You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Compliance With the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) Re: a Sidewalk Vault Cover Did Not Override Cable Company’s General Duty Not to Create a Hazardous Condition

Plaintiff tripped on a sidewalk in front of defendant’s (Palm Beach’s) property in the vicinity of a vault cover installed by defendant cable company (Cablevision).  The Second Department determined the causes of action against both defendants properly survived summary judgment. There was no showing Palm Beach did not have constructive notice of the condition. Cablevision argued that dismissal was warranted because it had complied with the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) concerning sidewalk installations.  Supreme Court properly held that the duties imposed by the regulations were in addition to the generally duty not to create a hazardous condition:

Contrary to the contention of the Cablevision defendants, they cannot be absolved of such liability by either the “guarantee period” set forth in 34 RCNY 2-11(e)(16)(ii) (“Permittees shall be responsible for permanent restoration and maintenance of street openings and excavations for a period of three years on unprotected streets”) or the 12-inch rule set forth in 34 RCNY 2-07(b)(1) and (2) (requiring owners of covers or gratings to “monitor[ ] the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” and to “replace or repair” any defective cover or grating and any defective street condition found within twelve inches of the cover or grating). As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the regulations relied on by the Cablevision defendants impose upon them a duty to maintain their vault and the surrounding area that is separate from, and in addition to, their duty not to create hazardous conditions … . Shehata v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04305, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here

In finding the motion to vacate a foreclosure sale was properly denied, the Second Department explained the circumstances in which a foreclosure sale will be set aside: “In the exercise of its equitable powers, a court has the discretion to set aside a foreclosure sale where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct” … . “Absent such conduct, the mere inadequacy of price is an insufficient reason to set aside a sale unless the price is so inadequate as to shock the court’s conscience”… . Chiao v Poon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04268, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault

The Second Department determined defendant movie theater’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.  Plaintiffs were assaulted at the theater.  Depositions revealed there had been four or five similar incidents at the theater and one of the plaintiffs screamed for help throughout the 15-to-20-minute assault:

A property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, which includes a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . However, “the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … . Solomon v National Amusements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04306, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Tractor-Trailer Veered Into Oncoming Lane Striking Bus/Emergency Doctrine Required Dismissal of Complaint Against Bus Company and Driver as a Matter of Law/Lessor of Trailer Protected Against Vicarious Liability by Graves Amendment/Negligent Entrustment Cause of Action Against Lessor of Trailer Dismissed as a Matter of Law (No Special Knowledge Use of Trailer by Lessee Would Render It Unreasonably Dangerous)

A tractor trailer suddenly veered into oncoming traffic and struck a bus owned by one of the defendants, Schoolman.  The Second Department determined the emergency doctrine precluded, as a matter of law, the suit against the bus company and the driver of the bus (Zimmardi). The court also determined the company which leased the trailer, EMH,  was protected from vicarious liability by the Graves Amendment, and was not liable, as a matter of law, under a negligent entrustment theory. The leasing company had no special knowledge of a use of the trailer by the lessee that would render the use of the trailer unreasonably dangerous:

Here, Schoolman established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaints … by demonstrating that its driver, Zimmardi, was faced with an emergency situation not of his own making when the truck suddenly veered into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in the context of that emergency … . * * *

EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the vicarious liability causes of action by demonstrating, prima facie, that the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) applied to shield it from liability for the plaintiffs’ injuries by virtue of its status as a commercial lessor of motor vehicles that was free from negligence in maintaining the subject vehicle (see Castillo v Amjack Leasing Corp., 84 AD3d 1297, 1297-1298; Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 57-58). Further, EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligent entrustment causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not possess special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition … that rendered the use of the leased vehicle … unreasonably dangerous … . Pacelli v Intruck Leasing Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 04292, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Embankment Near a Stream Was an “Open and Obvious” Dangerous Condition at 3 a.m.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants (property owners).  Plaintiff, who had been invited onto the property, fell off an embankment near a stream and fractured his ankle.  Plaintiff was among a group who had gathered around a bonfire in an area which had been used for that purpose by defendants.  The fall took place at 3 a.m.  The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious (because it was dark):

“A landowner must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining his [or her] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . “The nature and scope of that duty and the persons to whom it is owed require consideration of the likelihood of injury to another from a dangerous condition on the property, the seriousness of the potential injury, the burden of avoiding the risk and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” …. “Liability may be imposed upon a landowner who fails to take reasonable precautions in order to prevent those accidents which might foreseeably occur as the result of dangerous terrain” … .

However, a landowner does not have a duty to protect against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous … . Moreover, the question “of whether a condition is hidden or open and obvious is generally for the finder of fact to determine” …, although, in a proper case, a condition may be found open and obvious as a matter of law. Nonetheless, whether a condition is open and obvious “cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances,” and a condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured … . Barone v Risi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04265, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, ,

Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid a Fee to Participate in the Basketball Game In Which He Was Injured

Plaintiff paid a fee to participate in a basketball league and signed a release of liability.  He was injured during a game when his hand went through the glass of a door behind a basketball hoop. The defendants sought permission to amend their answer to assert the defense of release and Supreme Court allowed the amendment. The Second Department determined the motion for leave to amend the answer should have been denied because the affirmative defense was “patently devoid of merit.” General Obligations Law 5-326 nullifies any such release where the owner or operator of a sports facility charges a fee for use of the facility. Falzone v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04273, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

[General Obligations Law 5-326 provides: “Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”]

 

Restrictive Covenant Was Part of a Common Development Scheme and Was Enforceable by All Property Owners In the Subdivision

The Second Department determined a restrictive covenant requiring that one parcel in a subdivision remain undeveloped was enforceable by property owners in the subdivision. The covenant was part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of all property owners. The covenant stated that the parcel “shall be maintained . . . in perpetuity as open space preserving same in its present natural condition and not permitting or causing thereon any construction, improvements or alterations of the existing natural state of the premises. This restriction shall run with the land in perpetuity.”  Defendants were seeking to build an access road across the parcel.  The Second Department explained: . “The law has long favored free and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them … . Courts will enforce such restraints only where the party seeking enforcement establishes their application by clear and convincing evidence … . However, where proved by clear and convincing evidence, they are to be enforced pursuant to their clear meaning…”. [internal quotations omitted] Fader v Taconic Tract Dev., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04272, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

,

Foreign Corporation’s Sole Residence for Venue Purposes Is the County Designated In Its Filed Application to Conduct Business in New York State

In the context of a dispute over proper venue, the Second Department determined that plaintiff foreign corporation’s sole residence in New York State is the county designated in its application for authority to conduct business in New York State as filed with the State. Therefore plaintiff’s bringing the action in Nassau County, where it alleged its principal place of business is located, as opposed to New York County, the county designated in its filed application, was improper:

…[T]he law is clear that “[f]or purposes of venue, the sole residence of a foreign corporation is the county in which its principal office is located, as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the State of New York” …, regardless of where it transacts business or maintains its actual principal office (see CPLR 503[c]; Business Corporation Law § 102[a][10]…). We note that, since the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ demand to change venue failed to set forth factual averments that were prima facie sufficient to show that its designation of Nassau County for trial of the action was proper, the defendants were authorized to notice their motion to change venue to be heard in Saratoga County (see CPLR 511[b]…). Further, the defendants are not responsible for the delay occasioned by the denial of their motion by the Supreme Court, Saratoga County.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to change the venue of the action from Nassau County to Saratoga County, despite the fact that an order granting class certification had already been issued in the action. American Bldrs. & Contrs. Supply Co., Inc. v Capitaland Home Improvement Showroom, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04262, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Improper—Defense Waived by Failure to Answer—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect

The Second Department, in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding where defendants did not answer, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed sua sponte for lack of standing.  Because the complaint was not answered, the lack-of-standing defense was waived.  In addition, lack-of-standing is not a jurisdictional defect warranting sua sponte dismissal:

A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and the cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . In any event, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . US Bank Natl. Assn. v Flowers, 2015 NY Slip Op 04308, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, , ,

Criteria for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Submitted) Explained—Criteria for Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence Explained—Pleading Requirements for Legal Malpractice Explained

In finding the legal malpractice complaint properly survived motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted (question is whether plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether one has been stated, affidavits considered to remedy defects in complaint), the criteria for a motion to dismiss founded on documentary evidence (documents must utterly refute allegations in complaint), the elements of legal malpractice, and the adequacy of damages allegations in a legal malpractice complaint (cannot be conclusory or speculative but plaintiff not obligated to show it actually sustained damages) :

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see CPLR 3026…). Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), “the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one” … . ” [A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint'” … .

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law… .

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal profession, and (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of the actual damages sustained … . A plaintiff must plead “actual[,] ascertainable damages” resulting from the attorney’s negligence … . Conclusory or speculative allegations of damages are insufficient… . However, “[a] plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages. It need only plead allegations from which damages attributable to the defendant’s malpractice might be reasonably inferred” … . Randazzo v Nelson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04299, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

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