You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact whether the landlord was an out-of-possession landlord:

“A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “That duty is premised on the landowner’s exercise of control over the property, as the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others” … . “It has been held uniformly that control is the test which measures generally the responsibility in tort of the owner of real property” … . “Thus, a landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … .

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were out-of-possession landlords. Although the defendants submitted a lease establishing that a tenant leased the entire office building and was responsible for the maintenance of vestibules and entrances, the defendants’ submissions also demonstrated that they maintained an office in the building and that, each work day, the defendants’ employee used the building entrance where the plaintiff’s slip and fall occurred. The defendants’ submissions further demonstrated that this employee would report any defects in the building to the building’s security, and the tenant would then remedy those defects. Under these circumstances, triable issues of fact exist as to the defendants’ control of the subject property and whether they were out-of-possession landlords … . Grullon v 57-115 Assoc., L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 03811, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Here, even though the lease made the tenant responsible for maintenance, the fact that the landlord had an office in the building raised a question of fact whether the landlord could escape liability for a slip and fall as an out-of-possession landlord.​

 

DEFENDANT PROPERTY-OWNER HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING RAINWATER LEAKS; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

… Karen Myers [was] the defendants’ supervisor caretaker assigned to the subject building. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that, while walking in the hallway of the floor that she resided on, she slipped as a result of rainwater that had leaked into the building from an outside terrace. She also testified that during periods of rainfall, she had noticed water leaking into the hallway from underneath the terrace door on numerous occasions over the years she had resided in the building and had observed building employees mopping the area “a lot of times.” Myers testified that she had been aware of the recurring leak for at least one year prior to the plaintiff’s accident and that the only remedial measure taken by building employees in response was “spot mopping.” She conceded that the recurring leak caused a “slip and fall” “hazard,” which she expected employees to “mop up.” Based upon this testimony, the plaintiff “established as a matter of law that [the defendants] had actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous and defective condition and, therefore, could be charged with constructive knowledge of each specific recurrence of the condition, which was a proximate cause of the accident” … . Graham v New York City Hous. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 03810, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: A property-owner’s actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition which causes a slip and fall entitles plaintiff to summary judgment.

 

​

,

THE DENTISTS’ FEE-SPLITTING AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE EDUCATION LAW; A COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking to enforce an illegal contract should have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff entered into an asset purchase agreement (hereinafter the APA) to sell certain assets of its dental practice to the defendant, a licensed dentist who retained his own separate practice. The APA specified a purchase price of $250,000. A portion of that amount was to be paid as a percentage of the monthly revenue generated by the plaintiff’s practice or, under certain conditions, a percentage of the revenue generated from a potential sale of the defendant’s separate practice. * * *

The defendant established his entitlement to dismissal of the causes of action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). As the defendant correctly contends, the APA constituted a voluntary prospective arrangement for the splitting of fees in violation of the Education Law because it required the defendant to pay the plaintiff a percentage of revenue generated by the plaintiff’s practice and, under certain conditions, the defendant’s own separate dental practice (see Education Law §§ 6509-a, 6530[19] …). “‘It is the settled law of this State (and probably of every other State) that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him or her carry out his or her illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he or she, as a basis for his or her claim, must show forth his or her illegal purpose'” … . “‘Where the parties’ arrangement is illegal the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them'” … . Advanced Dental of Ardsley, PLLC v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 03804, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: A fee-splitting agreement between dentists violates the Education Law.

Practice Point: A court will not enforce an illegal contract.

 

IN 2017 PLAINTIFF MISSED A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE; IN 2022 PLAINTIFF MADE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, RESTORATION IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s 2022 motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted without considering whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay. In 2017, plaintiff had failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue, but no 90-day notice had been served and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. In that circumstance restoration is automatic and there is no specific time frame for a motion to restore:

Pursuant to a compliance conference order dated April 5, 2017, the plaintiff was required to file a note of issue on or before December 8, 2017. The plaintiff did not file a note of issue by that date, and the action was marked “inactive.”

In November 2022, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the active calendar. … Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to renewal “upon proper papers,” including an affirmation detailing the reasons for the delay in moving for the relief requested. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar.

Where, as here, a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .. Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [he] engaged in dilatory conduct” … . “Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame” … . Rosario v Scudieri, 2024 NY Slip Op 03769, Second Dept 7-10-24

Practice Point: If no 90-day notice has been served and there has been no dismissal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, restoration of an action to the active calendar is automatic, even five years beyond the court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue.

 

, , ,

MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was required after mother alleged in her petition to modify custody she did not consent to the stipulation underlying the custody order. The stipulation was not part of the record and the custody order did not recount the terms of the agreement:

Pursuant to CPLR 2104, an agreement between parties is binding against them where, as here, it was reduced to the form of an order and entered. Since “settlement agreements must abide by the principles of contract law, ‘for an enforceable agreement to exist, all material terms must be set forth and there must be a manifestation of mutual assent'” … . CPLR 2104 does not require the parties or the court to place on the record an agreement between the parties that is reduced to an order. However, failing to do so makes the agreement open to collateral litigation … . Here, in light of the mother’s averment that she did not consent to the terms of the custody order, the fact that the terms of the settlement were not placed on the record, and the fact that there was no writing subscribed by the parties, there is an unresolved issue as to whether there was a manifestation of mutual assent to the terms set forth in the custody order. Matter of Izzo v Salzarulo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03751, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: If a custody order is based upon a stipulation which was not reduced to writing and the terms of the stipulation are not in the order, the order is subject to collateral litigation, here based on mother’s allegation she did not agree to the terms.

 

,

EVIDENCE THE CHILD HAD RECANTED THE CHILD’S TESTIMONY THAT FATHER SEXUALLY ABUSED THE CHILD WAS VAGUE AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE ABUSE FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the recantation evidence did rebut the prima facie evidence that father had sexually abused the child:

… [P]etitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father sexually abused the child. The child’s testimony during the fact-finding hearing was consistent and detailed, and any minor inconsistencies “did not render such testimony unworthy of belief” … . The child’s testimony was sufficient to establish a finding of sexual abuse pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046(b)(i) … .

At the reopened fact-finding hearing, the mother of the father’s other children (hereinafter the witness) testified that the child recanted her allegations of abuse. The child did not testify at the reopened fact-finding hearing. “[A] child’s recantation of allegations of abuse does not necessarily require [the] Family Court to accept the later statements as true because it is accepted that such a reaction is common among abused children” … . “Rather, recantation of a party’s initial statement simply creates a credibility issue which the trial court must resolve” … . Here, even assuming that the witness’s testimony was credible, it was insufficient to warrant dismissal of the petition. The witness testified that she overheard the child telling other children that the child missed the father. After the witness confronted the child, the child told the witness that “she wished that she never lied . . . by saying that [the father] did those things.” The witness did not specify what “things” the child was referring to. During cross-examination, the witness testified that immediately after she asked the child “what did she mean by she lied,” the child indicated that “she never said that.” The witness also testified on cross-examination that she had previously confronted the child about the allegations against the father, and the child told the witness that “she was sure . . . that these things took place.” The alleged recantation as described by the witness was vague, and the witness’s testimony was insufficient to rebut the finding of abuse … . Matter of Kenyana D. (Kenneth D.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03746, Second Dept 7-10-24

Practice Point: Here the evidence the child had recanted the child’s testimony that father had abused the child was too vague to rebut the abuse finding.

 

,

FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR DID NOT JUSTIFY FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO MOTHER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s default did not justify failing to hold a hearing before rendering a custody determination:

“[C]ustody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . While “the ‘general’ right to a hearing in custody cases is not an absolute one[,] . . . [a] decision regarding child custody should be based on admissible evidence” and not “mere ‘information'” or hearsay statements … . Moreover, where the circumstances “fit within the narrow exception to the general right to a hearing[,] . . . a court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … .

Here, the Family Court erred in rendering a custody determination without conducting a hearing or without the submission of any admissible evidence, seemingly relying upon the hearsay statements of the attorneys … . Furthermore, the court failed to make any specific findings of fact regarding the best interests of the child, and failed to clearly articulate which factors were material to its determination … . Under the circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to vacate the order … granting the mother’s petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child … . Matter of Akaberi v Cruciani, 2024 NY Slip Op 03745, Second Dept 7-10-24

Practice Point: Custody determinations should rarely be made without a hearing, even when a parent fails to appear.​

Similar issue and result in Matter of Meehan v Kittle, 2024 NY Slip Op 03754, Second Dept 7-10-24.

, , , ,

“UNITED METHODIST CHURCH” IS NOT A JURAL ENTITY WHICH CAN BE SUED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “United Methodist Church” is not a jural entity which can be sued. In this Child Victims Act proceeding, the complaint alleged plaintiff was abused by an employee of the defendants United Methodist Church General Conference … , United Methodist Church Northeastern Jurisdiction New York-Connecticut District, New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church Long Island East District, Long Island East District of the New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, … United Methodist Church of Woodbury New York. [and the] United Methodist Church … . The complaint alleged … United Methodist Church “is a not-for profit religious association and/or organization conducting business in the State of New York and organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at c/o GFCA, 1 Music Circle North Nashville, Tennessee 37203.”

… [A]pplying neutral principles of law, we determine … the defendants established that United Methodist Church is not a jural entity with the capacity to be sued. Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction is warranted where a named defendant is not a legal entity amenable to suit … . New York law recognizes that “[a]n action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer” of an “unincorporated association” “upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally” (General Associations Law § 13; see CPLR 1025 [“Two or more persons conducting a business as a partnership may sue or be sued in the partnership name, and actions may be brought by or against the president or treasurer of an unincorporated association on behalf of the association in accordance with the provisions of the general associations law”]). Although the term “unincorporated association” is not further defined by statute, New York courts have determined that “[i]t is only when a partnership has a President or a Treasurer that it is deemed an association within the meaning of” General Associations Law § 13 … . As such, “[a]n unincorporated association . . . has ‘no legal existence separate and apart from its individual members'” … .

* * * [W]e conclude that the defendants established that United Methodist Church … is a religious denomination with a single purpose—”to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”—and not a jural entity amenable to suit as an unincorporated association. It is undisputed that United Methodist Church does not have a principal place of business, does not have its own offices or employees, and does not and cannot hold title to property, and there is no proof in the record that United Methodist Church has incorporated or held itself out as a jural entity in any other jurisdiction. Moreover, the defendants demonstrated at the hearing that United Methodist Church, as such, does not have any involvement in the staffing or the removal of clergy or staff at the local church level. Chestnut v United Methodist Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03726, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here the “United Methodist Church” was deemed a nonjural entity which cannot be sued in New York–criteria explained in depth.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants landlord and property manager were entitled to have the liability verdict set aside in the interest of justice because the judge should not have precluded testimony by defendants’ expert. Plaintiff-tenants were injured when their apartment ceiling collapsed. The defendant expert would have testified there would have been no visible signs that the ceiling was about to collapse. The court noted that plaintiffs’ request for a Frye hearing was properly denied because the expert would have testified based upon his personal training and experience:

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The expert must possess “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “The expert’s opinion, taken as a whole, must also reflect an acceptable level of certainty in order to be admissible” … .

Here, the defendants’ CPLR 3101(d) disclosure indicated that Yarmus [the defense expert], a professional engineer with experience in construction management and building and safety code compliance, would testify, inter alia, as to the materials and manner of construction of the ceiling at issue, as well as the manner in which ceilings so constructed may detach and collapse, allegedly, without a defect that is detectable so as to give notice of a dangerous condition. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Yarmus’s proposed testimony was neither so conclusory or speculative, nor without basis in the record, as to render it inadmissible … .

… “[T]he long-recognized rule of Frye . . . is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has ‘gained general acceptance’ in its specified field … . An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis … . Ghazala v Shore Haven Apt. Del, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03681, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point; If a judge makes a mistake by precluding admissible testimony, here testimony by the defense expert, the judge has the power to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict.

 

, , ,

LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law section 193 prohibited plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer from reducing plaintiff’s pay to recoup costs associated with a traffic accident alleged to have been the result of plaintiff’s negligence:

Labor Law § 193 “prohibits an employer from making any deduction from an employee’s wages unless permitted by law or authorized by the employee for certain purposes” … . To allow an employer to recover the return of paid wages based upon an employee’s alleged lack of performance “would be permitting [that employer] to do indirectly and retroactively that which the law specifically prohibits it from doing directly” … . This principle applies equally whether the cause of action sounds in negligence or in contract, as an employee may not waive the protections of Labor Law § 193 … .

… [T]he defendants’ counterclaims are explicit attempts to recoup costs for their business allegedly arising out of the plaintiff’s negligence or poor performance. Because such causes of action are barred by the Labor Law, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims. Craig v Fastex Logistics Transp., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03678, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer reduced his pay to recoup costs associated with plaintiff’s traffic accident with a company truck. Such a pay reduction is prohibited by Labor Law section 193.

 

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