You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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

 

,

Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle & Traffic Law 388) Was Not Overcome by Testimony of Vehicle Owner and Her Daughter—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Awarded on that Ground

The Second Department noted, in the context of a summary judgment motion, the testimony of the vehicle owner, Varela, and her daughter, an interested witness, was not sufficient to rebut the presumption that another was driving the vehicle with Verela’s consent (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388):

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Varela’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s express or implied permission” … . ” The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use'” … . The question of consent is ordinarily one for the jury … . Blassberger v Varela, 2015 NY Slip Op 04796, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Reverse-Batson Challenge to the Peremptory Challenge of a White Woman by Defense Counsel Properly Sustained/Judge’s Failure to Inform and Seek the Input of the Parties Re: a Jury Note Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly sustained the prosecutor’s “reverse-Batson” challenge to a peremptory challenge to a white woman by defense counsel.  Defense counsel’s proffered reason, that the juror had her head down and would be a “wall flower” following others on the jury, was deemed pretextual.  The proffered reason was entirely subjective and was not based upon the voir dire.  Reversal of the conviction was warranted, however, because the trial judge did not inform and seek the input of the parties in response to a jury.  Preservation of the error was not required because the record did not reflect that defense counsel was made aware of the contents of the note prior to the judge’s answering it in the jury’s presence:

“Although not entirely insulated from review, the determination of whether an explanation [of the exercise of a peremptory challenge to a a juror in response to a reverse-Batson challenge by the prosecutor] is merely pretextual is generally a matter for the Trial Judge, whose findings are entitled to great deference” … . This is particularly true where, as here, the reason for challenging a prospective juror is based upon certain nonverbal responses and reactions of the prospective juror, which the trial court had the opportunity to observe … . However, “[a]lthough a proffered race- [or gender-] neutral explanation for the exclusion of a potential juror need not rise to the level required to challenge a venireperson for cause,’ . . . the burden cannot be met by merely claiming good faith and denying discriminatory purpose” … . Here, the reason proffered by defense counsel for exercising the peremptory challenge against the subject prospective juror was that, during voir dire, “[s]he had her head down the entire time and was kind of looking down through this process,” from which counsel concluded that she was “going to be a wall flower[ ] and just kind[ ] of go with the flow.” This explanation was purely intuitive and based on counsel’s subjective impression rather than upon facts adduced at voir dire … . To accept the defendant’s bare assertion, unsupported by any factual basis, that the prospective juror was neutral and would not be a strong juror for the defense would be, in effect, to accept no reason at all … . There is nothing in the record to support defense counsel’s purported conclusion that this prospective juror—a 68-year-old sales associate who had previously sat on a jury, did not know anyone in law enforcement, and, unlike many of the prospective jurors, had not been the victim of a crime—would be a weak juror for the defense. * * *

… [T]he jury advised: “We have one juror that feels she cannot make a decision based on the evidence presented to us.” Instead of marking the note as an exhibit and reading it aloud on the record to the parties prior to calling in the jury, the court read the note on the record for the first time in front of the jurors, and then immediately responded by issuing a truncated Allen charge …, encouraging continuing deliberations. This jury note “called for a substantive response that required careful crafting after hearing argument from both the People and the defense” … . Yet there is no indication that the court provided notice to defense counsel and the prosecutor of the contents of the note or “a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses” … . “[B]y depriving the defendant of meaningful notice of the communication [and] a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the court’s response,” the court failed to fulfill its “core responsibility” under CPL 310.30, thereby committing an error affecting “the mode of the proceedings” … . Such an error “need not be preserved, and prejudice manifestly results” … . Thus, despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the Supreme Court’s handling of the jury’s notes, reversal is required … .

The People are correct that a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where defense counsel had “knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” … . However, while the record shows that a discussion was held off the record at the sidebar immediately before the Supreme Court directed the court officer to “bring them in,” it is not evident from the record that defense counsel had knowledge of the contents of the note or how the court would respond to the note. Rather, as far as the record reveals, defense counsel first learned of the court’s response at the same time the jury heard it … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04860, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Was Standing on an A-Frame Ladder When It Swayed and Tipped Over

The Second Department determined plaintiff, Casasola, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action.  Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when it swayed and tipped over. The incident occurred when Casasola was working on property owned by the State of New York. The court noted that, to be liable, the property owner need not have exercised any control over the work.  All the plaintiff must show is the violation of a statute proximately caused his injury:

Labor Law § 240(1) provides that “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected . . . scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to [construction workers employed on the premises]” … . The purpose of this statute, commonly referred to as the “scaffold law,” is to protect workers “by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Casasola v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04798, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress jewelry taken from his pocket after pat-down search on the street should have been granted.  At the suppression hearing, the People did not argue that the officer who stopped the defendant had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time of the pat-down search.  Therefore, the Second Department noted, that argument could not be raised by the People on appeal. At the suppression hearing, the People argued that the jewelry was admissible under the “inevitable discovery” exception to the warrant requirement. However, the “inevitable discovery” exception does not apply to “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search:”

At the suppression hearing, the People expressly disclaimed reliance on the theory that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the jewelry from his pants pocket was justified because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the moment he was stopped, and the hearing court did not address that theory. Thus, the People may not assert this theory on appeal … . Instead, the People argued that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered, and the Supreme Court relied on that theory in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry. The court properly determined that the record does not support a finding that the police officer legitimately believed that the jewelry might be some kind of weapon … . However, as the People now correctly concede, the court erred in its determination that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered through normal police procedures, as the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to primary evidence, that is, “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search,” such as the jewelry at issue here … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry should have been granted. People v Henagin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04864, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Because Prior Mortgage Foreclosure Action Had Been Abandoned Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Dismissal of the Instant Action Pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) (Which Prohibits More than One Such Action at a Time)

The Second Department determined Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) did not require dismissal of plaintiff’s foreclosure action.  Although the statute prohibits more than one action to recover a mortgage debt at a time, the pending action had been abandoned (although not formally discontinued). Therefore plaintiff’s action was viable:

RPAPL 1301(3) provides that “[w]hile [an] action is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of this statute is to protect the mortgagor “from the expense and annoyance” of simultaneously defending against two independent actions to recover the same mortgage debt … . Courts have recognized that this statute “should be strictly construed since it is in derogation of a plaintiff’s common-law right to pursue the alternate remedies of foreclosure and recovery of the mortgage debt at the same time” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant John Conlin was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to RPAPL 1301(3). The record supports the conclusion that the plaintiff’s assignor, the former mortgagee, effectively abandoned its prior action to foreclose the mortgage because its status as a junior mortgagee made it improbable that foreclosure would satisfy the underlying debt. Although the foreclosure action was not formally discontinued, the effective abandonment of that action is a “de facto discontinuance” which militates against dismissal of the present action pursuant to RPAPL 1301(3) … . Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Conlin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04826, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Plaintiff Who Fell From Scaffolding Which Did Not Have Safety Rails Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action

he Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon his fall from scaffolding which did not have safety rails. The relevant law was succinctly explained:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, lessees that control the work performed, and general contractors to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites … . “To recover on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a violation of the statute, and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold which lacked safety rails on the sides and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Vasquez-Roldan v Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04842, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

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