You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO.

The Second Department determined the relevant supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) provisions of appellant's policy were unambiguous and limited recovery for the death of appellant's daughter to a total of $50,000. Appellant argued the policy allowed recovery of the $50,000 limit, despite recovery of $50,000 under the tortfeasor's policy:

Based upon the … provisions of the policy, the Supreme Court properly found that the $50,000 recovered by the appellant from the tortfeasor was equivalent to the maximum SUM limit provided for in the policy. Therefore, the appellant had no possibility of an additional recovery, which rendered her SUM claim academic … . The language of the SUM endorsement was not ambiguous and must be enforced … . Matter of Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. Co. v Savio, 2016 NY Slip Op 02358, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

INSURANCE LAW (SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)/SUPPLEMENATAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE (SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)

JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Second Department determined defendant's conviction must be reversed because the trial court should have granted defense counsel request to excuse a prospective juror for cause. The juror said she “didn't know” whether the sexual assault of her aunt would affect her ability to judge the sexual-offense case for which the jury was being selected:

Here, during voir dire, one prospective juror indicated that because her aunt had been the victim of a violent sexual assault, it would “be a little bit hard” for her to keep an open mind when listening to the facts of this case. When asked whether she could “give the defendant in this case a fair trial,” she responded, “I can manage. Yes.” When asked if it was possible that her judgment in this case might be affected by her aunt's case, she responded, “Might.” The Supreme Court also asked the prospective juror if the fact that this case did not involve a sex crime would “change things” for her, and she responded, “Part of it. Yeah.” The prospective juror confirmed that she would refrain from blaming the defendant for what happened to her aunt or favoring the prosecution for successfully prosecuting her aunt's assailant, but when asked again by defense counsel whether her aunt's experience “might affect [her] ability to judge this case,” the juror paused and finally said, “I don't know.” The court denied the defendant's challenge for cause to this prospective juror. The defense then exercised a peremptory challenge to remove her and exhausted all of its peremptory challenges prior to the end of jury selection.

At no point did the prospective juror unequivocally state that her prior state of mind would not influence her verdict, and that she would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the defense's challenge for cause to this prospective juror … . People v Malloy, 2016 NY Slip Op 02380, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED)FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE (JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY.

In this foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank's motion for summary judgment should not have been entertained because defendant had died before the motion was brought. The order appealed from was therefore a nullity:

Here, the deceased defendant died before the plaintiff's motion was made and before the order appealed from was issued. The attorney who had represented the deceased defendant prior to his death purportedly took this appeal on behalf of, among others, the deceased defendant. However, since a substitution of parties had not been effected prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, counsel lacked the authority to act for the deceased defendant, and the purported appeal taken on behalf of the deceased defendant must be dismissed … . Furthermore, since no substitution was made prior to the entry of the order appealed from, the order appealed from is a nullity to the extent that it pertains to the deceased defendant, and we vacate so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the deceased defendant … .

Similarly, in this case, since a proper substitution had not been made, the Supreme Court should not have determined the merits of the plaintiff's motion, even to the extent that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants … . Aurora Bank FSB v Albright, 2016 NY Slip Op 02307, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/JURISDICTION (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/APPEALS (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)

,

NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled a use variance granted to allow the construction of a car wash. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created” … .

With regard to the first element, “[i]t is well settled that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses'” … . * * * The … parties did not … submit any actual financial information, such as the original purchase price of the property, the expenses and carrying costs of the property, the present value of the property, the taxes, the amount of any mortgages or other encumbrances, the amount of income presently realized, if any, or an estimate as to what a reasonable return on the entire property or any portion should be … .

Entitlement to a use variance is not established merely by proof that the proposed use would be more profitable than a smaller scaled project not requiring a use variance .. . The … parties are entitled to a reasonable return, not the most profitable return … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the ZBA’s determination that the Splash parties established unnecessary hardship was arbitrary and capricious since it does not have a rational basis in the record … . Matter of DeFeo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Bedford, 2016 NY Slip Op 02082, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/LAND USE (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/USE VARIANCE (NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)

 

,

FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

The Second Department determined a firefighter's General Municipal Law 205-a(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff firefighter was injured when he fell into a pit in defendants' garage while fighting a fire. The General Municipal Law allows a firefighter to sue for injury incurred due to a failure to comply with an applicable regulation. Plaintiff alleged the open pit violated an OSHA regulation. However, OSHA regulations apply only in employer/employee relationships:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides that a firefighter has a cause of action when he or she sustains an injury in the line of duty “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” The plaintiff contends that he sustained an injury in the line of duty as a result of the defendants' violation of OSHA regulation 29 CFR § 1910.23(a)(1). However, a cause of action predicated on the alleged violation of OSHA regulations can only be maintained against a plaintiff's employer … . This Court has noted that OSHA governs employee/employer relationships, and thus OSHA regulations do not impose a specific statutory duty on parties other than a plaintiff's employer … . Gallagher v 109-02 Dev., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02051, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/FIREFIGHTERS (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)/OSHA REGULATIONS (FIREFIGHTER'S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER)

,

WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION.

The Second Department determined defendant surgeon's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court noted that the doctor's proof addressed only the alleged departure from good and accepted practice and did not address any of the proximate cause allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff, in opposition to summary judgment, need only address the departure from good and accepted practice to defeat the motion:

Here, the expert affirmation submitted by the defendant established, prima facie, that his treatment of the decedent did not depart from good and accepted medical practice. However, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that any alleged departure from the standard of care was not a proximate cause of the decedent's death … . Thus, in order to defeat the defendant's motion, the plaintiffs only had to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the issue of departure from good and accepted medical practice … . The competing expert affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition was sufficient to do so … . Uchitel v Fleischer, 2016 NY Slip Op 02075, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ADDRESS PROXIMATE CAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION)

,

SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant oncologist, Khulpateea, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the “continuous treatment doctrine” did not apply to extend the statute. Plaintiff's decedent saw Khulpateea several times, after referral from decedent's gynecologist, and Khulpateea performed surgical procedures on decedent. It was only the last procedure which discovered the cancer. Each procedure was deemed to constitute a discrete event which did not anticipate ongoing treatment by Khulpateea:

“To establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applies, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate that there was a course of treatment, that it was continuous, and that it was in respect to the same condition or complaint underlying the claim of malpractice'” … . “Continuity of treatment is often found to exist when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient as manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during th[e] last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments which characterized the treatment in the immediate past'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show that there was a continuous course of treatment. The diagnostic services performed by Khulpateea were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing that the decedent and Khulpateea contemplated further treatment after the follow-up visit … . The decedent did not schedule another appointment with Khulpateea until she returned to see him in 2005, and she only did so then because [her gynecologist] referred her to him … . Nisanov v Khulpateea, 2016 NY Slip Op 02062, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall was trivial as a matter of law. The defendants submitted insufficient or conflicting evidence of the dimensions of the defect and the photographs were not dispositive:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

In support of its motion, [one of the defendants] failed to submit any measurements of the dimensions of the alleged defective condition.  * * *

… [The other defendant] submitted conflicting evidence as to the dimensions of the alleged defective condition, including the plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and measurements performed by its expert, and it is impossible to ascertain from the photographs submitted in support of the motion whether the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law … . Padarat v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 02064, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff limited liability company's failure to comply with the publication requirement of Limited Liability Company Law 2016[a] precluded the company from bringing the action:

Limited Liability Company Law § 206 requires limited liability companies to publish their articles of organization or comparable specified information for six successive weeks in two local newspapers designated by the clerk of the county where the limited liability company has its principal office, followed by the filing of an affidavit with the Department of State, stating that such publication has been completed … . Failure to comply with these requirements precludes a limited liability company from maintaining any action or special proceeding in New York … . Here, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the publication requirements of Limited Liability Company Law § 206, it is precluded from bringing this action … . Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Bldrs., L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 02071, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

LIMITWED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)/PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to payment under his supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage. The SUM covered loss up to $100,000. The plaintiff recovered $100,000 from the other driver's insurance. Therefore nothing was due under the SUM provision of plaintiff's policy:

The SUM endorsement contained in the plaintiff's automobile insurance policy contained coverage limits of $100,000 per person, and further provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he maximum amount payable under SUM coverage shall be the policy's SUM limits, reduced and thus offset by motor vehicle bodily injury liability insurance policy or bond payments received from, or on behalf of, any negligent party involved in the accident.” Although the plaintiff's SUM coverage was triggered … , the plaintiff received $100,000 from the tortfeasor, which is equal to the limit of the SUM coverage that he purchased. Consequently, the amount that he was entitled to recover under the automobile insurance policy's SUM coverage was reduced to zero … . Nafash v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02061, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)/SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)

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