You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Question of Fact About Whether Skater Assumed the Risk of a Collision with a Skating Guard Who May Have Acted Recklessly

The Second Department determined a skater may not have assumed the risk of a collision with a skating guard.  There was a question of fact about whether the skating guard had acted recklessly:

Voluntary participants in a sport or recreational activity “may be held to have consented, by their participation, to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation” … . Although collisions between skaters are a common occurrence, and thus an inherent risk to ice skating …, “participants do not consent to acts which are reckless or intentional” …, or to any “unassumed, concealed or unreasonably increased risks” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the City in support of its motion failed to establish as a matter of law that the injury-causing event was a known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plaintiff’s participation in the sport. The City’s submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the conduct of its employee, the skating guard who allegedly caused the plaintiff’s accident, was reckless or intentional and unreasonably increased the risk of a collision … . Kats-Kagan v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03235, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

, ,

Suit Against Town by Representatives of Ambulance Personnel Killed in an Accident Prohibited by Volunteer Ambulance Workers’ Benefit Law/Question of Fact Whether Ambulance Driver Was Reckless (in Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104)

The Second Department determined the town was protected against a suit by representatives of ambulance personnel killed when the ambulance was involved in an accident.  Volunteer Ambulance Workers’ Benefit Law section 19 provides an exclusive remedy (much like the Workers’ Compensation Law) and thereby precluded the lawsuit against the town.  The Second Department also determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the ambulance driver was reckless.  Therefore suit against the driver was not precluded by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 which imposes a “reckless disregard” standard for causes of action against the drivers of emergency vehicles.  It is worth noting that the question of fact under the “reckless disregard” standard was found to exist in spite of a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing which determined the ambulance driver did not act recklessly.  Ryan v Town of Riverhead, 2014 NY Slip Op 03250, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

Intentional Conduct Cannot Be the Basis for a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

The Second Department determined a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot be based upon intentional conduct.  Plaintiff alleged he was attacked with a hammer by the defendant:

A cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which no longer requires physical injury as a necessary element, “generally must be premised upon the breach of a duty owed to [the] plaintiff which either unreasonably endangers the plaintiff’s physical safety, or causes the plaintiff to fear for his or her own safety” … . “Such a claim must fail, where, as here, no allegations of negligence appear in the pleadings'” … . Here the plaintiff’s allegations in the verified complaint that the defendant “deliberately and violently” attacked him with a hammer, while using racial and ethnic slurs, are premised on intentional conduct and not negligence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. Santana v Leith, 2014 NY Slip Op 03251, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

Doctor Who Allegedly Wrongfully Prescribed Narcotics for a Drug Addict Who Shot Plaintiff’s Decedent in an Attempt to Steal Narcotics from a Pharmacy Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

The Second Department determined the duty to protect persons from the criminal acts of others did not extend to plaintiff’s decedent.  Plaintiff sued a doctor who operated a pain management clinic, alleging that the doctor operated a “pill mill” and wrongfully provided drugs to a drug addict,  The drug addict shot plaintiff’s decedent during a robbery of a drug store in an attempt to steal narcotics. The court noted that there are situations in which a defendant exercises sufficient control to prevent harm to others. Here, however, in the absence of such control, the doctor owed no duty of care to plaintiff’s decedent:

“The question of whether a defendant owes a duty of care to another person is a question of law for the courts” … .

Generally, “[w]ithout a duty running directly to the injured person there can be no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm” … . Further, “there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others,’ even where, as a practical matter, the defendant could have exercised such control” … .

… Courts have imposed a duty of care “where there exist special circumstances in which there is sufficient authority and ability to control the conduct of third persons” that courts have identified a duty to exercise such control … . Thus, courts have imposed a duty to control the conduct of others “where there is a special relationship: a relationship between [the] defendant and [the] third person whose actions expose [the] plaintiff to harm such as would require [the] defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

The Supreme Court erred in denying [the doctor’s] motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to state a cause of action. [The doctor] did not owe a duty to the decedent or to the general public because no special circumstances existed. The decedent was a stranger to [the shooter] and a member of the general public, not a member of “a determinate and identified class” … . Malone v County of Suffolk, 2015 NY Slip Op 03811, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

Claimant’s Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied—Application of Statutory Factors Explained

The Second Department determined claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied. Claimant had other remedies available and the claims were deemed to be without merit. The statutory factors (Court of Claims Act 10(6)) to be weighed are: “… whether the delay in filing was excusable; whether the State had notice of essential facts constituting the claim; whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the State is prejudiced; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy … . ‘No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative’…”. Borawski v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03795, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises Owners) Were Unable to Demonstrate the Attack Was Not Foreseeable and their Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Attack—Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact whether a bar patron could have been protected from harm.  “The plaintiff’s decedent was assaulted by other patrons of a lounge on premises leased by the defendant Bartini’s Pierre, Inc., also known as Station Bar Corp., doing business as Bartini’s Lounge, and owned by the defendant Reiner & Keiser Associates (hereinafter together the appellants).” The appellants were not able to demonstrate prima facie that the attack was not foreseeable, that the attack could not have been prevented, that the appellants’ negligence was not the proximate cause of the attack, or that reasonable security measures to guard against criminal acts by third persons were taken:

  “Although a property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control. Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … .

Here, the appellants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. In support of their motion, the appellants submitted the deposition testimony of a witness to the incident, who testified that, shortly before the incident, he noticed the decedent being restrained by a security guard, but was not aware of the events which led the security guard to restrain the decedent. The witness testified that the security guard then proceeded to escort the decedent out of the premises, during the course of which the decedent was severely beaten by other patrons, resulting in his death. This evidence failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the attack upon the decedent was not foreseeable, that the appellants lacked the opportunity to prevent the attack, or that any negligence on the appellants’ part was not a proximate cause of the incident … . The appellants also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they took reasonable security measures against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties … . Walfall v Bartini’s Pierre, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03830, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiffs’ Action—Doctrines Clearly Described

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ breach of contract action was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because all the relevant issues had been raised and determined in defendant’s successful mortgage foreclosure actions. The Second Department offered the following clear descriptions of the res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating any claim which could have been or should have been litigated in a prior proceeding … . Therefore, under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment will bar future actions between the same parties involving the same cause of action … .

The claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this case concern the parties’ rights and obligations under the mortgage agreements between the plaintiffs and the defendant. As such, those claims needed to be—and, in fact, were—raised by the plaintiffs in defending against the foreclosure action, and thus the plaintiffs are barred from relitigating those claims in this action … . * * *

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent proceeding or action an issue that was raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity … . For the bar to apply, the issue must have been material to the first action and “essential to the decision rendered therein,” and it must be the point that is to be determined in the second action, such that “a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first” … . In addition, the party against whom preclusion is sought must have had a “full and fair opportunity to contest the matter in the prior action” … .

In this case, the claims sought to be relitigated are identical to those that were decided against the plaintiffs in the foreclosure action. These claims were material to the action and were essential to the decision rendered. Moreover, the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination … . SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 03824, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined the defendant New York City Transit Authority was not liable to the plaintiff as a matter of law under the emergency doctrine.  Plaintiff was a passenger in the Transit Authority’s vehicle when defendant Franco allegedly backed out of a driveway at a high rate of speed (to get over a snow bank) into the path of the Transit Authority’s vehicle. “The common-law emergency doctrine ‘recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context, provided the actor has not created the emergency’  … . ‘Although the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of the response to it generally present questions of fact, those issues may in appropriate circumstances be determined as a matter of law”…”. Majid v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03809, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

, , , ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Mortgage Company Did Not Negotiate a Loan Modification in Good Faith Without a Hearing, and Could Not, Pursuant to the Contract Clause, Order the Mortgage Company to Enter a Loan Modification Agreement

After defendant, Ms Hepburn, failed to answer the summons and complaint in a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff mortgage company moved for an order of reference (the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due).  Supreme Court denied the motion and, sua sponte, determined the mortgage company had not negotiated a loan modification in good faith (CPLR 3408), and directed the mortgage company to offer a loan modification within sixty days.  The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the motion for an order of reference (which was not opposed), should not have made a finding the mortgage company failed to negotiate a loan modification in good faith without conducting a hearing, and could not, pursuant to the Contract Clause, order the mortgage company to enter a loan modification agreement:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, determined that the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408, and directed it, within sixty days, to offer a loan modification to Ms. Hepburn allowing her to assume the subject mortgage. “It is well-settled that an action to foreclose a mortgage is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . A court “may impose a sanction sua sponte, but the party to be sanctioned must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … .

Here, the only matter before the Supreme Court was the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference. Without an evidentiary hearing or notice to the parties, the Supreme Court sua sponte determined that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith in its negotiations with Ms. Hepburn at settlement conferences, which were held over a 16-month period, and thereupon denied the plaintiff’s motion. Such procedure did not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the Supreme Court’s finding that it had not met it obligation to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408 or to oppose the imposition of sanctions … . Moreover, even if sanctions for failure to negotiate in good faith were appropriate in this matter, the Supreme Court erred in directing the plaintiff to, in effect, enter into a contract with Ms. Hepburn … . Such a sanction violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution … . PHH Mtge. Corp. v Hepburn, 2015 NY Slip Op 03817, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether County Had Constructive Notice of Pothole Which Injured Bicyclist

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the county had constructive notice of a pothole. Plaintiff was injured when his bicycle struck the pothole. Although the county did not have written notice of the defect, the Highway Law (section 139[2]) provides that a county may be liable for a defective highway condition if the county has constructive notice of it. Plaintiff’s expert opined the pothole had existed for four months prior to the accident:

Notwithstanding the existence of a prior written notice statute, a County may be liable for an accident caused by a defective highway condition where the County has constructive notice of the condition (see Highway Law § 139[2]…). Here, the County submitted the deposition testimony of a County employee who stated that he inspected the roadway where the fall is alleged to have occurred every Monday through Friday until the week before the accident, and did not observe any potholes. This was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the County lacked constructive notice of the alleged defect … . However, in opposition to the County’s motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who inspected the subject roadway and opined that the defect was in existence for at least four months prior to the accident. This affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the County had constructive notice of the alleged defect by virtue of the fact that it existed for so long a period that it should have been discovered and remedied in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence … . Rauschenbach v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 03818, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

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