You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION.

The Second Department determined the sentences imposed for conspiracy and criminal possession of a controlled substance should run concurrently, not consecutively. The possession offenses, charged in a superior court information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty, were the overt acts charged in the conspiracy count of a subsequent indictment:

As charged here, the underlying crimes were criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The offenses of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, to which the defendant pleaded guilty as charged under the SCI, were based on the same acts charged, in the indictment, as overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy in the second degree count. As such, the actus reus of each of the offenses charged in the SCI was, by definition, “a material element” of the offense charged in the indictment … . Since the People failed to establish the legality of consecutive sentences by showing that the acts committed by the defendant were separate and distinct acts … , the County Court should have directed that the sentence imposed under the indictment run concurrently with the sentences imposed under the SCI. People v Rifino, 2016 NY Slip Op 06513, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION)/SENTENCING (SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION)

ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO RENEW A VARIANCE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied petitioner’s application to renew a variance previously granted by the board. The Second Department held the board had adequately explained the reasons for the denial:

Where “a zoning board is [considering] an application that is substantially similar to a prior application that had been previously determined, the zoning board is required to provide a rational explanation for reaching a different result” … . “Where, however, a zoning board provides a rational explanation for reaching a different result on similar facts, the determination will not be viewed as either arbitrary or capricious” … . The zoning board “may refuse to duplicate previous error; it may change its views as to what is for the best interests of the [Town]; [or] it may give weight to slight differences which are not easily discernable” … .

The ZBA’s determination denying the petitioner’s applications to renew the use variance previously issued in 2007, and for a new use variance, was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion. With respect to renewal of the 2007 variance, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the ZBA’s findings of fact dated December 4, 2013, provided a rational basis for denying the petitioner’s application. The ZBA found, among other things, that the petitioner failed to demonstrate “unnecessary hardship” in accordance with Town Law § 267-b(2)(b). The fact that the ZBA previously temporarily approved the same application in 2007 did not relieve the petitioner of its evidentiary burdens in demonstrating “unnecessary hardship” for purposes of renewal of the use variance, or for purposes of seeking an additional use variance. As the ZBA determined, the petitioner failed to show, based on competent financial evidence, i.e., by dollars and cents proof, that it cannot yield a reasonable rate of return absent the requested use variances … . Matter of Monte Carlo 1, LLC v Weiss, 2016 NY Slip Op 06217, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

ZONING (ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO RENEW A VARIANCE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)/VARIANCE (ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO RENEW A VARIANCE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)

, ,

PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN DRAWING UP AN ESTIMATE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner was not entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff was on the property to provide an estimate of the cost of repair of defendant’s porch when the porch collapsed. Defendant argued she could not be liable because the injury occurred when plaintiff was doing work he was hired to do. However, the plaintiff had not been hired to repair the porch:

Employers have a common-law duty to provide their employees with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, does not extend to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair … . Here, the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the evidence submitted in support of her motion showed that the plaintiff merely went to the premises to prepare an estimate to repair the back porch. The plaintiff had not been hired to repair the back porch and he was not engaged in any repair work when the incident allegedly occurred… . Arcabascio v Bentivegna, 2016 NY Slip Op 06187, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)

FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, alleging injury from a falling piece of sheetrock, was properly granted. The sheetrock in question was stored against a wall and was not being hoisted at the time of the incident. [The extensive decision demonstrates the complexity of Labor Law actions as it addresses Labor Law 241(6) and Labor Law 200 causes of action, indemnification issues and the liability of agents and general contractors.] With respect to the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the court wrote:

“In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240(1) falling object’ case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'” … . “Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . “[F]or section 240 (1) to apply, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

However, Labor Law § 240(1) “does not apply in situations in which a hoisting or securing device of the type enumerated in the statute would not be necessary or expected” … . Here, the sheetrock, which was being stored against a wall, was not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … , nor was it expected, under the circumstances of this case, that the sheetrock would require securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … . Seales v Trident Structural Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06204, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FALLING OBJECTIONS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVE HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS OF PROTECTION REVERSED.

The Second Department determined the appellant was deprived of her right to counsel. The orders of protection were reversed:

A party in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii]), but may waive that right provided that he or she does so knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . In order to determine whether a party is validly waiving the statutory right to counsel, the Family Court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . A waiver is valid where the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel … . The deprivation of a party’s right to counsel guaranteed by Family Court Act § 262 requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … .

Here, the record supports the appellant’s contention that she was not advised of her right to counsel in accordance with Family Court Act § 262(a). Further, there is no indication on the record that she waived her right to counsel. Under these circumstances, the appellant was deprived of her statutory right to counsel .. . Matter of Osorio v Osorio, 2016 NY Slip Op 06219, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVER HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS OF PROTECTION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVER HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS OF PROTECTION REVERSED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVER HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS OF PROTECTION REVERSED)

,

AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.

The Second Department affirmed the sanctions/attorney’s fees awarded for frivolous conduct. The court noted that an aggrieved party need not demonstrate pecuniary loss to warrant an award and an attorney who represents himself defending against frivolous conduct is entitled to an award:

A court may award a party “costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). “In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). The decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount of any such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court’s sound discretion … . * * *

While compensatory sanctions should correspond at least to some degree to the amount of damages, the aggrieved party is not always required to show ” actual pecuniary loss'”… . …

An attorney … , who represents himself, may recover fees for ” the professional time, knowledge and experience . . . which he would otherwise have to pay an attorney for rendering'” … . Board of Mgrs. of Foundry at Wash. Park Condominium v Foundry Dev. Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06189, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

 

ATTORNEYS (AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT)/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT)

FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION.

The Second Department determined failure to strictly comply with the signature requirements in the Village Law invalidated a referendum concerning the elimination of paid fireman positions:

Village Law § 9-902(8) states: “Petition shall be made upon white paper containing the signatures of qualified electors of the village. The sheets of such a petition shall be numbered consecutively beginning with number one at the foot of each sheet. Such petition must set forth in every instance the correct date of signing, the full name of the signer, his present residence, the ward if any and the village election district if any. A signer need not himself fill in the date, residence, ward, or election district” … . The respondents/defendants do not dispute that their referendum petitions failed to set forth the village election district for all but 5 of the 4,254 signatories. * * *

The Court of Appeals has held that, “[w]hile substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” … . Here, the prescribed content includes the village election district, which is a matter of substance, not form … . Matter of Pilla v Karnsomtob, 2016 NY Slip Op 06142, 2nd Dept 9-26-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION)/VILLAGE LAW (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION)/REFERENDUM (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION)/PETITIONS (REFERENDUM, VILLAGE LAW, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION)

FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined strict compliance with the Election Law required that 29 signatures on a designating petition be invalidated. The dates opposite the signatures included the day and month but not the year:

Two statutory provisions are directly relevant to the disposition of this appeal. First, Election Law § 6-130 provides that “[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Second, Election Law § 6-132(1) requires that the “day and year” be “placed opposite” the signature of each signer on a designating petition (Election Law § 6-132[1]). * * *

The requirement that the date—the “day and year”—accompany those signatures is a matter of prescribed content, not form … . “While substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” … . Matter of Avella v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06141, 2nd Dept 9-26-16

 

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION)/DESIGNATING PETITIONS (ELECTION LAW, FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION)

,

SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined a scrap metal seller was not operating a “transfer station” within the meaning of the Westchester County Solid Waste Law. Therefore, certain fines and license fees related to the operation of a transfer station should not have been imposed by the county. The Second Department noted that, in reviewing an Article 78 proceeding, as long as the underlying statute does not require expertise to interpret, the reviewing court has the power to determine the meaning of the controlling statute. Here the plain meaning of the statute would not support defining the scrap metal sales operation as a transfer station:

The petitioner, Universal Metal & Ore, Inc. (hereinafter Universal), is an international metal trading company founded in 1951, which maintains a facility in Mount Vernon. Essentially, Universal is in the business of purchasing scrap metal, and reselling it at a profit to other companies. The primary issue raised on appeal is whether Universal’s Mount Vernon facility, where Universal accepts deliveries of scrap metal from independent dealers and stores it pending transport, may be considered a solid waste “transfer station” under the Westchester County Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Licensing Law (hereinafter the Solid Waste Law). … [W]e conclude that Universal’s facility is not a transfer station as defined by the Solid Waste Law, and that there was thus no rational basis for the Westchester County Solid Waste Commission’s determination to fine Universal for operating a transfer station without a license. Matter of Universal Metal & Ore, Inc. v Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 2016 NY Slip Op 06091, 2nd Dept 9-21-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SOLID WASTE LAW, SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW)/SOLID WASTE LAW (SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW)/SCRAP METAL (SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW)

,

CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for damages stemming from the defendant's breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Plaintiff held a proprietary lease in a cooperative. A storm damaged the terrace adjacent to the apartment. Plaintiff was entitled to damages for the period of time the terrace was closed:

The implied warranty of habitability, codified in the Real Property Law, provides that in every written lease for residential purposes, the landlord or lessor “shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented and all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety” (Real Property Law § 235-b[1]). In Solow v Wellner (86 NY2d 582, 587-588), the Court of Appeals clarified that Real Property Law § 235-b(1) includes three separate covenants: “(1) that the premises are fit for human habitation, (2) that the premises are fit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and (3) that the occupants will not be subjected to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety” (id. at 587-588 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A breach of warranty may be said to have occurred where the premises have not met the reasonable expectations of the parties” (7-82 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 82.22 [2016]). Here, the plaintiff established that the water damage and subsequent closures of the terrace rendered it unfit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties … . Goldhirsch v St. George Tower & Grill Owners Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06060, 2nd Dept 9-21-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/APARTMENTS (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/TERRACES (APARTMENTS, CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/HABITABIILITY, IMPLIED WARRANTY OF (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)

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