You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

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

 

,

Requirements for a Finding of Civil Contempt Explained (Not Met Here)

In finding the motion to hold a party in civil contempt was properly denied (no clear and convincing evidence mandate in a subpoena was disobeyed), the Second Department explained the relevant law:

To find a party in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, ” (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” … . Korea Chosun Daily Times, Inc. v Dough Boy Donuts Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05161, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Employer Considered Accommodation for Plaintiff’s Injury—Summary Judgment to Employer Should Not Have Been Granted

Plaintiff’s employment with the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) was terminated (after plaintiff injured her hand) on the ground that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate she was medically fit to return to work and had failed to provide a date by which she would return to full duty. The plaintiff challenged her proposed termination and sought reinstatement before the effective date of termination. The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the employer (DOCS).  A question of fact had been raised about whether DOCS met its duty to consider accommodation for plaintiff’s injury:

An employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on a disability discrimination claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 “unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation,” and the employer cannot present such a record “if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee’s request” … .

“The employer has a duty to move forward to consider accommodation once the need for accommodation is known or requested” (9 NYCRR 466.11[j][4]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … , we find that the plaintiff’s responses to the notice of proposed termination could reasonably have been understood as a request for accommodation, which DOCS rejected by terminating the plaintiff’s employment based on her inability to return to work within the one year permitted under Civil Service Law § 71.

Therefore, we conclude that the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they engaged in a good faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the plaintiff and the reasonableness of her requested accommodation … . Cohen v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05147, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Causes of Action Against City Alleging Negligence In Responding to a 911 Call and In Preparing for and Responding to a Snow Storm Which Blocked Roads Should Have Been Dismissed—Only Governmental Functions Were Involved and there Was No Special Relationship between the City and Plaintiffs’ Decedent

The Second Department determined the complaint against the city should have been dismissed under the doctrine of governmental immunity.  Plaintiffs alleged the city was negligent in responding to a 911 call for an ambulance and was negligent in preparing for and responding to a snow storm (which blocked roads). Because the relevant acts or omissions related to government functions, and because no special relationship existed between the city and plaintiffs’ decedent, the city was immune from suit. The Second Department provided a good explanation of the relevant law:

As a general rule, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance services” … . When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality’s conduct is proprietary in nature, the municipality is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties … . If it is determined that a municipality was exercising a governmental function, the municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . “A special duty’ is a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,’ and is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity'” … . Insofar as relevant here, to establish a special relationship against a municipality which was exercising a governmental function, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . * * *

A municipal emergency response system is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function … . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show knowledge by the defendants that inaction would lead to harm, or that there was any justifiable reliance on any promise made by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants and, therefore, the complaint does not state a viable cause of action against the defendants based upon their alleged negligence in responding to the 911 call … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging that the defendants failed to prepare for, and respond to, the snowstorm. A municipality is obligated to maintain the streets and highways within its jurisdiction in a reasonably safe condition for travel … . A municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers … . Under the circumstances presented here, the defendants’ snow removal operation on the public streets was a traditionally governmental function, rather than a proprietary function … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege in their complaint the existence of a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants as to the defendants’ snow removal function … . Cockburn v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05146, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

“Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Applied Even Though Plaintiff Was Not the Intended Target of the Assault

The plaintiff was struck by a bar stool in a fight at the insured bar.  Plaintiff was not involved in the fight and the assailant apparently did not intend to strike her. The Second Department determined the “assault and battery” exclusion in the bar’s policy applied and the insurer (North Sea) was not obligated to defend and indemnify the insured bar.  The fact that the plaintiff was not the intended target of the assault did not preclude the application of the exclusion:

“The duty to defend is triggered whenever the allegations of a complaint, liberally construed, suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage, or the insurer has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage” … . “[A]n insurance carrier can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes, as a matter of law, that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” … . “An insurer may also disclaim coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion by demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the exclusion” … . “An exclusion for assault and/or battery applies if no cause of action would exist but for’ the assault and/or battery” … .

Here, North Sea demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the assault and battery exclusion is applicable to the claims asserted by the plaintiff against the pub defendants in the underlying action … . The claims asserted by the plaintiff in the underlying action arise out of the assault and, thus, fall within the exclusion under the subject policy … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the exclusion’s applicability … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the bar stool made physical contact with her and not the intended target does not negate the conclusion that the act was done with the intention to commit an assault or a battery … . Parler v North Sea Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05166, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Change of Venue to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety Properly Granted–Plaintiff Was a Long-Time Senior Employee of Supreme Court in the County Where the Action Was Brought

The plaintiff was employed by Supreme Court Queens County.  For that reason, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted the motion to change the venue from Queens County to Nassau County to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

“To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed” … . A motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion … . Under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff has been employed at the Supreme Court, Queens County, since 2001, first as a court officer, and more recently as a senior court clerk, the Supreme Court providently granted the motions for a change of the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety … . Rutherford v Patel, 2015 NY Slip Op 05170, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

“Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related Remarks) and “Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices” Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department determined defendant-employer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s “hostile work environment” cause of action (allegedly offensive sex-related remarks) but was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s “retaliation for opposing discriminatory conduct” cause of action. Defendant was able to demonstrate the allegedly offensive remarks were isolated incidents which did not permeate the work environment.  But a question of fact was raised about the “retaliation” cause of action. Plaintiff was terminated one day after the employer received a letter about the alleged discrimination from plaintiff’s attorney.  The Second Department explained the elements of “hostile work environment” and “retaliation for opposing discriminatory conduct” causes of action:

A hostile work environment exists where the workplace is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” … . Various factors, such as frequency and severity of the discrimination, whether the allegedly discriminatory actions were threatening or humiliating or a “mere offensive utterance,” and whether the alleged actions “unreasonably interfere[ ] with an employee’s work” are to be considered in determining whether a hostile work environment exists … . The allegedly abusive conduct must not only have altered the conditions of employment of the employee, who subjectively viewed the actions as abusive, but the actions must have created an “objectively hostile or abusive environment—one that a reasonable person would find to be so” … . * * *

Under the New York State Human Rights Law, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices (see Executive Law § 296[7]…). In order to make out a cause of action for retaliation, “[a] plaintiff must show that (1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … . “To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual” … . La Marca-Pagano v Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 05162, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

 

Although It Was Proper to Consider the Motion to Dismiss Made After Issue Was Joined a Motion for Summary Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Motion Without Giving Notice to the Parties So the Parties Could Lay Bare Their Proof

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment without notice to the parties.  Because the motion to dismiss was made after issue was joined, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment. However, because none of the exceptions to the notice requirement applied, Supreme Court should not have determined the motion without giving the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence.  The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Since the [defendants’] motion was made after issue was joined, the Supreme Court correctly determined that it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . However, the Supreme Court “was required to give adequate notice to the parties’ that the motion was being converted into one for summary judgment” …, unless one of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement was applicable … . Here, no such notice was given, and none of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable … . Neither the [defendants] nor the plaintiff made a specific request for summary judgment, nor did they “indicate that the case involved a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” … . Further, the parties’ evidentiary submissions were not so extensive as to “make it unequivocally clear’ that they were laying bare their proof’ and deliberately charting a summary judgment course'” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, converting the [defendants’] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment, and should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05159, 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