You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior Possession of Guns Under Sandoval—Possession of Guns Has No Bearing on Credibility

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department noted that defendant’s prior conduct of possessing guns should not have been ruled a topic of proper cross-examination of the defendant. Gun possession has no relationship to credibility, which is the sole concern under Sandoval:

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining, after a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), that the People could inquire about the defendant’s prior conduct of possessing guns. Whereas “[c]ommission of perjury or other crimes or acts of individual dishonesty, or untrustworthiness . . . will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed” (id. at 377), the fact that the defendant had possessed guns on a prior occasion had little bearing on his credibility … . People v Anderson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06355, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Hearing Required to Determine Whether Plaintiff Bank Negotiated in Good Faith During the Settlement Conference

The Second Department determined defendant homeowner had raised questions of fact whether plaintiff bank negotiated in good faith in a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 (designed to find a way to avoid foreclosure). The determinative motions heard by Supreme Court were therefore premature. The matter was sent back for a hearing on the “good faith” question:

CPLR 3408 requires the parties to a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible” (CPLR 3408[f]). During settlement conferences, “[m]otions shall be held in abeyance” (22 NYCRR 202.12-a[c][7]). Here, the defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff may have failed to exercise good faith during the settlement conference phase of this action with respect to her applications seeking a loan modification pursuant to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (hereinafter HAMP). Specifically, she presented evidence that the plaintiff may have violated HAMP regulations and guidelines, which would constitute a failure to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408(f) … . She also presented evidence that the plaintiff engaged in dilatory conduct, such as making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided … . Since the defendant’s submissions raise a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith, thus depriving her of a meaningful opportunity to resolve this action through loan modification or other potential workout options (see CPLR 3408[a]), the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine this issue prior to consideration of the plaintiff’s motion and the defendant’s cross motion. Onewest Bank, FSB v Colace, 2015 NY Slip Op 06321, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment of Points Against Defendant for Drug Abuse

The Second Department determined points for drug abuse should not have been assessed against defendant based solely on a “marijuana” convictions:

… [T]he hearing court erred in assessing points under risk factor 11 (Drug or Alcohol Abuse) based solely on the fact that the defendant’s criminal history includes convictions for the possession and sale of marijuana. Under risk factor 11, possession or sale of marijuana does not, in itself, amount to drug abuse … . Since the People presented no evidence that the defendant had ever used, much less abused, drugs or alcohol, the evidence offered by the People was insufficient to satisfy their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had “a substance abuse history or was abusing drugs and or alcohol at the time of the offense”.. . People v Velazquez, 2015 NY Slip Op 06323, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Courts’ Review Powers Re: Zoning Board’s Grant of Area Variances Explained

In affirming the zoning board’s grant of area variances to “34 Cove” (re: construction of a tennis court), the Second Department explained the court’s limited review powers and noted that the board applied the appropriate balancing test and considered all the statutory factors. That is as far as a reviewing court can go:

” Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion'” … . “Thus, the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious” … . ” It matters not whether, in close cases, a court would have, or should have, decided the matter differently. The judicial responsibility is to review zoning decisions but not, absent proof of arbitrary and unreasonable action, to make them'” … .

In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted …

Here, the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors … . While we agree with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial …, and that the alleged difficulty was self-created …, there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, have an adverse effect on physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community … . Moreover, the Zoning Board rationally concluded that the benefit sought by 34 Cove, namely, to maximize its use of the proposed tennis court, could not be achieved by the alternative site proposed by the petitioner … . Matter of Borrok v Town of Southampton, 2015 NY Slip Op 06340, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Failure to Construct a Concrete Pad at a Bus Stop Does Not Constitute “Affirmative Negligence” On the Part of the City—Written Notice Requirement Applied

The Second Department determined the city’s failure to install a concrete pad for a bus stop was not the kind of “affirmative negligence” for which prior written notice of a defect is not required.

“Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which a plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … . The two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement are where the defect or hazard results from an “affirmative act of negligence” by the municipality, or a special use by the municipality that conferred a special benefit from it … . Only when one of these exceptions applies is the written notice requirement obviated … .

The plaintiff’s contention that the City failed to install a concrete bus pad, resulting in the formation of a physical defect in the roadway which caused her to fall, does not amount to an “affirmative act of negligence.” Thus, the plaintiff’s claim requires prior written notice pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) … . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06324, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

The Prejudicial Effect of the Result of the Portable Breath Test (PBT) Outweighed Its Probative Value—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined defendant’s DWI conviction must be reversed because evidence of the result of the portable breath test (PBT), which is generally inadmissible as unreliable, was allowed in evidence. The defendant had subsequently agreed to the chemical breath test, which can be admissible evidence at trial, but his breaths were so shallow during repeated attempts to administer the test that no results were obtained. The result of the PBT (which showed the presence of alcohol) was deemed admissible, not as proof of intoxication, but as evidence of defendant’s state of mind when the chemical breath test was administered (the People’s position was that defendant deliberately sabotaged the chemical test with shallow breaths).  Although the PBT was ostensibly not admitted as proof of intoxication, the Second Department determined the jury would have taken it as such and, therefore, the probative value of the test result was outweighed by its prejudicial effect:

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial based on the County Court’s admission of the PBT results into evidence. We agree. Under the circumstances of this case, the probative value of the PBT evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect and, accordingly, should have been excluded … .

Generally, the result of a PBT “is not admissible to establish intoxication, as its reliability for this purpose is not generally accepted in the scientific community” … . Here, although the PBT evidence was not introduced for the purpose of proving intoxication, since the jurors were permitted to hear that the PBT detected the presence of alcohol, the County Court created an unacceptable risk that the jurors would improperly consider the PBT evidence for this impermissible purpose. This risk was enhanced both by the County Court’s determination to take judicial notice that the PBT was on the Commissioner’s conforming list and the State Trooper’s trial testimony that he was trained in the operation of the PBT device. The trooper’s testimony in this regard, which was directed towards the issue of whether the PBT was reliable for its intended purpose—the assessment of the defendant’s level of intoxication—was irrelevant to the defendant’s state of mind at the time he submitted to the chemical breath test at the State Police barracks. Thus, this testimony increased the risk that the jury would be unable to avoid considering the PBT evidence as proof of the defendant’s intoxication. People v Palencia, 2015 NY Slip Op 06373, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant bar was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by an intoxicated patron. The court explained the proof requirements under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101):

… [W]here a plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted by an intoxicated individual, to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act, a defendant is “required to establish either that it did not serve alcohol to [the plaintiff’s assailant] while he [or she] was visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him [or her] had no reasonable or practical connection to the assault” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Covert v Wisla Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06308, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, , ,

Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable

The Second Department determined the city and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) were immune from suit by plaintiff, who was assaulted in a city homeless shelter. The city’s obligation to provide security is a governmental function for which it cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with the plaintiff (not the case here).  However, the private security company, FJC  was not immune from suit. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between DHS and FJC. FJC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate it was not negligent and the attack was not foreseeable:

The plaintiff’s theory of recovery was premised upon the alleged failure of the municipal defendants to provide an adequate and proper security force to prevent attacks by third parties at the homeless shelter where the subject incident occurred. Such a claim, however, implicates a governmental function, liability for the performance of which is barred absent the breach of a special duty owed to the injured party … . Here, the municipal defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they owed no special duty of care to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, that branch of the municipal defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted … . …

However, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the motion of the defendant FJC Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter FJC), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its contention, FJC, a private, for-profit contractor of security services, is not entitled to governmental immunity … . In addition, the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between FJC and DHS. The provisions of the contract between FJC and DHS unequivocally express an intent to confer a direct benefit on the homeless clients in residence at the City shelter, such as the plaintiff, to protect them from physical injury. Thus, in order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, FJC was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether it was negligent in the performance of its duties, or that the assault on the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any breach of its duties … .  FJC failed to demonstrate either. Clark v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06307, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Pedestrian Struck from Behind Was Not Comparatively Negligent as a Matter of Law

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff pedestrian, who was struck from behind by defendant’s car, was free from comparative negligence as a matter of law and entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff was properly crossing a street and had almost reached the other side when defendant, who was making a left turn into the street plaintiff was crossing, struck plaintiff from behind. Because plaintiff could not have seen defendant’s car before she was struck, there was no possibility she was comparatively negligent:

The deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and a nonparty witness established that prior to entering the roadway, the injured plaintiff waited for the traffic light controlling the east-west traffic on Montauk Highway to turn red, then looked to her left and right, and, seeing no cars, started to walk southbound across Montauk Highway. The testimony further established that the injured plaintiff traversed the westbound left-turn lane, and while in the eastbound lane of Montauk Highway, having almost completed crossing, was struck by the defendants’ vehicle, which had turned left from Keith Lane to proceed east on Montauk Highway. Significantly, this testimony established that, prior to the impact, Karen Kruse (hereinafter the defendant driver), started her approach to the point of impact from behind and to the right of the injured plaintiff, that is, from behind the injured plaintiff’s right shoulder and out of her view. The defendant driver conceded in her deposition testimony that she did not see the injured plaintiff prior to impact, despite the fact, established by her own testimony, that the injured plaintiff was generally in front of her prior to the impact. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs established that the defendant driver was negligent and that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative fault. Castiglione v Kruse, 2015 NY Slip Op 06306, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Criteria for an Intended Third-Party Beneficiary of a Contract Explained

The Second Department determined the documents submitted by defendant power companies did not utterly refute plaintiff school-district’s allegation that it was an intended (not “incidental”) third-party beneficiary of a Power Supply Agreement (PSA) in which the defendants agreed not to bring any further tax certiorari proceedings to challenge property tax assessments. The school district brought the breach of contract action when the defendants started a tax certiorari proceeding. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence was properly denied. The court explained the criteria for a third-party beneficiary of a contract:

” A non-party [to a contract] may sue for breach of contract only if it is an intended, and not a mere incidental, beneficiary'” … . However, ” the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution'” … . “A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” … . ” In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement,'” and ” the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract'” … . Board of Educ. of Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist. v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06304, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

Same issue and result in: Town of Huntington v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06332, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

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