You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff tripped and fell on a road defect that abutted a curb where students were picked up and dropped off by parents:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . “[A] school’s duty to supervise is generally viewed as being coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child,” and therefore, “[w]hen that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “[W]hile a school has no duty to prevent injury to schoolchildren released in a safe and anticipated manner, the school breaches a duty when it releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was released from school without adequate supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting they had a hand in creating … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their negligent supervision over the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained … . Levy v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02807, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A school’s duty to supervise students may extend to areas outside the school, i.e., the area where students are picked up and dropped off by parents.

 

, ,

EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that father possessed four ounces of cocaine did not support the neglect finding. There was no evidence the children were exposed to drug-dealing and the drugs were stored above where the children could access them:

Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . … [Father’s] intent to sell these illicit drugs was insufficient, without more, to warrant a finding of neglect. The record … contained no evidence establishing that the father engaged in drug transactions within the house or that he otherwise exposed the children to drug-trafficking activities … . Nor was there evidence adduced at the hearing as to whether the father regularly engaged in the sale of drugs, or the manner in which he intended to sell the cocaine. Moreover, although the officers discovered the cocaine within the father’s bedroom closet, it was located on a five- or six-foot-high shelf and was otherwise stored in a manner that was not readily accessible to the children … . Finally, there was no indication in the record that the father ever used cocaine or any other illicit drugs. Absent evidence that the father’s conduct caused the requisite harm to the children or otherwise placed them in imminent danger of such harm, the court should not have found that he neglected them … . Matter of Jefferson C.-A. (Carlos T.-F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02701, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Storing four ounces of cocaine in a closet where the children could not access it, without more, is not sufficient for a neglect finding against father. Although there was evidence father intended to sell the drugs, there was no evidence father used drugs or exposed the children to drug-dealing.

 

,

THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file and serve late notices of claim in this construction accident case should not have been granted. Although there was a report about the incident, nothing in the report made a connection between petitioner’s injuries and negligence on the part of the city defendants.  Another incident report made by one municipal entity (MTA Capital Construction) cannot be imputed to other municipal entities:

The evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City, NYC Department of Design and Construction, NYC Department of Transportation, and New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter collectively the City appellants) or the MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “‘A report which describes the circumstances of the accident without making a connection between the petitioner’s injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the public corporation will not be sufficient to constitute actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim'” …  The incident report upon which the petitioner relied did not connect his injuries to negligent conduct on the part of the City appellants or the MTA, and the incident report, prepared by MTA Capital Construction, cannot be imputed to other municipal entities … . Moreover, the petitioner testified at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that only his employer’s personnel were present at the construction site when the accident occurred.

The petitioner also failed to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve the notices of claim. The petitioner’s ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that he was unable to timely serve the notices of claim because he was seeking medical treatment and recovering from medical procedures, as he provided evidence only that he was unable to work for intermittent periods during the eight-month interval between the date of the accident and the service of the notices of claim … . Matter of Almeida v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02699, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In order for an incident report to provide notice of a potential lawsuit against a municipality such that a late notice of claim will be excused, the report must connect the injuries to negligence on the part of the municipal defendants (not the case here).

Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of a claim against a municipality, an incident report created by one municipal entity will not be deemed to have provided notice of the incident to other municipal entities.

 

,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) Labor Law 240(1) does not apply to slipping on a staircase step; and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to assert a violation the Industrial Code in support of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action:

“‘[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier” to amendment, absent prejudice … , which exists where the nonmoving party “has been hindered in the preparation of [its] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) with regard to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. The plaintiff made a showing of merit, the amendment presented no new factual allegations or new theories of liability, and the amendment did not prejudice the defendants. The defendants were put on sufficient notice through the complaint, the bill of particulars, and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action related to the defendants’ alleged failure to provide proper safety devices, such as a chute or hoist, to be used in the removal of demolition debris from the building during demolition operations. * * *

… [D]efendants established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable to the facts of this case … . The permanent staircase from which the plaintiff fell was a normal appurtenance to the building and was not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk … . Verdi v SP Irving Owner, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02721, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: A permanent staircase is not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Amendment of pleadings alleging a violation of Labor Law 241(6) to add the violation of an Industrial Code provision should generally be allowed, even if late.

 

,

A STIPULATIION OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE A DUTY UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a person who was not a party to the stipulation of settlement in a divorce action (Kamaras) cannot be sued for an alleged violation of the stipulation:

The plaintiff opposed Kamaras’s motion for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that Kamaras knew of the stipulation and its terms and that Kamaras had a “duty” to “have [Chantal] execute the transfer documents to the marital property and return same to [Walner’s counsel].” … .

“‘A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation'” … . “It is well-settled law that parties to a contract cannot, under its terms, impose any liability upon a stranger to that contract” … . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, Kamaras demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that he was not a party to the stipulation and had not assumed any obligations under the stipulation … . Tema v Tema, 2024 NY Slip Op 02720, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Even if a person is aware of the terms of a stipulation of settlement, if that person is not a party to the stipulation, the stipulation does not impose a duty to act on them.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendants’ medical expert in this medical malpractice case did not address all the malpractice allegations in the pleadings:

“Medical expert affirmations that fail to address the essential factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint or bill of particulars fail to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . Bare conclusory assertions that a defendant did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice, with no factual relationship to the alleged injury, do not establish that the cause of action has no merit so as to entitle a defendant to summary judgment … .

Here, the affirmation of the defendants’ fetal medicine expert was insufficient to establish the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice by [two defendants].. The affirmation failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in preterm labor … , and whether the preterm delivery could have been prevented … . Neumann v Silverstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 02712, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In a med mal case, if the defense expert does not address all the allegations of malpractice the defense motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

, ,

THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the foster parents, as persons legally responsible for the care of the child, were entitled to a hearing before the child was removed from their care:

Family Court Act § 1028(a) provides that “[u]pon the application of the parent or other person legally responsible for the care of a child temporarily removed under this part . . . , the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child should be returned,” with two exceptions not relevant here … . Family Court Act § 1028(a) further provides that “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

The phrase “person legally responsible” “includes the child’s custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time” … . “The Court of Appeals, in interpreting Family Court Act § 1012(g), has held that ‘the common thread running through the various categories of persons legally responsible for a child’s care is that these persons serve as the functional equivalent of parents'” … . Further, “a person may act as the functional equivalent of a parent even though that person assumes temporary care or custody of a child,” as long as “the care given the child [is] analogous to parenting and occur[s] in a household or ‘family’ setting” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an applicant is a person legally responsible for the care of a child include ‘(1) the frequency and nature of the contact, (2) the nature and extent of the control exercised by the [applicant] over the child’s environment, (3) the duration of the [applicant’s] contact with the child, and (4) the [applicant’s] relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … .

Here, the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a determination that the foster parents were persons legally responsible for the care of the child. The evidence demonstrated that the child, eight years old at the time of the foster parents’ application, had been under the foster parents’ care for most of his life. . Matter of Samson R. (Christopher R.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02710, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here the foster parents had cared for the eight-year-old for most of his life. They were “persons legally responsible for the care of the child” and therefore were entitled to a hearing before removal of the child.

 

, ,

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A ZONING VIOLATION; BECAUSE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS ZONING-VIOLATION PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff property owners who did not live in close proximity to the proposed fence around school property did not have standing to assert a zoning violation; and (2) the NYS Department of Education (SED) and the Commissioner of Education, which authorized construction of the fence, are necessary parties. The plaintiffs alleged the local school district violated local zoning laws by not seeking approval from the village before starting construction of the fence:

A party seeking standing to challenge an administrative action must establish that the injury it sustained was “different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . A party residing “in the immediate vicinity” of the subject property suffers harm greater than the community at large when the subject property violates a zoning law because “loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood” … . …

… “[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” ( … CPLR 1001[a]). SED and the Commissioner are necessary parties because the Supreme Court’s determination would necessarily determine their rights to set school safety standards and approve plans for school construction … . Matter of Cuomo v East Williston Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Only residents who live in close proximity to property alleged to violate zoning laws have standing to assert a zoning violation.

Practice Point: When necessary parties have not been included in a lawsuit, the court should try to make them parties.

 

, , ,

MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have awarded petitioner attorney’s fees as a sanction against mother based on mother’s testimony in the proceedings: Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a):

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a), the court is authorized to award a party in a civil action “reasonable attorney’s fees . . . resulting from frivolous conduct.” Conduct is frivolous if “(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of the opposing party was frivolous within the meaning of the rule” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of the rule. Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the mother’s inconsistent statements and evasive testimony were not frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 … . Matter of Edwin C. v Fenny C., 2024 NY Slip Op 02700,, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here in this Family Court proceeding petitioner was awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a) based on mother’s “inconsistent statements” and “evasive testimony.” Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a). The petition should not have been granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE, THE BUS DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED; THE BUS STRUCK A VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED SUDDENLY AFTER IT WAS CUT OFF BY A THIRD VEHICLE; THE BUS DRIVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SUPPORTED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bus driver raised a question of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine in this bus-passenger injury case. The bus driver’s affidavit, together with video evidence, indicated that the vehicle struck by the bus stopped suddenly after being cut off by a third vehicle:

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision through the submission of an affidavit from Mendes [the bus driver] and a surveillance video of the accident … . In Mendes’ affidavit, she attested, among other things, that she collided with the vehicle owned by Paratransit when that vehicle made a sudden stop after being “cut off” by another vehicle. Moreover, the surveillance video was consistent with the assertions in Mendes’ affidavit. Yearwood v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02555, Second Dept 5-8-24

Practice Point: Although most rear-end collisions are deemed the fault of the rear driver, here it was alleged the front vehicle stopped suddenly after being cut off by a third vehicle, raising a question of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine as a defense.

Practice Point: Here is this rear-end collision case, the availability of surveillance video supported the applicability of the emergency doctrine as a defense.

 

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