You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of claim which named the correct party (New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) and address but mistakenly indicated the “Comptroller” of the NYCHA on the mailed envelope, was properly served. The envelope was misdirected to the Comptroller of the City of New York, despite the fact that the comptroller is at an entirely different address than that on the envelope:

As pertinent to this appeal, General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) provides that the notice of claim should be mailed “to the person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action . . . may be delivered.” Although the statute requires that the notice be mailed to the designated “person,” this generally refers to the public authority or government entity itself rather than a particular person employed thereby … . Here, there is no real dispute that simply writing “NYCHA” on the envelope would have satisfied the requirements of the statute.

Further, while NYCHA contends that there is no such person or entity as the “Comptroller of the NYCHA,” a “comptroller” is simply an officer of a municipal corporation, like NYCHA, “who is charged with duties [usually] relating to fiscal affairs, including auditing and examining accounts and reporting the financial status periodically” (Black’s Law Dictionary 347 [10th ed 2014]). In any event, the minor misnomer on the envelope need not be fatal to the action, especially where, as here, the plaintiff’s attorney properly mailed the same notice of claim form to both the Comptroller and NYCHA in order to assert a claim against both the City of New York and NYCHA, and the notice of claim itself named NYCHA.

Under these circumstances, we find that the envelope was properly addressed within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(b) and the plaintiff properly served the notice of claim upon NYCHA within the requisite 90-day statutory period … . Carroll v City of New York. 2017 NY Slip Op 03148, 2nd Dept 4-26-2017

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)

ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.

The Second Department determined neither defendant nor plaintiff’s decedent was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff’s decedent had to climb up a stationary ladder to access an elevator motor for repair. He slipped off the ladder while descending. The ladder was deemed a safety device covered by Labor Law 240(1) but there was question of fact whether the ladder offered adequate protection:

​

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s decedent was not engaged in a covered activity at the time of the injury. To the contrary, the record evidence supports the plaintiff’s contention that the decedent was repairing a malfunctioning elevator car when the accident occurred … .

Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the permanently affixed ladder, which provided the only means of access to the elevated motor room, functioned as a “safety device” within the meaning of the statute … . ,,,

Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, as the evidence submitted on the plaintiff’s motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether the ladder afforded the decedent adequate protection for entering and exiting the motor room … . Esquivel v 2707 Creston Realty, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03155, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION)/ELEVATORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION)

DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED.

The Second Department determined the finding petitioner had used marijuana was not supported by the evidence. The hearing officer stipulated to the petitioner’s claim that the medication he was taking produced false positive results for marijuana. The corrections officer’s testimony that he smelled marijuana near where the petitioner was standing was not enough. Petitioner was standing outside with others at the time:

​

Since the hearing officer stipulated that the petitioner’s medication produces false positives for cannabinoids in urinalysis tests, and since no evidence was submitted to contradict the petitioner’s evidence, the positive urinalysis tests results were of little probative value in establishing that the petitioner used cannabinoids. While the correction officer’s observations were sufficient to raise suspicion that the petitioner had violated the prison disciplinary rule, they were not adequate to reasonably support the conclusion that the petitioner had, in fact, violated the rule, especially since the correction officer’s detection of the marijuana odor was made outdoors where there were other inmates in the immediate vicinity of the petitioner. Accordingly, we find that the hearing officer’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 03178, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED)/MARIJUANA (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED)

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department, in affirming summary judgment for defendant in this dog bite case, noted that hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Defendant (Nicole) demonstrated she had no knowledge the dog had vicious propensities. In response, plaintiff presented only hearsay:

​

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through Nicole’s deposition testimony, that she was not aware, nor should she have been aware, that the dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior … . Nicole testified that she had purchased the dog when it was two months old, the dog had undergone obedience training, and the dog had never attacked or bitten anyone before the incident at issue.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that, prior to this incident, the dog had exhibited fierce or hostile tendencies was hearsay, which is insufficient, on its own, to bar summary judgment … . Ciliotta v Ranieri, 2017 NY Slip Op 03150, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/DOG BITE  (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault and weapons convictions, determined the defendant’s testimony alleged facts which required that the jury be instructed on the justification defense and the lawful temporary possession of a weapon. Defendant testified he was attacked by the complainant from behind and he grabbed an object from defendant and started swinging at the complainant to protect himself as they rolled on the ground. The fact that defendant did not testify he stabbed the complainant did not preclude the applicability of the justification defense:

​

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the complainant was the aggressor, that the defendant could not safely retreat, that the defendant’s actions during the fight caused the complainant’s injuries, and that the defendant’s actions were justified. The fact that the defendant did not testify that he stabbed the complainant did not preclude a charge as to a justification defense, since the evidence, viewed as a whole, supported such a charge … . * * *

​

… [W]e agree with the defendant that he was entitled to a jury charge on the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon with respect to that count of the indictment … . Although this contention was not preserved for appellate review, we review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … .

In some circumstances, a person may possess an unlicensed or proscribed weapon and still not be guilty of a crime because of the innocent nature of the possession … . To warrant a jury instruction on the defense of temporary and lawful possession, “there must be proof in the record showing a legal excuse for [the defendant’s possession of] the weapon . . . as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner” … . A person may be found to have had temporary and lawful possession of a weapon if he or she took the weapon from an assailant in the course of a fight … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence supporting this defense. The defendant testified that he only possessed the knife, if at all, when he attempted to disarm the complainant during the fight. Further, although the defendant’s use of the knife thereafter resulted in the complainant being stabbed, should a jury believe that the defendant’s use of the knife was justified, such use would have been lawful … , and not “utterly at odds with [the defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” … . People v Sackey-El, 2017 NY Slip Op 03198, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)/WEAPON, LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON)

PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN, HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the pursuit of the defendant was not justified and the firearm and drugs in his possession should have been suppressed. The police observed the car in which defendant was a passenger make a turn without signaling and roll through a stop sign. As the car was moving at one mile an hour, the defendant got out, holding his waistband. After an officer said “police, stop” defendant ran:

​

“In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . “Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . “A suspect’s [f]light alone . . . even [his or her flight] in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information, is insufficient to justify pursuit'” … . “However, flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit'” … .

​

Here, the police officers’ observations that the defendant exited a slow moving vehicle and held his waistband did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion that was necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight from the police … . The People failed to adduce testimony showing, for example, that the police officers observed the defendant in possession of what appeared to be a gun or that the defendant’s conduct in adjusting his waistband was indicative of gun possession … . People v Furrs, 2017 NY Slip Op 03192, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO STOP, NOT JUSTIFIED, FIREARM AND DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grand jury proceedings were defective because of the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of common ownership. Defendant testified in the grand jury that the property alleged to have been stolen was jointly owned with the complainant, who was a partner in the business. The conviction was reversed in the interest of justice and the indictment was dismissed:

” [A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment… .

Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant … , we find that there was a reasonable view of the evidence warranting instructions on the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right. Penal Law § 155.00(5) provides that “[a] joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession thereto superior to that of any other joint or common owner thereof.” Consequently, a partner may not be charged with stealing the partnership’s assets from another partner … . Pursuant to Penal Law § 155.15(1) “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” The defendant’s grand jury testimony indicated that the defendant’s relationship with the complaining witness was that of a partner, not an employee … and that the defendant took the funds at issue under a claim of right … . Consequently, the District Attorney’s failure to instruct the grand jury with respect to the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right so substantially impaired the integrity of the proceedings as to require the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Tunit, 2017 NY Slip Op 03201, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/COMMON OWNERSHIP DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

, , ,

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT.

The Second Department determined the owner of a parking lot (Berkshire) could assert cross claims against the lessee of the parking lot (Livingston), even though the lessee did not know the lease was entered into by an undisclosed agent of the owner. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. The owner cross-claimed for indemnification by the lessee:

Berkshire may enforce provisions of Livingston’s lease for the parking lot. An undisclosed principal may sue on a contract made in the name of its agent unless there is a showing of fraud … . Here, Livingston’s submissions confirmed that Berkshire owned the property that Livingston was renting, and that the lease was valid. Livingston does not assert that it would not have entered into the lease had it known then that Berkshire was, in fact, the owner. Although Livingston was not aware that Berkshire had authorized an agent to enter into the lease on its behalf, Livingston cannot escape liability on the contract by claiming ignorance of the undisclosed principal’s existence … . Simmons v Berkshire Equity, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03208, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CONTRACT LAW (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST LESSEE BASED ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)

,

MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his bill of particulars to reflect a different date for the injury allegedly caused by defendant’s employees during a carpet delivery should not have been granted. The motion was made on the eve of trial more than four years after the action was commenced and after plaintiff had repeatedly asserted the date during discovery. It turned out that no delivery was made by defendant on the date alleged in the pleadings:

​

“Generally, [i]n 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'”… . Where, however, the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious… . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … .

Here, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill of particulars more than four years after the action was commenced, and almost a year after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars, as the defendant demonstrated that it would suffer significant prejudice as a result of the unexplained delay … . Tabak v Shaw Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03213, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE  (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO AMEND  (NEGLIGENCE, MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction were not met in this dispute between landlord and tenant. The court further noted that a preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo and ordering the landlord to accept a reduced rent while the action was pending was not proper:

​

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief staying termination of the lease, and in further directing the plaintiff to pay rent in the reduced sum of $10,000 per month in lieu of the full amount of rent due under the lease. Although the plaintiff may ultimately be successful on the merits, it failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities favor an injunction since its alleged damages are compensable in money damages and capable of calculation … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding its inability to pay the full rent under the lease were insufficient to establish irreparable injury … . Furthermore, the court went beyond preserving the status quo, which is the essence of a preliminary injunction, and impermissibly rewrote the terms of the lease by directing that the plaintiff be permitted to pay only part of the rent due under the lease while it continued to occupy the premises … . Soundview Cinemas, Inc. v AC I Soundview, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03209, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/LANDLORD-TENANT (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)

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