You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

“Lack of Standing” Defense to Foreclosure Action Is Waived If Not Raised in the Answer or a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its foreclosure action, noting that any defense based upon plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing was waived because it was not raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint:

“A party’s alleged lack of standing to commence [an] action is a defense that is waived if not raised in an answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint” … . “Where, as here, the defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action waive the issue of standing by failing to assert the defense in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211[e]), the plaintiff need not establish its standing in order to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . In this case, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the unpaid principal balance of the note … . In this regard, the plaintiff presented the subject mortgage, the unpaid note, evidence of [defendant’s] default, and evidence demonstrating that the unpaid principal balance remaining on the note totaled $434,382.89 … . In opposition, [defendant] failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 04812, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Administrator’s Delay In Seeking to Be Substituted for the Decedent In a Lawsuit Justified Dismissal of the Complaint with Prejudice

The Second Department determined the estate’s administrator’s more than five-year delay in seeking to be substituted for the decedent as plaintiff in a lawsuit (CPLR 1021), together with the administrator’s failure to provide an excuse for the delay and demonstrate the action had merit, warranted the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice:

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that if the event requiring the substitution of a party “occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate.” CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … . The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit … .

Here, the administrator’s failure to effect the required substitution until more than 6 ½ years after the decedent’s death and nearly 5 ½ years after he was appointed administrator of the decedent’s estate evinced a lack of diligence on the part of the administrator in prosecuting this action, which had been pending for nearly 8 years at the time the administrator sought substitution … . The administrator failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, which he did only after the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint … . Furthermore, the administrator failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action through the submission of admissible evidence, and did not rebut the defendants’ allegations of prejudice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice…  Alejandro v North Tarrytown Realty Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04792, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall

In determining the management agreement with a hospital did not give rise to tort liability for a slip and fall on the hospital premises, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm or creates or exacerbates a hazardous condition; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . “As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars” … .

Here, the plaintiffs alleged that Sodexo [the building manager] maintained and controlled the premises. Sodexo established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that the plaintiffs were not parties to the management agreement and thus, it owed the injured plaintiff no duty of care …; that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the Hospital’s duty to maintain the premises safely …; and that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sperling v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04840, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a building manager (Milford) who hired a window washing service (Red Cap) could be liable for injury to a pedestrian (plaintiff) struck by a piece of window-washing equipment which fell. Although Red Cap was an independent contractor, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiff because the work it hired Red Cap to do was inherently dangerous (in the absence of warning signs and pedestrian barriers) and whether the building management services contract between Milford and the building-owner (S & P) was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive to create a duty running to plaintiff. The court noted that the property owners were not liable because ownership and control of the building (on the property) had been transferred (to the building-owner):

Milford established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that Red Cap was an independent contractor and, thus, it could not be held liable for Red Cap’s negligent acts …, and that, as S & P’s contractual managing agent, it owed no duty to the plaintiff … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff because it knew or had reason to know that the work it hired Red Cap to perform was inherently dangerous to pedestrians in the absence of warning signs or barriers on the sidewalk below the window-washing apparatus …, and whether the property management services agreement with S & P was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive so as support a duty running to the plaintiff … . Baek v Red Cap Servs., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04794, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

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

 

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

 

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 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

 

, ,

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

 

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