You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANT WAS OBSERVED WALKING UP AND DOWN DRIVEWAYS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD; WHEN THE POLICE ASKED HIM TO STOP, HE RAN AND THE POLICED PURSUED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING PURSUIT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the conviction by plea, determined the police did not have “reasonable suspicion” defendant was committing a crime at the time the defendant ran from them. The police were justified in exercising the “common law right of inquiry” because defendant was seen walking in different yards in a residential neighborhood. But the police were not justified in pursuing the defendant when he ran. The gun defendant discarded that the statements made to the police should have been suppressed:

… [T]he encounter began as a level two intrusion, with the officers parking and exiting their vehicle, stating “police,” and asking the defendant to stop … . The officers’ pursuit of the defendant constituted a level three intrusion, requiring a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a felony or misdemeanor … .. Here, however, the circumstances, which included the defendant’s actions of walking up and down the driveways of 105-31 and 105-33 Farmers Boulevard and across a lawn and toward the rear of a residence on 109th Avenue, “although not inconsistent with culpable [conduct,] are also susceptible of many innocent interpretations” … , and were, “[a]t most . . . equivocal and suspicious” … . Importantly, the officers did not observe the defendant looking into any houses or backyards, and did not observe him carrying or attempting to conceal any tools or weapons. Therefore, the defendant’s actions preceding his interaction with the officers and his flight therefrom did not support a reasonable suspicion of particularized criminal action … . People v Bryant, 2026 NY Slip Op 03976, Second Dept 6-24-25

Practice Point: Walking up and down residential driveways, carrying nothing and not looking into houses, justified exercise of the common law right of inquiry by the police. But defendant’s immediate flight from the police did not justify pursuit.

 

, ,

HERE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE UNEVEN SIDEWALK WAS “OWNER OCCUPIED” SUCH THAT THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE EXCEPTION TO THE SIDEWALK-MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION APPLIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. The NYC Administrative Code creates an exception to the sidewalk-maintenance requirement for “owner occupied” properties. That term is undefined. Here the defendants did not submit sufficient proof that the “owner-occupied” exception applied:

“‘Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York unambiguously imposes a nondelegable duty on certain real property owners to maintain city sidewalks abutting their land in a reasonably safe condition'” … . “However, this liability-shifting provision does not apply to ‘one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes'” … . “The statute does not expressly contain a primary residence requirement as part of the owner-occupied exemption, but the term ‘owner occupied’ generally is used to mean that the owner regularly occupies the property as a residence” … . Although “owner occupied” is not defined in the statute, it is clearly a lower standard than that of a primary residence. Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they were entitled to the exemption from liability under Administrative Code § 7-210(b). Although the defendants submitted proof that they are the owners of the subject property, which is a one-family home, they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the property was “owner occupied” within the meaning of the statute … . Mantinaos v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03957, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the meaning of “owner occupied” in the NYC Administrative Code such that the sidewalk-maintenance obligation does not apply.

 

, , , ,

HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE FOR THIS PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined that the trial judge’s preclusion of evidence based upon the district attorney’s untimely production of discovery was not subject to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the then district attorney:

Granting prohibition here would constitute improper collateral interlocutory review. This point is underscored by the Legislature’s amendment of CPL 450.20 to permit the People to appeal as of right from the portion of an order dismissing an accusatory instrument or some of its counts pursuant to CPL 245.80(2). In enacting this amendment, the Legislature chose to limit the types of appeals available to the People and did not permit the People to appeal from orders granting other remedies or sanctions under CPL 245.80(2), including orders precluding evidence, regardless of whether such orders would prevent the People from prosecuting a case. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, “nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition”  … .

Since a writ of prohibition does not lie, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the enforcement of the order of preclusion.  Matter of Rocah v McCarthy, 2026 NY Slip Op 03967, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A writ of prohibition does not lie to prohibit the enforcement of an order precluding evidence becasue the production of discovery by the People was deemed untimely.

 

, ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IF THE WORK IS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE EXCAVATION WORK WAS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court., determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint by adding independent contractors hired in connection with excavation work on adjacent property should have been granted. The excavation work caused plaintiff’s building to collapse. The statute of limitations for the negligence causes of action had run. A defendant can be vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors if the work is “inherently dangerous.” Because this work was “inherently dangerous,” the defendants and the independent contractors are “united in interest” such that the relation-back doctrine applies:

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the second prong of the relation-back test with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence, as the plaintiff established that the proposed defendants and the original defendants were united in interest as to those causes of action. “As a general rule, ‘a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . However, this general rule is subject to various exceptions, including where the work performed is inherently dangerous … . In this case, the amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that the work being performed was inherently dangerous and, thus, the original defendants could be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the proposed defendants … . Further, the plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the relation-back test, as the plaintiff demonstrated that the proposed defendants knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against them as well … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the amended complaint to add the proposed defendants as defendants with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence … . Crossbay Assoc., LLC v Singh, 2026 NY Slip Op 03941, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A party can be vicariously liable for the work done by an independent contractor if the work is “inherently dangerous.” The excavation work at issue in this case was deemed inherently dangerous.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUA SPONTE, AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE PHRASE IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REQUESTING “SUCH OTHER RELIEF” AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a default judgment against defendant Molina in this foreclosure action. There were two defendants, Pena and Molina. Pena answered the complaint but Molina did not. The notice of motion seeking summary judgment did not mention Molina. Therefore the judge should not have granted relief not demanded by the plaintiff:

“Among the statutory requirements [set forth in CPLR 2214(a) and (b)] is that notices of motion set forth ‘the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.’ The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders a resulting order void” … . In other words, “[a] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief against a defaulting party where that relief is not requested in the moving papers” … .

Here, since the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against Molina, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted that relief … . As the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief … , so much of the order … , as, sua sponte, granted leave to enter a default judgment against Molina was rendered void … , “‘warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … . As to the court’s reliance on the language in the notice of motion seeking “such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” this Court has explicitly held that courts may not “rely upon general relief clauses in noticed motions—’for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper’—to justify the sua sponte [granting of dispositive relief]” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Pena, 2026 NY Slip Op 03940, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: The phrase in motion papers requesting “such other relief as is deemed appropriate” cannot be the basis for dispositive relief.​

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF THE JURY’S REQUEST TO SEE MRI IMAGES ON THE GROUND VIEWING THEM WAS “BEYOND THE KEN” OF THE JURY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, determined the judge should not have withheld from the jury MRI images on the ground they were “beyond the ken” of the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court failed to respond meaningfully to the jury’s request to view all of the infant plaintiff’s MRI images during deliberations … . Although the MRI images were admitted into evidence at trial, the court denied the jury’s request to view the MRI images during deliberations on the ground that viewing them was “beyond the ken of a juror.” … [T]he error deprived the plaintiffs of “substantial justice” with respect to the jury’s finding that Halitsky’s departure was not a substantial factor in causing the infant plaintiff’s injury … . Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside so much of the jury verdict as was in favor of Halitsky …. J.T.M. v Parrinello, 2026 NY Slip Op 03787, Second Dept 6-17-26

Practice Point: Here the judge should not have refused the jury’s request to view MRI images which were in evidence on the ground they were “beyond the ken” of the jury.

 

, ,

IN A SUIT BY LIMOUSINE DRIVERS AGAINST LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLEGING UNDERPAYMENT, THE DEFENDANT LIMOUSINE SERVICES PROVIDERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAXICAB EXCEPTION FROM LABOR LAW WAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVERS WERE PRECLUDED FROM SUIT BY THE TAX ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (WHERE A PARTY ASSERTS A POSITION CONTRADICTED BY INFORMATION IN TAX FORMS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant limousine service providers (XYZ) did not demonstrate they were entitled to the taxicab exception to the wage requirements in the Labor Law and did not demonstrate the plaintiffs-drivers were precluded from suing pursuant to the tax estoppel doctrine. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs were employed or permitted to work as a driver engaged in operating a taxicab (see Labor Law § 651[5][d]; 12 NYCRR 142-2.14[c][6]). * * *

… [T]he plaintiffs’ admissions that they declared themselves “self-employed” on their income tax returns were inadequate to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs should be estopped from asserting the existence of an employment relationship. The determination of the existence of an employment relationship “involve[s] a mixed question of law and fact” … , and the plaintiffs’ admissions that they declared themselves “self-employed” on their income tax returns is not inconsistent with their allegations that XYZ exercised control over the plaintiffs’ work, inter alia, by paying the plaintiffs according to XYZ’s own policies and that XYZ, in exercising that control, unlawfully misclassified the plaintiffs as independent contractors … . Abdelhamed v XYZ Limousine, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03770, Second Dept 6-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the taxicab exception to the Labor Law wage requirements.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the tax estoppel doctrine.

 

, , ,

THE BELATED TURNING OVER OF ROSARIO MATERIAL PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the People’s belated turning over of Rosario material to the defense deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Rosario material consisted of notes taken by social workers describing the complainant’s therapy sessions. Defendant was prejudiced by the inability to adequately review the notes or to have an expert review them before the cross-examination of the complainant. The fact that the judge precluded the notes as a remedial measure was not helpful to the defendant:

… [D]efendant correctly contends that he is entitled to a new trial based on the People’s belated disclosure of certain notes between the complainant and social workers describing therapy sessions. The social workers were employed by the People, and their notes at all times had been in the People’s possession. The People must turn over to the defense any prior statements by a witness which relate to the subject matter of that witness’s testimony for use on cross-examination … . The material must be provided at a time when it can be useful to the defense … . When the late disclosure of Rosario material results in substantial prejudice to the defendant, a new trial is required … . Here, the defendant was substantially prejudiced by the late disclosure of these notes, as he was unable to sufficiently review the material or to retain an expert to do so. Moreover, the prejudice was not obviated by the remedial action taken by the Supreme Court, since the preclusion of the notes was not helpful to the defendant … . In light of the substantial prejudice to the defendant that resulted from the late disclosure of the Rosario material, a new trial is required … . People v Ibrahim, 2026 NY Slip Op 03687, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: The belated turning over of Rosario material deprived defendant of an adequate opportunity to review it before the cross-examination of the complainant warranting a new trial.

 

,

“EXHAUSTION OF REMEMDIES” IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED BEFORE AN AGENCY ACTION CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT; HERE THE CHALLENGE INVOLVED A PURE QUESTION OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the “exhaustion of remedies” rule does not apply to administrative actions where, as here, an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or beyond the agency’s power. Here petitioners alleged the respondent NYC Water Board overcharged for excess water consumption. That agency’s procedure was properly reviewed by the court (but the argument was ultimately rejected):

… “[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile, or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” … . This is because while review of some claims “hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level [which] must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established” … , other claims present “a circumstance where the issue to be determined is purely a question of law” … . To the extent the fifth cause of action sought a declaration that the Water Board is acting in contravention of an established statutory scheme for setting rates for excess water consumption, exhaustion was not required … , and the court should not have dismissed that portion of the fifth cause of action on those procedural grounds. Matter of Town of Carmel v New York City Water Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 03680, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: This decision presents an example of when a court challenge to an agency action does not trigger the “exhaustion of remedies” requirement. Here the challenge presented a pure question of law which did not require the development of a factual record at the agency level.

 

, ,

HERE THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TOXIC TORTS ACTIONS WAS PRE-EMPTED BY A FEDERAL “DISCOVERY RULE” WHICH ALLOWS A TOXIC-TORT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY, EVEN IF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, determined the federal “discovery rule” for toxic tort actions pre-empts the state statute of limitations. The lawsuit alleged a town landfill near a school emitted toxic materials causing illness among the school’s staff and students:

42 USC § 9658 has been deemed a “discovery rule” … , and “does not purport to create an entirely new statute of limitations framework for state toxic tort actions” … . Instead, the statute provides “a limited ‘[e]xception to State statutes’ [that] applies only if the state statute ‘provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date'” … . Thus, in New York, where suit was not brought within three years of the discovery-of-injury date as provided by CPLR 214-c(2), the primary effect of 42 USC § 9658 is to allow a plaintiff to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . * * *

… [W]ith respect to those plaintiffs in this action who did not bring suit within three years of the discovery of their alleged injuries (see CPLR 214-c[2]), 42 USC § 9658 applies to allow those plaintiffs to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . Klaus v Town of Brookhaven, 2026 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: Here the state statute of limitations for toxic tort cases was pre-empted by a federal “discovery rule” which allows suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury.

 

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