You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure case did not have sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint sua sponte (another reminder that sua sponte dismissals of complaints rarely survive appeal);

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . “[A] court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by an arbitrary date set by the court” … . “To obtain appellate review of an order or portion of an order issued sua sponte, a party may move to vacate the order or portion of the order and appeal as of right to the Appellate Division if that motion to vacate is denied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar, as the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by July 26, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint … . James B. Nutter & Co. v Heirs & distributees of the estate of Rose Middleton, 2024 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point; Failure to meet a filing deadline set by the court was not an adequate reason for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.

 

IT WAS FORSEEABLE THAT A LEAKY ROOF NEEDING REPAIR WOULD COLLAPSE WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who fell when the roof he was working on collapsed, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The court noted the accident was foreseeable and no protective device was provided:

“‘In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . “Thus, to establish a prima facie case pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard was foreseeable, and that an absent or defective protective device of the type enumerated in the statute was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged” … .

Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, that the need for safety devices to protect the injured plaintiff from an elevation-related hazard was foreseeable, as the injured plaintiff was replacing wood decking on a pitched, elevated roof that had sustained water leaks, and that his injuries were proximately caused by the lack of adequate safety devices … . Sanchez v Congregation of Emanuel of Westchester, 2024 NY Slip Op 03446, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: An accident must be foreseeable to trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here the court deemed it foreseeable that a roof which leaked and needed repair would collapse when plaintiff was standing on it.

 

IF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER MOVES CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff alleged the unsecured ladder moved causing him to fall:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that the unsecured ladder moved and fell, causing him to fall … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Paiba v 56-11 94th St. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03437, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: Because contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, it is enough to allege an A-frame ladder was unsecured and moved, causing plaintiff to fall.

 

,

IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required to determine whether defendant was properly served in this medical malpractice action. Defendant doctor never appeared and a default judgment of over $2 million had been entered:

In order to warrant a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the denial of service must be substantiated by specific, detailed facts that contradict the affidavit of service … .

Here, the affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service. In moving … to vacate the judgment, the defendant did not merely make a conclusory denial of service, but provided specific, detailed facts that contradicted the affidavit of service. The defendant denied having an employee who had the same name or matched the physical description as the individual allegedly served, “Pearl Unan.” … [T]he defendant stated that at the time of the alleged service his office was closed and there was no one at his reception desk. The defendant’s sworn, nonconclusory denial of service was sufficient to dispute the veracity or contents of the affidavit, requiring a hearing … . … [T]he affidavits of Alexis Malone and Scott Sachs, who were employed by the defendant, also provided specific and detailed facts that contradicted the affidavit of service. Harrison v Schottenstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 03418, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: Although a process server’s affidavit is prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn, nonconclusory, fact-based denial of service by the defendant requires a hearing. If defendant is never served, the court never had jurisdiction.

 

,

A COUNTY MAY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVSION OF A VISIT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD BY A COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKER AT A PUBLIC PARK; HERE THE CHILD FELL WALKING UP A SLIDE; THE CASEWORKER DID NOT OBSERVE THE ACCIDENT BUT MOTHER WAS NEXT TO THE SLIDE AT THE TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. Plaintiff father alleged the county social services caseworker (Byrne) who supervised a visit between mother and the infant plaintiff at a public playground was negligent in allowing the child to walk up a slide where the infant plaintiff fell. Byrne did not observe the accident. The Second Department held Byrne was performing a governmental function, the county owed infant plaintiff a special duty, Byrne’s actions were not demonstrated to be discretionary, and the county did not demonstrate Byrne’s acts or omissions were not a proximate cause of the accident. The opinion provides a clear explanation of the complex issues associated with governmental liability in this “negligent supervision” context:

“Once it is determined that a municipality was exercising a governmental function, the next inquiry focuses on the extent to which the municipality owed a duty to the injured party” … . “In order to sustain liability against a municipality engaged in a governmental function, ‘the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally'” … . * * *

… “[U]nder the doctrine of governmental function immunity, government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . * * *

… [T]he County may assume a special duty to a foster child during the course of visitation supervised by a DSS caseworker. * * *

Since Byrne acknowledged that he did not observe the infant plaintiff walking up the portion of the slide intended for children to slide down prior to the accident, it cannot be said that he made a discretionary decision whether or not the infant plaintiff’s behavior warranted his intervention. Thus, any exercise of discretion by Byrne during visitation bore no relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated. P.D. v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 03405, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: The complex criteria for government liability in a negligent-supervision-of-a-child case are clearly and comprehensively explained.

 

,

THE COVID FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM INSTITUTED BY HUD FOR FHA INSURED MORTGAGES APPLIED TO RENDER THE REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE IN THIS CASE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, addressing a question of first impression, determined that the COVID foreclosure moratorium instituted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which stayed foreclosures on mortgages issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) applied to render an action to foreclose a reverse mortgage timely:

Courts and the legal community are now likely familiar with the 2020 executive orders that tolled time limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic … . On this appeal, we are asked to consider another governmental pause on business as usual that was spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 18, 2020, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter HUD) instituted a COVID-19-related moratorium that effectively stayed foreclosures with respect to mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (hereinafter FHA). This moratorium (hereinafter the FHA COVID-19 moratorium) remained in effect until July 31, 2021. This appeal presents an issue of apparent first impression for an appellate court in this State, namely, whether the statute of limitations for commencing a foreclosure action may be tolled by virtue of the FHA COVID-19 moratorium. We hold that the FHA COVID-19 moratorium, which constituted a stay of foreclosures of federally backed mortgages, may indeed toll the statute of limitations for commencing a foreclosure action, and, on the facts of this case, the FHA COVID-19 moratorium did toll the applicable limitations period. Given the benefit of the toll, one of the defendants timely commenced a separate but related action to foreclose a home equity conversion mortgage, also known as a reverse mortgage, and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, seeking to quiet title, brought by the alleged owner of the property encumbered by the reverse mortgage. Trento 67, LLC v OneWest Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 03198, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Here the COVID foreclosure moratorium instituted by HUD for FHA-insured mortgages rendered the reverse mortgage foreclosure timely.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE AND SNOW AFTER GETTING OUT OF A VEHICLE RESULTED FROM OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined the insurer, Progressive, was obligated to defend the owner of a vehicle for injuries suffered by a passenger (Malone) who slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the car. The question was whether the injury resulted from “operation” of the vehicle:

“Use of an automobile encompasses more than simply driving it, and includes all necessary incidental activities such as entering and leaving its confines” … . While a claim that an accident occurred during unloading “does not require a showing that the vehicle itself produced the injury . . . , it is insufficient to show merely that the accident occurred during the period of loading or unloading. Rather, the accident must be the result of some act or omission related to the use of the vehicle” … .

… Malone specifically alleged in the underlying action that Anthony (the vehicle-owner’s son) parked his vehicle in a negligent manner on a slippery surface and that such negligence was a proximate cause of her accident. Progressive submitted an affidavit from Malone … in which she stated, “I slipped on the snowy and icy condition as I was taking my first steps toward the house. I dropped my child and my legs slid, along the gradient, underneath the CAPERNA Vehicle.” Progressive further submitted Malone’s deposition testimony in the underlying action, which demonstrated that the door of the vehicle was open and that she had only taken two steps away from the vehicle when she slipped and fell on snow and ice located on the lawn. As such, Progressive failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the accident was not a covered event, as there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Malone had completed unloading the vehicle. As there are allegations that the vehicle was used negligently and that such negligence contributed to the accident, Progressive was not entitled to summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Arthur (the vehicle owner) in the underlying action … . Matter of Progressive Dr. Ins. v Malone, 2024 NY Slip Op 03178, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: “Operation” of a vehicle may include parking the vehicle in a manner which makes getting out of it dangerous. Here a passenger slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the parked vehicle and the insurer was obligated to defend the owner of the vehicle.

 

, ,

ABSENT SELF-INTEREST OR SELF-DEALING, AN ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE LIABLE TO A THIRD PERSON FOR INDUCING THE CLIENT TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH THAT THIRD PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the attorney’s (Treco’s) inducing his client (Reynolds) to breach a contract with a third person is not actionable:

“[I]nasmuch as the relationship created between an attorney and his [or her] client is that of principal and agent, an attorney is not liable for inducing his [or her] principal to breach a contract with a third person, at least where he [or she] is acting on behalf of his [or her] principal within the scope of his [or her] authority” … . “Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client” … . Here, the Treco defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that Treco was acting on Reynolds’s behalf and within the scope of Treco’s authority as Reynolds’s attorney … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence cited by the plaintiffs did not support a finding that Treco’s acts in representing Reynolds were motivated by any self-interest or self-dealing or that the acts personally benefitted Treco … . Kugel v Reynolds, 2024 NY Slip Op 03173, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Absent self-interest or self-dealing, and attorney is not liable to a third person for inducing a client to breach a contract with that third person.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP WAS AWARE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF ITS EMPLOYEE’S PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case alleging abuse at defendant’s summer camp in 1970, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact supporting the negligent hiring, retention and supervision cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he informed defendant of the abuse by the employee (Puello):

“Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring and retention of the employee” … . “To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . “The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the [supervision,] hiring and retention of the employee” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked actual or constructive notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for the conduct that caused the plaintiff’s injury. However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for sexual abuse, given, among other things, the frequency and nature of the alleged abuse perpetrated by Puello … . Moreover, the plaintiff averred in his affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion that he “clearly told” Thomas Brown, an employee in the camp’s infirmary, about the first of Puello’s alleged assaults, which continued thereafter, raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for sexual abuse. Hammill v Salesians of Don Bosco, 2024 NY Slip Op 03170, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Here in this child victims act case alleging abuse of the plaintiff in 1970, plaintiff raised a question of fact whether defendant summer camp was aware of its employee’s propensity for sexual abuse. Among other allegations, plaintiff alleged he told an infirmary employee about the abuse and it continued thereafter.

 

,

A LANDLORD WHO SEEKS TO RETAIN PART OF A TENANT’S SECURITY DEPOSIT MUST PROVIDE THE TENANT WITH AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE DAMAGE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE VACATION OF THE PROPERTY; HERE THE ITEMIZED STATEMENT WAS SIX DAYS LATE, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant landlord did not comply with General Obligations Law section 7 (which requires the landlord who seeks to retain a portion of a security deposit for damage to the property to submit an itemized statement within 14 days of the tenant’s vacation of the property} precluded summary judgment in favor of the landlord. Here the landlord submitted the itemized statement six days late:

“In 2019, the legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (hereinafter HSTPA) (L 2019, ch 36)” … , “landmark legislation making sweeping changes to the rent laws and adding greater protections for tenants throughout the State” … . In order to use security deposit funds to pay the cost of repairing damages caused by a tenant … , a landlord must comply, among other things, with General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e), one of the statutory provisions enacted by HSTPA. Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e), “[w]ithin fourteen days after the tenant has vacated the premises, the landlord shall provide the tenant with an itemized statement indicating the basis for the amount of the deposit retained, if any, and shall return any remaining portion of the deposit to the tenant.” General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e) further provides that, “[i]f a landlord fails to provide the tenant with the statement and deposit within fourteen days, the landlord shall forfeit any right to retain any portion of the deposit” … . Cohen v Abruzzo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03163, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to General Obligations Law section 7, a landlord who seeks to retain part of a tenant’s security deposit must provide the tenant with an itemized statement of the damages within 14 days of the vacation of the property.

 

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