiff passenger (Crystal) had consumed alcohol before the accident. The action was brought by Crystal’s mother on behalf of Crystal. Abbott had attempted a u-turn and was struck by the car behind her (driven by another defendant, Diederich):

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, she failed to establish, prima facie, that Crystal was free from culpable conduct with regard to the causation of her injuries. In support of her motion, the plaintiff relied upon, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of Abbott and Crystal. The testimony of Abbott and Crystal that they had consumed alcohol at a fraternity party prior to the subject accident raised questions of fact as to whether Crystal had knowledge that Abbott may have been intoxicated, which raised triable issues of fact regarding her comparative negligence … . Since triable issues of fact existed as to the comparative negligence of Crystal, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the appellants (… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. Vuksanaj v Abbott, 2018 NY Slip Op 02199, Second Dept 3-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INTOXICATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PASSENGER,  BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Rockland County Solid Waste Authority (Authority) was a public benefit corporation which was subject to the Public Authorities Law, not the Municipal Law. Therefore the Authority properly accepted a bid for recycling services which was not the lowest bid:

General Municipal Law § 103(1) provides that all contracts for public work involving expenditures in excess of $35,000 must be awarded to “the lowest responsible bidder.” However, that provision applies only to contracts to which “political subdivision[s] or . . . any district therein” are parties … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, public benefit corporations such as the Authority are ” legal entities separate from the State, enjoying an existence separate and apart from the State, its agencies and political subdivisions'” … . As such, any limitations placed on the Authority’s power to contract must come from the Authority’s enabling statute, not the General Municipal Law. The Authority’s enabling statute broadly permits it “[t]o contract with . . . persons within or without the county, for the purpose of receiving, treating and disposing of solid waste or for any other purpose authorized hereunder, including, without limitation, the power to contract with . . . persons for the delivery of all solid waste generated within a stated area to a specific solid waste management facility” … . Unlike General Municipal Law § 103, the Authority’s enabling statute does not require contracts such as the one at issue here to be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” Thus, the petitioner’s contention that the Authority acted beyond its grant of power is without merit. Matter of AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v Town of Stony Point, N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 02203, Second Dept 3-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/PUBIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS  (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS, BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/RECYCLING  (BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))/BIDS (SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, BIDS FOR SERVICES, SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT))

ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the attorneys (the appellants), who had accepted a retainer to contest the removal of a guardian (the daughter) for an incapacitated person (Domenica P.), were not required to return the retainer which had been paid from the incapacitated person’s funds. The Second Department determined there was no evidence the attorneys were aware of the source of the funds:

This particular proceeding is substantially different from a Mental Hygiene Law § 81.43 proceeding brought directly against the incapacitated person’s attorney-in-fact … , or directly against someone having a different type of fiduciary and confidential relationship with the incapacitated person … . This turnover proceeding was brought against the law firm retained by the daughter to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision to remove her as guardian of the person of her incapacitated mother, with whom she had been living for some time. In the absence of any indicia that the appellants colluded with the daughter in converting her mother’s funds, or had substantial knowledge that the money used for the retainer was derived from funds belonging to Domenica P., no judgment against them is warranted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the inquiry by the appellants was sufficient. The appellants accepted a check from the daughter’s individual checking account. After the appellants asked the daughter if this was her own money or if it belonged to Domenica P., she told them that the $20,000 came from her own savings. Under these circumstances, the appellants had no reasonable obligation to further investigate, or assess the truthfulness of, their prospective client. What is most revealing is that the appellant law firm rightfully rejected a subsequent check from the daughter drawn on an account held jointly in names of the daughter and Domenica P. Matter of Domenica P., 2018 NY Slip Op 02151, Second Dept 3-28-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (GUARDIANSHIP, ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, RETAINER, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

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))

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