You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING ACTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BROKERS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-insurance-brokers who procured the policy on the plaintiff-insured's behalf. The insured did not notify the brokers of the action against the insured for 52 days. The excuses offered by the insured for the delay (complicated policy language, good-faith belief insured was not liable) were not supported by sufficient evidence:

Where an insurance policy requires an insured to provide notice ” as soon as practicable,' such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time. The insured's failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” … . “[T]here may be circumstances that excuse a failure to give timely notice, such as where the insured has a good-faith belief of nonliability,' provided that belief is reasonable” … . It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse … . “Ordinarily, the question of whether the insured had a good-faith belief in nonliability, and whether that belief was reasonable, presents an issue of fact and not one of law” … . “Nevertheless, the issue of whether an insured's excuse for the delay is reasonable may be determined as a matter of law where the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes that the belief was unreasonable or in bad faith'” … . Rockland Exposition, Inc. v Marshall & Sterling Enters., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03157, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY OF METHODS USED BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY HIS IP ADDRESS AND THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPUTER, SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

The Second Department, in this child pornography case, determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer without a hearing. The defense motion papers raised substantive factual disputes concerning the efficacy and legality of methods and software used by the police to identify defendant's IP address and the contents of defendant's computer, issues which can only be resolved by a hearing:

In determining a motion to suppress evidence, the court “is required to grant a hearing if the defendant raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . “[T]he sufficiency of [a] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … .

In his omnibus motion, the defendant contended that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The defendant's motion included detailed factual allegations regarding the functioning of peer-to-peer networks and, based on these assertions, challenged the detective's contention in the warrant application that he was able to identify child pornography files that actually existed on the defendant's computer. In his separate suppression motion, the defendant raised a factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the use of certain software or other activity by the investigating detective prior to securing the warrant constituted a search of his computer. People v Worrell, 2016 NY Slip Op 03206, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Second Department determined the trial judge's denial of the defense's for cause juror challenge was reversible error:

CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a prospective juror may be challenged for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Where an issue is raised concerning the ability of a prospective juror to be fair and impartial, the prospective juror must state unequivocally that his or her prior state of mind will not influence his or her verdict, and that he or she will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence … . A prospective juror's responses, construed as a whole, must demonstrate an absolute belief that his or her prior opinion will not influence his or her verdict … .

Here, during voir dire, one prospective juror indicated in response to questioning by defense counsel that, because she had a 14-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old daughter, this “could” weigh on her ability to be fair and impartial because “[t]hey are the same age range” as the complainant. When defense counsel followed up by asking, “[w]ould you fear whether or not you could be fair and impartial?,” the prospective juror responded by stating, “I think it would be hard for me to watch a witness, being that I have daughters the same age.”

Once the prospective juror expressed doubt regarding her ability to be impartial, it was incumbent upon the court to ascertain that she would render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . This was not done. People v Valdez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03203, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT MET BY POINTING TO GAPS IN OTHER PARTY’S PROOF.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of plaintiff police officer's negligence cause of action did not mandate dismissal of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his slip and fall injury resulted from defendant's failure to comply with specified regulations. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate the regulations were not breached. The court noted that simply pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof is not enough in the summary judgment context:

…[T]he dismissal of the plaintiff's common-law negligence cause of action was not fatal, as a matter of law, to his General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In order to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the statute does not mandate that the plaintiff establish general negligence, but rather, negligence of any person in “failing to comply” with the requirements of, inter alia, a regulation … , or ” negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … . Furthermore, while the plaintiff alleged in his consolidated complaint that the defendants violated certain identified regulations, the defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate in their submissions to the Supreme Court that these regulations were not breached. A defendant's prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment cannot be met by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case … . Vaughn v Veolia Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02985, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


,

VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant village's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Although the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the stop-sign “stump” over which plaintiff tripped, the village did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition. There was evidence the stump was exposed (not buried) immediately after the village removed the stop sign:

” Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies'” … . ” The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality'” … . The affirmative negligence exception “is limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … .

Where, as here, the plaintiff has alleged that the affirmative negligence exception applies, the Village was required to show, prima facie, that the exception does not apply. Although the Village proved that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged defect … . Kelley v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 2016 NY Slip Op 02966, 2nd Dept 4-20-15


, ,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF EXCUSE.

The Second Department determined a late notice of claim was properly allowed despite the absence of an excuse for the delay in serving the notice. The claim alleged negligence during an emergency cesarean birth at defendant facility. Because the medical records memorialized the event, the delay caused no prejudice to the defendant:

The petitioner established that the appellant had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim by virtue of its possession of the infant's medical records, which detail her delivery and post-natal care, and established that the delay in serving the notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits. Under those circumstances, the fact that the petitioner could not show a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant … . Matter of Benjamin v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 02989, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN SLIP AND FALL AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined defendants' (appellants') motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied because the defendants failed to demonstrate when the area was last cleaned or inspected:

Here, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they did not have constructive notice of any hazardous condition. Although the appellants presented evidence that they neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged condition, they failed to demonstrate that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition, as they failed to tender any evidence establishing when the subject area was last inspected prior to the plaintiff's alleged accident … . James v Orion Condo-350 W. 42nd St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02964, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).

Plaintiff was injured when his leg slipped into a 12-inch square opening in a rebar grid. The Second Department determined an opening through which a worker's body could not fall through was not an elevation hazard (Labor Law 240(1)) and did not violate a regulation prohibiting “hazardous openings” (Labor Law 241(6):

… [T]he openings of the grid, which were not of a dimension that would have permitted the plaintiff's body to completely fall through and land on the floor below, did not present an elevation-related hazard to which the protective devises enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) are designed to apply … . …

This Court has repeatedly held that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7, which concerns “hazardous openings,” does not apply to openings that are too small for a worker to completely fall through … . Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02986, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS TERMS.

The Second Department, affirming the dismissal of a fraud cause of action, noted that plaintiff's acknowledgment he did not read the relevant documents before signing them prevented plaintiff from establishing justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations in the documents:

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Each of the foregoing elements must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong sufficient to satisfy CPLR 3016(b) … . Here, the complaint, as supplemented by the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition, does not contain any allegations setting forth any material misrepresentations the defendants made to the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff's averment that he did not read the documents before signing them prevents him from establishing justifiable reliance, an essential element of fraud … . “A party who signs a document without any valid excuse for not having read it is conclusively bound' by its terms” … . Stortini v Pollis, 2016 NY Slip Op 02984, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


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