You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined the terms of the lease negated the claimed violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs leased defendants’ property to operate a car dealership. After learning that a local law prohibited parking cars without license plates on the property, the plaintiffs asked to be released from the lease. The landlord refused. The terms of the lease specifically stated (1) it was subject to any local law restrictions and (2) it made no representations the property was suitable to plaintiffs’ intended business:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached when a party acts in a manner that would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits of their agreement … . The implied covenant includes any promises which a reasonable promisee would be justified in understanding were included … . However, no obligation may be implied that would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship … . Here, a finding that the defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing would necessarily contradict explicit and unambiguous terms of the lease agreements and create additional obligations not contained in them. Specifically, the lease agreements, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, provided that the written agreements superseded all “representations and understandings, written, oral or otherwise, between or among the parties with respect to the matters contained herein.” Additionally, the specific provisions in the lease agreements relating to parking were made subject to “any restrictions of local law, zoning or ordinance.” Finally, the lease agreements specifically provided that the landlord made no representation concerning the suitability of the premises for the plaintiffs’ intended business. Imposing a duty on the landlord to disclose zoning or local law restrictions would render those provisions ineffective … . These express and specific provisions in the lease itself conclusively establish a defense to causes of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . 1357 Tarrytown Rd. Auto, LLC v Granite Props., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05981, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)/CONTRACT (LEASES, LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (LEASES, LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY)

,

SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS.

In a matter of first impression, the Second Department determined the SAFE ACT, which allows holders of pistol permits to apply to have their names and addresses removed from the public record, does not affect the application of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) exemptions to holders of pistol permits which remain on the public record. Therefore, the newspaper’s (Gannett’s) request for the names and addresses of pistol permit holders (those not “excepted” under the SAFE ACT) was properly granted because none of the FOIL exemptions applied:

The County parties’ argument that, pursuant to Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b)(ii), disclosure of the names and addresses of pistol permit holders would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy because Gannett intends to use the names and addresses of pistol permit holders for solicitation purposes is without merit. Gannett’s status as a commercial enterprise does not demonstrate that Gannett intends to use the names and addresses to solicit business … , and it represented that it did not intend to do so.

Moreover, the County parties failed to establish that disclosure of the names and addresses would ” be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities'” … . The County parties also failed to establish that any other exemptions to the FOIL disclosure requirement are applicable to the records at issue. Matter of Inc. v County of Putnam, 2016 NY Slip Op 05999, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)/SAFE ACT (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)/PISTOL PERMITS (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)

,

FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff bank failed to satisfy the foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Although the affiant (Roesner) stated he was familiar with the successor-in-interest’s record keeping system, he did not allege he was familiar with the plaintiff bank’s record keeping practices and procedures:

Roesner averred, inter alia, that his knowledge of the relevant facts was based on his “examination of the financial books and business records made in the ordinary course of business maintained by or on behalf of the successor in interest to the Plaintiff,” and that he was “familiar with the record keeping systems that [the] successor in interest to the Plaintiff and/or its loan servicer use[d] to record and create information related to the residential mortgage loans that it services.” …

* * * On its motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Roesner under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), and, thus, failed to establish the appellant’s default in payment under the note. “A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures”… . Roesner, who was employed by the loan servicer …, did not allege that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record keeping practices and procedures. Thus, Roesner failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the appellant’s payment history… . HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 2016 NY Slip Op 05973, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

FORECLOSURE (FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, (FORECLOSURE. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL.

The Second Department determined pro se defendant was not deprived of his right to counsel when his request for standby counsel was denied. A defendant has no constitutional right to so-called “hybrid” representation:

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to proceed pro se. At the beginning of pretrial proceedings, however, the defendant sought standby counsel to assist in his self-representation. “A criminal defendant has no Federal or State constitutional right to hybrid representation. While the Sixth Amendment and the State Constitution afford a defendant the right to counsel or to self-representation, they do not guarantee a right to both . . . [, and] a defendant who elects to exercise the right to self-representation is not guaranteed the assistance of standby counsel during trial” … . However, “[b]ecause a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for hybrid representation. People v Neree, 2016 NY Slip Op 06006, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/HYBRID REPRESENTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/STANDBY COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER.

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined striking the answer was too severe a sanction for failure to preserve a video of the underlying incident (spoliation). The court noted that the plaintiff could still prove his case without the video recording. Therefore, an adverse inference jury instruction was an appropriate sanction:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” … . “The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to'” prove its claim or defense … . However, ” striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct'” and, thus, the courts must ” consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . “When the moving party is still able to establish or defend a case, a less severe sanction is appropriate” … . Peters v Hernandez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05983, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER)/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER)/SPOLIATION (FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF.

The Second Department, in a dispute among business partners, determined certain motions for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court explained that summary judgment cannot rest on gaps in the opposing party’s proof. A defendant bringing the motion must make out a prima facie case by addressing every issue raised in the pleadings. Where every issue is not addressed with substantive proof, the motion must be denied without reference to the opposing papers:

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . In this case, the individual defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not breach any fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs during the course of all of the transactions or occurrences described in the amended complaint … . Similarly, the individual defendants failed to affirmatively establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs did not sustain any damages as a result of their alleged misconduct … .

Furthermore, the submissions of the individual defendants were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the application of the business judgment rule protected all of the transactions or occurrences described in the amended complaint from judicial scrutiny. * * * The individual defendants’ representations that all of the challenged conduct outlined in the amended complaint was performed in furtherance of the Partnership’s legitimate interests were conclusory, unsubstantiated, and, without more, amounted to bare legal conclusions that were insufficient to establish that the business judgment rule barred judicial inquiry into these matters … . Katz v Beil, 2016 NY Slip Op 05977, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF)

,

PURPORTED RISK OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR A DELAY IN ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT; MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment should not have been granted. The defendants failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the six-month delay in answering. The court rejected the argument that a timely answer would have risked waiver of the right to compel arbitration:

The defendants asserted that they did not serve a timely answer because, “[h]ad [they] served an answer, they risked waiving the right to compel arbitration.” This excuse was not reasonable given the procedural means that were available to the defendants to avoid default while preserving their right to demand arbitration of the dispute (see CPLR 7503[a]; see also CPLR 3211[a], [f]…). Duprat v BMW Fin. Servs., NA, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05970, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PURPORTED RISK OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR A DELAY IN ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT; MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ARBITRATION (PURPORTED RISK OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR A DELAY IN ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT; MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (PURPORTED RISK OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR A DELAY IN ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT; MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION. 

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the supplemental bill of particulars served by plaintiff was not an amended bill of particulars (which would have required leave of court) and plaintiff’s failure to appear at a deposition scheduled one day before a mediation (which was not fruitful) did not amount to willful and contumacious conduct and did not, therefore, warrant striking the supplemental bill of particulars:

Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), “[a] party may serve a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to claims of continuing special damages and disabilities,” with the proviso that “no new cause of action may be alleged or new injury claimed” (CPLR 3043[b] [emphasis added]). Moreover, the statute provides that supplemental bills of particulars may be served 30 days or more prior to trial without leave of court, and that the opposing party is entitled to an opportunity for further disclosure regarding the continuing damages and disabilities. * * *

While the striking of a pleading or the preclusion of evidence may be appropriate in those instances where parties engage in the chronic or repeated obstruction of discovery, thereby evidencing a willful disregard of legitimate disclosure requests and court orders … , the plaintiff’s failure to appear for a further deposition on the stipulated date does not, under the circumstances presented, rise to such a level of misconduct. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate any other discovery violations by the plaintiff. Accordingly, no willful and contumacious conduct was established … . Alicino v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05966, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION)/WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS (SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in the objectants’ actions against the executor (Mahler) for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.  The executor sold the estate asset (real property) to an acquaintance for half of its value. The acquaintance sold the property for nearly double the purchase price:

A fiduciary acting on behalf of an estate is required to employ such diligence and prudence to the care and management of the estate assets and affairs as would prudent persons of discretion and intelligence in their own like affairs … . “[A] fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect” … . In performing his fiduciary duty as the executor of the decedent’s estate, Mahler was required to use good business judgment … . To the extent that the sale of the property does not meet this standard, the beneficiaries of the estate may seek to surcharge him … . “To obtain such a surcharge, it is not enough for the contestants to show that the representatives of the estate did not get the highest price obtainable; it must be shown that they acted negligently, and with an absence of diligence and prudence which an ordinary [person] would exercise in his [or her] own affairs” … . Matter of Billmyer, 2016 NY Slip Op 05994, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)/EXECUTORS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)

,

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge of defendant homeowners association’s exercise of a right of first refusal. Plaintiffs had entered a purchase contract for a home within the association, but, pursuant the provisions of the purchase contract and the association’s declaration and restrictive covenants (Declaration), the association purchased the property. Applying the business judgment rule, the Second Department held the association had the authority to purchase the home:

In reviewing the actions of a homeowners’ association, a court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the association … . The business judgment doctrine does not apply when a board acts outside the scope of its authority … . * * *

The contract … specifically provided that the purchaser acknowledged that the transaction was subject to the waiver, or deemed waiver, of the right of first refusal held by the Association as set forth in the Declaration. Further, the Board, on behalf of the Association, exercised the right of first refusal within the time period set forth in the Declaration. 19 Pond, Inc. v Goldens Bridge Community Assn., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05979, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

REAL ESTATE (HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)/EVIDENCE (HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)

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