You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Statements at Issue Were Statements of Opinion Directly Linked to the Plaintiff’s Writings—Defamation Complaint Properly Dismissed

The Second Department determined the defamation action against a newspaper was properly dismissed.  The newspaper article referred to writings by the plaintiff which were described as racist.  The article questioned whether plaintiff, who allegedly held “white supremacist” views, should be the principal of a school with minority students.  The court determined the relevant statements in the article were statements of opinion which were linked directly to quotations from plaintiff’s writings.  Therefore the statements constituted nonactionable opinion:

“Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts’ are capable of being proven false, it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action'” … . In distinguishing between facts and opinion, the factors the court must consider are (1) whether the specific language has a precise meaning that is readily understood, (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false, and (3) whether the context in which the statement appears signals to readers that the statement is likely to be opinion, not fact … . “The dispositive inquiry . . . is whether a reasonable [reader] could have concluded that [the statements were] conveying facts about the plaintiff” … .

In this case, the context of the complained-of statements was such that a reasonable reader would have concluded that he or she was reading opinions, and not facts, about the plaintiff. Moreover, in all instances, the Daily News defendants made the statements with express reference to the written materials authored by the plaintiff, including quotations from the books. Thus, the statements of opinion are nonactionable on the additional basis that there was full disclosure of the facts supporting the opinions … . Silverman v Daily News, L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 05463, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action by plaintiff-janitor who fell from an A-frame ladder while cleaning the basketball backboard in a school gymnasium. The Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because cleaning the backboard was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 240 (1).  The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed because the defendant school demonstrated the ladder was not defective and it did not have the authority to control the manner in which plaintiff did his work:

… [T]he injured plaintiff’s work did not constitute “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant established that the injured plaintiff was performing routine maintenance of the basketball backboards, done regularly throughout the course of the basketball season, that did not require any specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the school. As such, it was not a covered activity under Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it ” either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . When an accident is alleged to involve defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … .

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by a defect in the ladder, which was owned and provided by the defendant, a premises condition is at issue … . However, the defendant established, prima facie, that the ladder was not in a defective condition and that, in any event, it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any defect in the ladder … . …

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by the manner in which the work was performed, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the injured plaintiff’s work … . Torres v St. Francis Coll., 2015 NY Slip Op 05466, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, , ,

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed (for failure to state a cause of action) the negligence cause of action, should not have dismissed the General Business Law 349 cause of action, and properly denied the motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract cause of action. The court succinctly described the elements of the three causes of action (facts not described in the decision):

To prevail on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. “Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” … . * * *

To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, the complaint must allege that ” a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . * * *

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract are the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and damages … . MVB Collision, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05453, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Unsigned Deposition Transcripts and Party Admission in Police Report Admissible as Evidence in Support of Summary Judgment Motion

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a vehicle accident case, the Second Department noted the unsigned deposition transcripts of both plaintiff and defendant were admissible for purposes of the motion.  The court also noted that a party admission included in a police report was admissible, while the hearsay report itself was not:

“[T]he failure to submit an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts is not necessarily fatal to a motion where . . . the moving party submits other proof, such as deposition testimony … . Here, the defendant’s certified deposition transcript, although unsigned, was admissible since it was his own testimony that he was proffering in support of his motion and, in effect, he adopted it as accurate … . In addition, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which was unsigned, was also admissible for the purpose of the defendant’s motion, since the transcript was certified by the reporter and the plaintiff did not challenge its accuracy … .

With respect to the police accident report submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, it was not certified as a business record and thus constituted inadmissible hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a]…), except for that portion of the report which contained a party admission by the plaintiff that she did not have a recollection of the accident … . Gezelter v Pecora, 2015 NY Slip Op 05440, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Resentencing Required—Sentencing Court Unaware It Had Discretion Re: Length of the Postrelease Supervision Period

The Second Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the judge was unaware he/she had the discretion as to the length of the postrelease period:

… [R]esentencing is required because the record supports the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court was unaware that it had discretion as to the length of the period of PRS. Specifically, the court stated that the law required it to impose a period of PRS of 5 years. In fact, the court had the authority to impose a period of PRS of between 2½ years and 5 years (Penal Law § 70.45[2][f]). People v Battee, 2015 NY Slip Op 05491, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Criteria for Intervention Described

In finding the motion for leave to intervene was properly denied, the Second Department explained the criteria:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). In addition, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013…). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … . Trent v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05467, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Teacher Entitled to Tenure by Estoppel—Proper Way to Calculate Probationary Period Which Included Unpaid Maternity Leave Explained

The Second Department determined a teacher was entitled to tenure by estoppel.  The number of days the teacher was on unpaid, approved maternity leave was excluded from the probationary period. Properly calculated (the proper method was explained), the teacher worked beyond the three-year probationary period and was therefore entitled to tenure by estoppel:

Tenure by estoppel results “when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term” … . A teacher who has acquired tenure by estoppel, but is nonetheless improperly terminated, is entitled to reinstatement, retroactive to the last date of employment, back pay, and all accrued benefits … .

Where a teacher is granted a period of unpaid maternity leave during her three-year probationary period, that period of leave may properly be excluded from computation of a teacher’s three-year probationary period … . Contrary to the appellants’ contention in this proceeding, such an extension of a teacher’s probationary period is to be performed utilizing a workday-to-calendar day methodology. That is, for each workday missed as a result of a teacher’s unpaid leave, the three-year probationary period is to be extended by the corresponding number of calendar days … . Such a methodology is consistent with both Education Law § 3012(3), which provides that “no period in any school year for which there is no required service and/or for which no compensation is provided shall in any event constitute a break or suspension of probationary period or continuity of tenure rights,” and the purpose of the three-year probationary period in affording a school district an opportunity to evaluate an individual’s performance as a teacher prior to granting tenure … .

Applying the foregoing principles to this proceeding, we conclude that the petitioner worked past her extended probationary period end date. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that she acquired tenure by estoppel, and that she is entitled to reinstatement to her position, with tenure and back pay from the date her employment was terminated, i.e., January 21, 2011. Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 05471, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Either Possession of the Note or an Assignment of the Note Confers Standing

The Second Department explained that standing to bring a foreclosure action is demonstrated either by possession of the note or an assignment of the note on the date the action is commenced:

In a foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing if it is either the holder of, or the assignee of, the underlying note at the time that the action is commenced … . Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note to the plaintiff, prior to the commencement of the action, is sufficient to transfer the obligation … . Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 2015 NY Slip Op 05151, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Supreme Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Attorneys Were Entitled to the Fees Sought by Them—Plaintiff Had Already Paid the Attorneys Nearly the Amount the Case Ultimately Settled For—the Attorneys, Who Had Been Discharged Without Cause, Sought 40% of the Settlement Pursuant to a Contingency Agreement Which Was Entered In Anticipation of Trial

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and ordered a hearing to determine whether respondents-attorneys had received all the fees they were entitled to.  The attorneys had been paid nearly $54,000 by the plaintiff.  Then plaintiff then entered a 40% contingency arrangement prior to trial. The case ultimately settled for $57,500 and plaintiff discharged the attorneys:

An attorney of record who is discharged without cause possesses a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 which constitutes an equitable ownership of the cause of action an attaches to any recovery … . Additionally, “[i]f a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney possesses a common-law retaining lien on the client’s file in his or her possession and is entitled to recover compensation from the client measured by the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, regardless of whether that amount is more or less than the amount provided in the contract or retainer agreement” … . The retaining lien “is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer’s fee or the posting of an adequate security therefor following a hearing” … . “Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled” … . A court may summarily determine that an attorney is charging excessive fees, limit those fees, and discharge the attorney’s liens … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion without holding a hearing to ascertain the amount of fees or reimbursement to which the respondents may be entitled … . The gravamen of the plaintiff’s cross motion was that the charging lien and retaining lien should be vacated because he had already paid the respondents a total of $53,763.99 in legal fees and he did not owe the respondents any additional legal fees. In contrast, the respondents sought to collect a contingency fee of $23,000, which was the full 40% of the $57,500 recovery, without crediting the plaintiff with the $5,000 which should have been credited against the contingency fee pursuant to their agreement. Thus, it appears that the respondents were seeking excessive fees.

Under these circumstances, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the respondents have received all of the fees owed to them for the reasonable value of their services … . D’Ambrosio v Racanelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 05149, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

Promise Made or Advice Given by a Municipal Employee Does Not Give Rise to Equitable Estoppel

The Second Department noted that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied only rarely against municipalities.  Here plaintiff alleged the four-month statute of limitations for redemption (re: a foreclosure action) passed because of a municipal employee’s promise to hold papers submitted in support of an attempt at redemption.  The court held that a promise made or advice given by a governmental employee will not give rise to equitable estoppel: “… [E]quitable estoppel is applied against a municipality performing governmental functions only in the rarest of cases …, and “erroneous advice by a governmental employee will not give rise to an exception to the general rule”… . Wilson v Neighborhood Restore Hous., 2015 NY Slip Op 05176, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

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