You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the abutting property owner was entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No statute or ordinance imposed a duty to maintain the sidewalk on the property. And the property owner demonstrated it did not create the icy condition:

An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … , by establishing that no statute or ordinance imposed upon it tort liability for failure to maintain the adjoining sidewalk, and that it did not create the alleged icy condition. Escobar v Lowe Props., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08197, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SIDEWALKS (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE.

The Second Department determined defendant, which owned property abutting a sidewalk, was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case under the storm in progress doctrine. The court laid out all of the applicable law:

“Under the so-called storm in progress rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . However, “if the storm has passed and precipitation has tailed off to such an extent that there is no longer any appreciable accumulation, then the rationale for continued delay abates, and commonsense would dictate that the rule not be applied” … .

If a property owner has elected to clear a sidewalk during a storm in progress, the owner is required to act with reasonable care and may be liable if its efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm … . The mere failure of a defendant to remove all of the snow and ice, without more, does not establish that the defendant increased the risk of harm … . Aronov v St. Vincent’s Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08190, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL,  DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/STORM IN PROGRESS (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)

,

PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT RECORDS PROPERLY TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PROPERLY USED BY THE STATE’S PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS.

The Second Department, in affirming the verdict requiring the civil confinement of appellant as a dangerous sex offender, determined the records of appellant’s sex offender treatment in prison were properly released to the attorney general and properly used by the state’s psychiatric experts:

Supreme Court did not err in permitting the petitioner’s experts to testify regarding certain communications made by the appellant in the context of sex offender treatment he received in prison. The appellant correctly argues that the language of a limited waiver of confidentiality he signed before receiving sex offender treatment did not permit disclosure of his treatment records to the Attorney General for a trial under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. However, the appellant concedes that his sex offender treatment records were properly disclosed to the Attorney General and the Attorney General’s experts pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(b) and (c). By granting the Attorney General access to a sex offender’s relevant treatment records “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” and by specifying that the psychiatric examiners chosen by the Attorney General be given access to such records, the Legislature expressed its intent that otherwise privileged sex offender treatment records could be used by these parties in the adversarial stage of an article 10 proceeding … . Matter of State of New York v Justin D., 2016 NY Slip Op 08241, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT RECORDS PROPERLY TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PROPERLY USED BY THE STATE’S PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS)/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT RECORDS PROPERLY TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PROPERLY USED BY THE STATE’S PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS)/SEX OFFENDERS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ​PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT RECORDS PROPERLY TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PROPERLY USED BY THE STATE’S PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS)

LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action against Dynatec were properly dismissed. Dynatec demonstrated it was not an agent of the owner or contractor, did not control the manner of the work, did not create the dangerous condition, and did not have notice of the dangerous condition. Apparently plaintiff was injured twice, once falling from a ladder and a second time falling down stairs:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against it. “Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents” … . ” A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured'” … . “It is not a defendant’s title that is determinative, but the amount of control or supervision exercised” … .

Here, Dynatec established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Specifically, Dynatec offered evidence indicating that its role at the worksite was to ensure compliance with design plans through weekly visits lasting no more than three hours. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

Dynatec established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of actions insofar as asserted against it by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not control the methods or materials of the plaintiff’s work, did not create the dangerous conditions that allegedly caused the accidents, and did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous conditions … . Vazquez v Humboldt Seigle Lofts, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08225, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION)

,

SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT.

The Second Department, in affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss a cause of action for fraud, noted that the specificity required for a fraud complaint is tempered when the details are exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant:

A plaintiff asserting a cause of action alleging fraud is required to plead with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]…). When, however, the operative facts are “peculiarly within the knowledge of the party” alleged to have committed the fraud, it may be impossible at the early stages of the proceeding for the plaintiff to detail all the circumstances constituting the fraud … . Thus, as the Court of Appeals has held, the pleading requirement of CPLR 3016(b) “should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud'” … . Instead, the pleading requirement will be deemed to have been met “when the facts are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct” … . Bibbo v Arvanitakis, 2016 NY Slip Op 08194, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FRAUD (SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT).DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s right to make a motion to dismiss the foreclosure cause of action as abandoned was not waived by defendant’s motion to vacate the default and file a late answer:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive the right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by moving to vacate her default and for leave to serve a late answer. “The mere fact that the legislative intent underlying CPLR 3215(c) was to prevent the plaintiffs from unreasonably delaying the determination of an action, does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to the section by his or her conduct” … . A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by serving an answer or taking “any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance” … . However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve an untimely answer does not constitute either a formal (see CPLR 320) or informal appearance … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2016 NY Slip Op 08199, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)

GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY.

The Second Department determined Family Court erred by ordering genetic marker testing before resolving the issue of equitable estoppel:

Family Court Act § 532 provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, “on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, [the court] shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests” (Family Ct Act § 532[a]…). However, “[n]o paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” … . “Where a party to a paternity proceeding raises an issue of equitable estoppel, that issue must be resolved before any biological testing is ordered” … . Matter of Tralisa R. v Max S., 2016 NY Slip Op 08236, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/GENETIC MARKER TESTING (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)

ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allocated payment of a home equity line of credit (HELOC) incurred during marriage, taking into account a portion of the debt was used solely to further defendant-husband’s business:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay two-thirds of the balance of a home equity line of credit (hereinafter the HELOC) or $198,667, and that the plaintiff was to be responsible for one-third of the balance of the HELOC or $99,330. In general, “[e]xpenses incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt and should be equally shared by the parties” … . However, a financial obligation incurred by one party in pursuit of his or her separate interests should remain that party’s separate liability … . Under the circumstances of this case, inasmuch as the evidence established that the HELOC debt was incurred for the dual purpose of improving the marital residence and paying bills as well as funding the defendant’s separate business interest in which the plaintiff had no share, the defendant failed to show that the HELOC debt as to the defendant’s separate business interest should be shared equally. Horn v Horn, 2016 NY Slip Op 08198, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)/MARITAL PROPERTY (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)

, ,

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the defendant was aware of the victim’s age when establishing the relationship for sexual purposes. The victim indicated she was 18 in her online profile:

… [I]n enacting SORA, the Legislature expressly stated that it was especially concerned with “predatory acts”: “[t]he legislature finds that the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders, especially those sexually violent offenders who commit predatory acts characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, and . . . the protection of the public from these offenders, is of paramount concern or interest to the government” … . This language convinces us that “for the primary purpose of victimization,” as used in risk factor 7 and relevant to this case, requires proof that the defendant knew when establishing or promoting the relationship for sexual purposes that the victim was underage. In cases where the SORA offense is a crime because of the victim’s age, risk factor 7 does not apply to offenders who may have established the relationship for sexual purposes, but without having reason to know the victim’s age at that time … . People v Jordan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08212, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)

, ,

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING.

The Second Department determined the SORA court properly considered grand jury testimony in assessing the risk level:

The defendant argues that the People’s disclosure of grand jury minutes in this case violated CPL 190.25(4), citing Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County (58 NY2d 436, 444, 446), which ruled that grand jury minutes cannot be disclosed in a civil proceeding without a demonstration of a “compelling and particularized need” and that it is “impossible” to make a case without the grand jury minutes. However, this argument has been uniformly rejected by the courts … . Correction Law § 168-n(3) states that the court in a SORA proceeding “shall review any victim’s statement,” which includes a victim’s testimony before the grand jury … . Grand jury testimony constitutes reliable hearsay that is sufficient for SORA purposes … . Where grand jury testimony is “undermined by other more compelling evidence,” it need not be credited unless corroborated by other evidence … . However, in this case, no conflicting evidence was submitted. People v Harmon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08210, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/EVIDENCE (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRAION ACT (SORA) (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)

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