You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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

 

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

 

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

 

,

Police Officer Who Refused a Light-Duty Assignment Was Not Entitled to Disability Benefits Pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c

The Second Department determined a police officer was not entitled to refuse a light duty assignment during the period his entitlement to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c was being determined:

A disabled officer receiving General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits is entitled to a due process hearing before those benefits may be terminated when the officer submits medical evidence contesting the finding of a municipality’s appointed physician that the officer is fit for duty … . Once such evidence has been submitted, an “order to report for duty may not be enforced, or benefits terminated, pending resolution of an administrative hearing, which itself is subject to review under CPLR article 78” … . However, where the municipality’s physician is of the opinion that the officer is able “to perform specified types of light police duty,” payment of the full amount of salary or wages may be discontinued should the officer refuse to perform such light police duty if same “is available and offered to [the officer]” and enables him or her “to continue to be entitled to his [or her] regular salary or wages” (General Municipal Law § 207-c[3]…). If an officer who refuses to return to light duty fails to provide medical proof that he or she is unable to do so, the municipality may discontinue disability payments without a hearing … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05476, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s Notification of His Insurer of the Settlement Offer—Although Insurer Sent a Letter Responding to the Notification, It Was Sent to the Wrong Address and the Insured Never Received It

In determining the insurer’s (GEICO’s) motion to stay arbitration should have been denied, the Second Department explained the procedure where the insured has been offered a settlement by the tortfeasor for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy and permission to settle is sought from the insured’s carrier (GEICO here). The insured timely notified and requested permission to settle from GEICO, but GEICO sent its response to the wrong address and the insured never received it.  After the passage of 30 days, the insured accepted the settlement and served a demand for arbitration on GEICO re: the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits under the GEICO policy:

As a general rule, an insured who settles with a tortfeasor in violation of a policy condition requiring his or her insurer’s consent to settle, thereby prejudicing the insurer’s subrogation rights, is precluded from asserting a claim for SUM benefits under the policy … . However, the language set forth in 11 NYCRR 60-2.3(f), which must be included in all motor vehicle liability insurance policies in which SUM coverage has been purchased, creates an exception to this rule in situations where the insured advises the insurer of an offer to settle for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy, which obligates the insurer either to consent to the settlement or to advance the settlement amount to the insured and assume the prosecution of the tort action within 30 days … . In the event that the insurer does not timely respond in accordance with this condition, the insured may settle with the tortfeasor without the insurer’s consent, and without forfeiting his or her rights to SUM benefits (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3[f]…).

Here, the burden was on GEICO to come forward with sufficient facts to establish justification for a stay of arbitration … . GEICO’s submission of its letter requesting additional documentation regarding the settlement, which was addressed to the wrong law firm at an address different from that of the law firm which had initially notified GEICO of the settlement offer, failed to sustain this burden. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Arciello, 2015 NY Slip Op 05477, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, , , ,

“Extreme and Outrageous Conduct” Is Not an Element of “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress”—Elements of Private Nuisance, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained in Some Depth—Complaint Should Have Been Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  The opinion is important because it clarified “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” explaining that “extreme and outrageous conduct” is not one of the elements. Although the court held that the complaint did not state causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or private nuisance, the nature of those causes of action was explained in some depth. The defendants owned property next door to the plaintiffs’ home.  The defendants rented to tenants, who were not parties to the lawsuit.  The tenants apparently held loud parties at which drugs were used and sold. The plaintiffs at one point called the police to complain about the tenants’ behavior. Subsequently two masked men entered plaintiffs’ home to intimidate them. Plaintiff-husband ultimately shot the two intruders and in the process accidently shot his dog. The men were arrested by the police. The opinion is too detailed to properly summarize here, but the essence of the court’s ruling is that the tenants’ behavior was not sufficiently linked to any acts or omissions by the defendants. The court wrote:

The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: “(1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act” … . * * *  … [T]he duty to abate a private nuisance existing on real property arises from the power to possess the property and control the activities that occur on it. Accordingly, a landowner who has relinquished possession of his or her property will not be liable for a private nuisance that arises on the property if the landowner neither created the nuisance nor had notice of it at the time that possession of the property was transferred … . In the absence of any such knowledge or consent to the objectionable activity which may be attributable to the landowner at the time the lease is executed, the common-law duty to abate a nuisance that exists during the course of a tenancy lies with the tenant, in his or her capacity as the one in possession of the property … .

… [U]nder New York law, a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotion distress “has four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress” … . * * * ” Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … . * * * Although the individuals who broke into the plaintiffs’ home may have engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, the complaint alleges no basis upon which the intruders’ conduct may be imputed to the defendants. The defendants’ intentional conduct, as alleged in the complaint, amounts to nothing more than a failure to ensure that their tenants and their friends refrained from committing the acts described in the complaint. * * *

[Re: negligent infliction of emotional distress] …. [T]o the extent that certain of this Court’s past decisions have indicated that extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress … , those cases should no longer be followed. … [A] breach of a duty of care “resulting directly in emotional harm is compensable even though no physical injury occurred” … . However, the mental injury must be “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … , and the claim must possess “some guarantee of genuineness” … . … Applying the correct standard to the complaint in this case, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct is not fatal to their cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the complaint is deficient in another respect, as it failed to adequately allege facts that would establish that the mental injury was “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … . Taggart v Costabile, 2015 NY Slip Op 05464, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

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