You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should have granted the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. Defense counsel had interviewed a prosecution witness alone. During the interview the witness had recanted his identification of the defendant as the shooter. Defendant wanted defense counsel to continue representing him but did not waive the conflict:

​

… [D]efense counsel’s actions of interviewing the prosecution’s main witness alone and being the only person who could testify to the witness’s recantation of his identification of the defendant as a shooter created an actual conflict of interest. Defense counsel was faced with the choice of testifying on behalf of his client, which would result in his disqualification, or not presenting evidence of an exculpatory statement … . Under the circumstances, especially in light of the defendant’s refusal to waive any conflict, the County Court erred in denying the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. People v Lawrence, 2017 NY Slip Op 08538, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, , THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action brought by a minority shareholder in a limited liability company (LLC) were derivative in nature. The complaint was filed in 2012 and plaintiff withdrew from the LLC in 2015. Therefore plaintiff lacked standing to sue:

[Plaintiff] first cause of action sought an accounting, his second cause of action sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, his third cause of action sought the appointment of a receiver … , his fourth cause of action sought the imposition of a constructive trust, and his fifth cause of action was to recover damages for waste. …

“[M]embers of a limited liability company (LLC) may bring derivative suits on the LLC’s behalf” … . In a derivative suit, “[t]he remedy sought is for wrong done to the corporation; the primary cause of action belongs to the corporation; [and] recovery must enure to the benefit of the corporation”… . In the context of a corporation, “the standing of the shareholder is based on the fact that . . . he [or she] is defending his [or her] own interests as well as those of the corporation” … . “Where the plaintiff voluntarily disposes of the stock, his [or her] rights as a shareholder cease, and his [or her] interest in the litigation is terminated. Being a stranger to the corporation, the former stockowner lacks standing to institute or continue the suit” … . The same is true in the context of an LLC. In order to maintain a derivative cause of action, a plaintiff must be a member of the LLC … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly held that, once the plaintiff withdrew from WIC, he lost standing to maintain any derivative causes of action on behalf of the company, notwithstanding his possible right to a future payment for the value of his membership interest upon his withdrawal … . Jacobs v Cartalemi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08506, Second Dept 12-6-17

CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))

,

BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the court’s order to move for summary judgment within 60 days could not be the basis for dismissal for neglect to prosecute, which requires a 90-day notice:

​

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . The September order could not be deemed a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it gave US Bank only 60 days within which to file a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3216[b][3]). Since the dismissal order … , merely effectuated the September order, which did not meet the statutory preconditions set forth in CPLR 3216, there was a failure of a condition precedent, and the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the action on its own motion … . In any event, there was no evidence that the plaintiff intended to abandon the action, that the default was willful, or that the defendants were prejudiced … . US Bank, N.A. v Mizrahi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08548, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))

,

DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on a dispute among members of a religious corporation (Mandir). The dispute involved whether votes were cast by persons ineligible to vote for the board of trustees. The dispute could be resolved without the court’s intrusion into religious issues:

​

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” … . However, “[c]ivil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution” … .. In applying neutral principles of law, “courts may rely upon internal documents, such as a congregation’s bylaws, but only if those documents do not require interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrine”… .

Here, resolution of the instant dispute, including determining whether any votes were cast by individuals who were not eligible to vote in the election, does not “require[ ] intrusion into constitutionally protected ecclesiastical matters”… .. Rather, this question may be resolved based upon neutral principles of law and reference to the secular provisions of the Mandir’s internal documents … . Queens Branch of the Bhuvaneshwar Mandir, Inc. v Sherman, 2017 NY Slip Op 08546, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/RELIGION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND A CONDITIONAL ORDER WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s family to comply with discovery demands and a conditional order warranted dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126:

​

If a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information, the court may dismiss the action (see CPLR 3126[3]). “While actions should be resolved on the merits when possible, a court may strike [a pleading] upon a clear showing that [a party’s] failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct” … .

​

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the plaintiff’s actions can be inferred from its repeated failure to respond adequately to the defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection and interrogatories, and the absence of any adequate explanation for its failure to timely comply with those requests, or the deadline set forth in the preliminary conference order… .

​

When the plaintiff failed to provide full and complete responses to the defendant’s discovery demands within the specified time, the conditional order became absolute … . To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order directing dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to provide full and complete responses to the defendant’s discovery demands and that its cause of action was potentially meritorious … . The plaintiff’s submission of an unsworn and unsigned affidavit from its owner did not demonstrate either. Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08502, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND A CONDITIONAL ORDER WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND A CONDITIONAL ORDER WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126 (DISCOVERY,  PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND A CONDITIONAL ORDER WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT))

,

HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in upholding a fine imposed upon a bar by the NYS Liquor Authority relating to an altercation, the court explained the use of hearsay in an administrative proceeding:

​

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . It is “[m]ore than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” … . ” The standard demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'” … . The strict rules of evidence do not apply to administrative proceedings and hearsay evidence is admissible… . Hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence if sufficiently relevant and probative and may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis for an agency’s determination, unless it is seriously controverted … . Matter of Bracco’s Clam & Oyster Bar, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 08516, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (HEARSAY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action seeking a declaration whether a proposed development was within the jurisdiction of the planning board was premature. Although the board found it had jurisdiction, it also indicated the landowner could obtain a hardship exemption which would allow development:

​

Here, the Planning Commission’s initial finding that the proposed subdivision constituted “development” within the meaning of the Act (see Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107[13]; see also Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan § 4.3.5) did not constitute a final determination prohibiting the petitioners from subdividing the property in accordance with their proposal. As the Planning Commission’s determination indicated, the petitioners may still obtain a hardship exemption, which would render the proposed residential use of the property authorized … . Since the petitioners failed to adequately allege that they suffered an actual concrete injury, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as premature … . Matter of Equine Facility, LLC v Pavacic, 2017 NY Slip Op 08371, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

ZONING (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, ZONING, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ZONING,  (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the truck defendants’ (Crown and Kumar’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Another defendant, Ferreira, had cut the truck off attempting to make a right turn from the left lane. Ferreira’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident:

​

Ferreira’s testimony indicated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which states that “[a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.” Therefore, she was negligent as a matter of law … . The appellants further established that Kumar was not negligent, since he took prompt evasive action by applying his brakes hard.

Thus, by demonstrating that Ferreira was negligent and that her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff and Ferreira failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. Pipinias v Ferreira, 2017 NY Slip Op 08400, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE PER SE,  DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact about the storm in progress proof precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this slip and fall case. In support of the motion, defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and climatological data. Because there was a conflict between those two sources of evidence, summary judgment was not available:

​

“Under the storm in progress rule,’ a landowner generally cannot be held liable for injuries sustained as a result of slippery conditions that occur during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter'” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … based on the storm in progress rule. The climatological data submitted by the defendants in support of their motion contradicted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which the defendants also submitted, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the accident. Since the evidence submitted by the defendants was in conflict and, thus, could not establish, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … , the court should have denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Pecoraro v Tribuzio, 2017 NY Slip Op 08386, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendants failed to show that they did not create the dangerous snow-ice condition or have notice of it:

​

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Their own submissions, which included, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendants’ superintendent, in addition to a certified weather report for the month of February 2014, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to the whether the defendants caused or exacerbated the alleged icy condition on the subject sidewalk or had notice of it. The plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, she slipped on ice on the path which had been shoveled through the snow on the sidewalk adjacent to her apartment building. She also testified that the path was slippery when she had used it the night before and that she did not observe any salt or sand on it. Although the building superintendent testified as to general snow removal procedures for the building, he could not remember what he did on the date of the accident and did not have an independent recollection of removing snow from the outside of the building at any time on either February 3, 2014, or February 4, 2014. His testimony conflicted with statements set forth in his affidavit, submitted in support of the motion, in which he stated that he personally checked the path at issue at the end of his shift at 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2014, and did not observe any snowy and/or icy condition. Such contradictory statements raise an issue of credibility which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment … . Further, the certified weather report demonstrated that there was an accumulation of 6.7 inches of snow as of 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2014, approximately 26½ hours prior to the accident, and that no snow fell on the date of the accident. Consequently, the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that they neither created the alleged hazardous icy condition on the sidewalk nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Michalska v Coney Is. Site 1824 Houses, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08365, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy