You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Elements of Actions for (1) Discrimination in Employment and (2) Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices Succinctly Described

In determining the employer’s (State of New York’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted, the Second Department succinctly explained the elements of an action for discrimination in employment and an  action for retaliation for an employee’s opposition to discriminatory practices:

A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination … . To meet this burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . The burden then shifts to the employer “to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision” … . To succeed on the claim, “the plaintiff must prove that the legitimate reasons proffered by the defendant were merely a pretext for discrimination by demonstrating both that the stated reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason” … .

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a discriminatory employment action, a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff’s failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual … . * * *

It is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices … . In order to make out a claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she has engaged in protected activity; (2) his or her employer was aware of such activity; (3) he or she suffered an adverse employment action based upon the protected activity; and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action … . Cotterell v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04601, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

, , ,

To Succeed In a Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Representation in a Criminal Matter, the Plaintiff Must Have a Colorable Claim of Actual Innocence—Elements of Legal Malpractice in this Context Explained

The Second Department determined defendant-attorney’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice complaint should have been granted.  Plaintiff, when represented by defendant-attorney, was convicted of sex offenses. The conviction was overturned on “ineffective assistance of counsel” grounds.  Plaintiff was acquitted upon retrial. In the legal malpractice action, the plaintiff was unable to prove the element of causation.  Defendant-attorney demonstrated plaintiff’s conviction was not due solely to defendant-attorney’s conduct, but was based in part on plaintiff’s “guilt,” in that her children provided graphic testimony alleging sexual abuse. To succeed in a legal malpractice action stemming from a criminal matter, the plaintiff must at least have a colorable claim of actual innocence.  In addition, the nonpecuniary damages sought by the plaintiff (psychological injury due to her incarceration) are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action.  The Second Department explained the elements of legal malpractice in this context (stemming from representation in a criminal case):

To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . Even where a plaintiff establishes that his or her attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by members of the legal profession, the plaintiff must still demonstrate causation … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” … . In the civil context, this Court has held that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action “need prove only that the defendant-attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of damages” … . However, in a legal malpractice action such as this one, arising from representation in a criminal matter, the “plaintiff must have at least a colorable claim of actual innocence” …, and the plaintiff ultimately bears the unique burden to plead and prove that his or her “conviction was due to the attorney’s actions alone and not due to some consequence of his [or her] guilt” … . ” To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements'” … . Dawson v Schoenberg, 2015 NY Slip Op 04603, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

Public Policy Bars a Cause of Action Against Government Officials (in their Official Capacities) for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Second Department noted that an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action cannot be brought against a governmental entity.  Since the respondents were sued only in their official capacities, the cause of action was properly dismissed:

“[P]ublic policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity” … . Here, the individual respondents were only sued in their official capacities. Therefore, the petitioner could not and did not state a cause of action against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04645, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

New York State Can Issue a License to Practice Law to an Undocumented Immigrant Authorized to Be In the United States by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Policy of the Federal Government

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion (per curiam), dealing with a question of first impression, determined the State of New York could issue a license to practice law to an undocumented immigrant who was qualified for admission to the bar.  The court explained the issues before it as follows:

We are called upon to determine whether an undocumented immigrant, who is authorized to be present in the United States under the auspices of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of the federal government, and who meets the statutory eligibility requirements and the rules of court governing admission to the practice of law in the State of New York, may satisfy the standard of good character and general fitness necessary for admission. We are further called upon to determine whether such an individual is barred from admission to the practice of law by a federal statute, 8 USC § 1621, which generally prohibits the issuance of state professional licenses to undocumented immigrants unless an individual state has enacted legislation affirmatively authorizing the issuance of such licenses. This presents an issue of first impression in New York and, in terms of the applicability of 8 USC § 1621 and its compatibility with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, an issue of first impression nationwide.

We hold that a narrow reading of 8 USC § 1621(d), so as to require a state legislative enactment to be the sole mechanism by which the State of New York exercises its authority granted in 8 USC § 1621(d) to opt out of the restrictions on the issuance of licenses imposed by 8 USC § 1621(a), unconstitutionally infringes on the sovereign authority of the state to divide power among its three coequal branches of government. Further, we hold, in light of this state’s allocation of authority to the judiciary to regulate the granting of professional licenses to practice law (see Judiciary Law § 53[1]), that the judiciary may exercise its authority as the state sovereign to opt out of the restrictions imposed by section 1621(a) to the limited extent that those restrictions apply to the admission of attorneys to the practice of law in the State of New York. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. Matter of Application of Cesar Adrian Vargas for Admission to the Bar of the State of New York., 2015 NY Slip Op 04657, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff climbed up scaffolding to access a platform and, as he attempted to climb over the three-and-a-half-foot platform railing, plaintiff fell to the platform and was injured.  Plaintiff was not instructed to access the platform any other way, so plaintiff’s failure to use a ladder located 25 to 30 feet away could not be considered the sole proximate cause of the accident.  In addition, the Second Department noted that the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff’s failure to state the particular provision of the Industrial Code alleged to have been violated in the complaint or bill of particulars was not fatal to the cause of action.  The belated identification of the relevant code provision involved no new factual allegations and no new theories of liability.  The Second Department also held the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed, explaining the elements.  With respect to the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the court wrote:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents when their “failure to provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site proximately causes injury to a worker” … . However, liability may “be imposed under the statute only where the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … .

Contrary to the contention of the defendants and Newtron, Labor Law § 240(1) applies to the facts of this case, even though the plaintiff fell only from the railing to the platform … . The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence demonstrating that the defendants failed to provide him with an adequate safety device, and that such failure was a proximate cause of his injuries … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions in using the scaffolding and climbing over the railing, rather than using a permanent ladder that was approximately 25 to 30 feet from the scaffolding ladder, to access the permanent platform was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. A plaintiff’s negligence is the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries “when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he [or she] was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident” … . Here, there is no evidence that anyone instructed the plaintiff that he was “expected to” use the permanent ladder rather than the scaffolding … . Doto v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04605, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

Defendant’s Submissions Did Not Rebut the Presumption of Receipt of the Summons and Complaint Properly Sent by Ordinary Mail

The Second Department determined defendant’s claims he was out of the country when the summons and complaint were mailed and never received them were insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt based upon proper mailing by ordinary mail:

In support of that branch of his cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … . In support of his contention that he had a reasonable excuse, the defendant claimed that he was out of the country …, and when he returned to the United States there were no summons and complaint or notice of this action in the mail. The defendant’s submissions, however, failed to rebut the presumption of receipt based on proof of the proper mailing of the summons and complaint by ordinary mail … . Therefore, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … .

In support of that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317, the defendant was required to demonstrate that he did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 317…). The evidence demonstrating that copies of the summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant at the correct residential address created a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt, and the defendant’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Williamson v Marlou Cab Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04636, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue

In a medical malpractice case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion re: the venue of these consolidated actions.  Although the venue of the initial action (Queens County) should usually serve as the venue of the consolidated actions, here the medical treatment was rendered at a hospital in Nassau County, many individual defendants resided in Nassau County, and the plaintiffs themselves resided in Nassau County at the time each action was commenced—making Nassau County the best venue for the proceedings:

“When a trial court orders consolidation or joint trials under CPLR 602(a), venue should generally be placed in the county where jurisdiction was invoked in the first action” … . However, where special circumstances are present, the court, in its discretion, may place venue elsewhere … .

Here, the claims relate to treatment rendered at St. Francis Hospital, located in Nassau County. Many of the individual defendants resided in Nassau County. All of the individual defendants worked in Nassau County at the time of the alleged malpractice and lack of informed consent. The plaintiffs themselves resided in Nassau County at the time each action was commenced. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the cross motions which were to place the venue of the consolidated action in Nassau County and denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to place venue in Queens County… . Castro v Durban, 2015 NY Slip Op 04600, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

, ,

Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant

The Second Department determined plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof at trial. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence re: the installation of foam insulation. The contract called for the installation to conform to the manufacturer’s specifications.  The negligence cause of action alleged the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner. Because defendant would not have been prejudiced, Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiffs to amend the breach of contract cause of action to allege the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner.  Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) for judgment in their favor on the breach of contract cause of action should have been granted. The negligence cause of action, which essentially duplicated the breach of contract cause of action, should have been dismissed. With respect the post-trial motion to amend the pleadings, the Second Department wrote:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence adduced at trial. “Whether to permit a party to amend a pleading is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court and, on review, the Appellate Division” … . Absent prejudice, courts are free, pursuant to CPLR 3025(c), to permit the amendment of pleadings, even after trial … . Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just (see CPLR 3025[b]). “This favorable treatment applies even if the amendment substantially alters the theory of recovery” … .

Here, the proposed amendment to the breach of contract cause of action does not alter the theory of recovery. The complaint alleged that the defendant failed to perform the work in a good and workmanlike manner, albeit in the context of the cause of action alleging negligence. Furthermore, the defendant, who has the burden of establishing prejudice …, failed to assert that it would be prejudiced by permitting the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence adduced at trial that the work was not performed in a good and workmanlike manner … . Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04615, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

, ,

Res Ipsa Locquitur Doctrine Not Available Where Multiple Defendants Did Not Have Concurrent Control Over the Alleged Malpractice, i.e., Leaving Surgical Packing in the Wound

The Second Department determined the hospital defendants and the defendant rehabilitation facility (Parker) were entitled to summary judgment in a case where surgical packing was left in the wound.  The surgeon was not an employee of the hospital and there were no allegations hospital staff negligently followed the surgeons instructions.  The court explained why the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to the hospital defendants and the defendant rehabilitation facility:

The plaintiff relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to relieve him of the burden of proving which defendant had been negligent and when. Although res ipsa loquitur may be utilized where more than one defendant may have been in control …, the responsible defendants must share exclusive control of the instrumentality causing injury. Here, neither the hospital defendants nor Parker were acting jointly or concurrently with each other. They did not have concurrent control of the surgical packing that allegedly caused the injury. The treatment here was performed by different entities at different times in different locations. This is not a situation where several physicians participated in a single surgical procedure and, as a result, have the burden to “explain their actions and conduct in the operating room wherein plaintiff was injured” … . Accordingly, under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s reliance upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in opposition to the motion is misplaced, inasmuch as he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the requisite elements of the doctrine … . Buesko v Gordon, 2014 NY Slip Op 03969, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

, ,

As a Contingent Remainder of the Subject Trust, the “Charitable Trust” Had the Right to Intervene in a Proceeding to Remove and Replace the Trustee of the Subject Trust

The Second Department determined that the contingent remainder, Charitable Trust, of the subject trust had standing to intervene in a proceeding which removed the father and appointed the mother trustee of the subject trust:

…[T]he Charitable Trust, as a contingent remainder of the subject trust, has standing to intervene in this proceeding …, and a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding …. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted it leave to intervene as a party respondent (see CPLR 1012[a];[2], [3]…). Upon granting the Charitable Trust leave to intervene as a party respondent, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion which was to vacate the order …removing the father as the trustee of the subject trust and appointing the mother as successor trustee of the subject trust, and thereupon directed that the petition be amended by adding the Charitable Trust as a party respondent and that the Charitable Trust be permitted to serve a verified answer and counterclaims if it be so advised. Matter of Ramm v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04015, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

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