You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the patient (Radcliffe M.) was unable to make treatment decisions for himself and that a particular medication for schizophrenia should be administered over the patient’s objection. However, the evidence did not support the findings that certain alternative drugs could be administered or that the order should be nondurational (no termination date):

​

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment … , and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments”… . Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference… . Here, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Radcliffe M. lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to continuing a course of treatment of Haldol Deconoate … . Further, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed course of treatment with Haldol Deconoate was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to Radcliffe M.’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including his best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment, and any less intrusive alternative treatments … .

​

However, the petitioner failed to offer any testimony or evidence at the hearing with respect to the additional medications included in the order as “Reasonable Alternatives” … . …

​

A nondurational order is appropriate where it is established that treatment will allow the patient to become stabilized and restore the patient’s ability to make reasoned decisions regarding the management of his or her mental illness … . In such circumstances, “the order’s forcefulness will end as soon as [the patient] is no longer so incapacitated” … . The petitioner failed to establish that Radcliffe M.’s ability to make reasoned decisions regarding his own treatment will be restored with treatment and that a nondurational order would therefore be appropriate … . Matter of Radcliffe M., 2017 NY Slip Op 08270, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHIZOPHRENIA (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INMATES, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))

LESSEE DID NOT MOVE FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT NO LONGER HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the commercial lessee was not entitled to a Yellowstone injunction because the motion seeking the injunction was not made before the termination of the cure period set out in the lease:

​

” A Yellowstone injunction maintains the status quo so that a commercial tenant, when confronted by a threat of termination of its lease, may protect its investment in the leasehold by obtaining a stay tolling the cure period so that upon an adverse determination on the merits the tenant may cure the default and avoid a forfeiture’ of the lease”… . ” To obtain a Yellowstone injunction, the tenant must demonstrate that (1) it holds a commercial lease, (2) it received from the landlord either a notice of default, a notice to cure, or a threat of termination of the lease, (3) it requested injunctive relief prior to both the termination of the lease and the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord’s notice to cure, and (4) it is prepared and maintains the ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises'” … .

​

“[A]n application for Yellowstone relief must be made not only before the termination of the subject lease . . . but must also be made prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord’s notice to cure” … . “Where a tenant fails to make a timely request for a temporary restraining order, a court is divested of its power to grant a Yellowstone injunction” … . Riesenburger Props., LLLP v Pi Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08294, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (LESSEE DID NOT MOVE FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT NO LONGER HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION (SECOND DEPT))/YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, ESSEE DID NOT MOVE FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT NO LONGER HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, found that the charged family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault third were not supported by proof of physical injury:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree. Both of those family offenses require proof of physical injury, which is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing failed to adequately demonstrate that the petitioner suffered a physical injury as a result of the conduct alleged in the petition … . Since the court’s factual determinations were not supported by the record, we vacate the finding that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree … .. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not raised any alternative grounds for affirmance of the order of protection … , under the circumstances, we reverse the order of protection, deny the family offense petition, and dismiss the proceeding … . Matter of Stanislaus v Stanislaus, 2017 NY Slip Op 08274, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT THIRD DEGREE  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made the requisite findings to allow the juvenile to apply for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS):

​

… [A] special immigrant is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for SIJS, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law … , and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence… .

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that reunification of the child with his father is not a viable option due to parental neglect, which includes the infliction of excessive corporal punishment and requiring the child to begin working at the age of 15 instead of attending school on a regular basis … . The record also supports a finding that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be returned to India … . Matter of Gurwinder S., 2017 NY Slip Op 08272, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY LAW, (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that wrong advice about his ability to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion warranted reversal:

​

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30″… .However, where, as here, the assurance on which a defendant’s plea was predicated is ineffectual to preserve the right to appeal, he or she is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. However, that promise could not be fulfilled …. Since the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … , the judgment of conviction must be reversed, his plea vacated, and the matter remitted … . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08288, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (APPEALS,  DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars to add a new theory of liability should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. The amendment was based upon plaintiffs’ expert’s disclosures and the motion to amend was made shortly after the expert raised the issue:

​

While leave to amend a bill of particulars is generally freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise (see CPLR 3025[b]), where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging a new theory of liability not raised in the claim or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and “judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious”… . In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom … . Here, the delay would not have been prejudicial since the plaintiffs’ amendment sought to include a theory of causation of the decedent’s death raised in the defendants’ expert disclosures. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not delay in seeking the amendment after receiving the defendants’ expert disclosures, and the defendants were permitted further discovery … . Moore v Franklin Hosp. Med. Center-North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 08263, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025[b] (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement cause of action and the punitive damages demand should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff contracted with defendants to transport his brother by air ambulance from Puerto Rico to New York. Plaintiff alleged no respiratory therapist was on the plane and the plane was not equipped with advanced life support equipment:

​

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement. Contrary to the court’s determination, the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as it alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract … .Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged misrepresentations of fact were not false and, therefore, not misrepresentations at all … .

​

The Supreme Court also erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover punitive damages. The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not engage in conduct having a high degree of moral culpability which manifested a conscious disregard for the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard … . Greenberg v Meyreles, 2017 NY Slip Op 08351, Second Dept 11-20-17

 

FRAUD (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing in part Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint stated employment (sex and age) discrimination and retaliation causes of action pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law, a notice of claim was required for the First Amendment violation cause of action against the city (plaintiff’s employer), and plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to state the First Amendment violation cause of action pursuant to 18 USC 1983 (which does not require a notice of claim) should have been granted:

​

Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex and age in violation of the NYCHRL … . The allegation that a coworker repeatedly demonstrated a sex toy to the plaintiff was sufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for sexual harassment in violation of the NYCHRL … . Further, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation of a separate coworker detailing detailing further allegations of sexual harassment directed toward the plaintiff. The court erred in determining that the cause of action must be dismissed because the behavior constituted no more than petty slights or trivial inconveniences. A contention that the behavior was a petty slight or trivial inconvenience constitutes an affirmative defense … which should be raised in the defendants’ answer and does not lend itself to a pre-answer motion to dismiss … .

Further, the allegations of disparate treatment of older employees, including the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s demotion was based, in part, on age discrimination, sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for age discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL … . …

The Supreme Court also erred in granting dismissal of the cause of action alleging unlawful retaliation based on the plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment. … The allegations that, following the plaintiff’s complaint to a supervisor concerning alleged sexual harassment, the plaintiff was assigned double the normal workload, subjected to increased scrutiny of her work and reprimands for minor errors, and ultimately demoted a few months later, sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for unlawful retaliation for the plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment in violation of the NYCHRL … . However, the complaint failed to allege that the plaintiff ever complained about the alleged age discrimination, and thus the court properly granted dismissal of the cause of action alleging unlawful retaliation based on complaints of age discrimination. Kassapian v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07985, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH, EMPLOYMENT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (EMPLOYMENT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an easement had been extinguished when the same party became the owner of both affected parcels and plaintiff was not entitled to an easement by necessity:

​

“An easement is not a personal right of the landowner but is an appurtenance to the land benefitted by it (the dominant estate). It is inseparable from the land and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement” … . Here, the subject property and the adjoining property came under common ownership on October 31, 2008 … [T]he easement that came into existence in 1974 was extinguished by merger.

* * * [The] … cause of action, for a declaration that the plaintiff had an easement by necessity, contained only vague and conclusory allegations and failed to allege that an easement over the adjoining property was absolutely necessary for access to the subject property, which fronts on a public street … . GDG Realty, LLC v 149 Glen St. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07978, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

 

REAL PROPERTY LAW (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS  (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/MERGER (REAL PROPERTY LAW, EASEMENTS, EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s (Me-Me’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted and plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference charge because a video of the fall had been negligently LOST. Plaintiff alleged she stepped on a grape. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice by submitting evidence of its general cleaning practices:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence”… . To provide constructive notice, “a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . * * *

​

Since Me-Me’s loss of the video recording was negligent rather than intentional, and the loss of the recording does not completely deprive the plaintiff of the ability to prove her case, the appropriate sanction is to direct that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to the unavailable recording … . Eksarko v Associated Supermarket, 2017 NY Slip Op 07975, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT)/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (SLIP AND FALL, SPOLIATION,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (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