You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , , , ,

HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT THE MEDICAL RECORDS; THEREFORE THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THAT THE HOSPITAL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the action, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim, alleging medical malpractice, negligence and violation of the Public Health Law on behalf of decedent, should not have been granted. The petitioner did not establish that the city had timely knowledge of the claim, which is the most important criterium for allowing late notice:

​”Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on plaintiff” … . The petitioner’s “failure to submit evidence of the contents of the alleged records is fatal to [her] argument that the [appellant] acquired actual knowledge from the existence of such records” … . Additionally, there is no suggestion in the record that the appellant refused to produce the medical records or that the petitioner sought to compel the appellant to produce any papers necessary to the determination of the petition pursuant to CPLR 409(a) … . Matter of Giustra v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06862, Second Dept 12-10-25

Practice Point: The most important criterium for leave to file a late notice of claim is evidence the city had timely knowledge of the claim. Medical records, depending on their contents, can (but do not necessarily) demonstrate timely knowledge of the claim. Here petitioner did not submit the medical records and therefore did not even attempt to demonstrate the city’s timely knowledge of the nature of the medical malpractice claim. The mere existence of medical records is not enough.​

 

ON APPEAL, CONVICTIONS FOR “INCLUSORY, CONCURRENT COUNTS” WERE VACATED, AND SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR A “CONTINUING OFFENSE” WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined several inclusory concurrent counts and certain convictions for a “continuing offense” must be vacated:

CPL 300.30(4) provides that “[c]oncurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” … . CPL 300.40(3)(b) provides, in relevant part, that with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Here, the defendant was convicted of five counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … and three counts of criminal possession of a firearm … . Because the counts charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the convictions of criminal possession of a firearm … must be vacated … .

… The defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under counts 4 and 10 of the indictment subjected the defendant to double jeopardy. “An indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, the indictment charged the defendant with three separate counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03(3) for the uninterrupted possession of single weapon. Such possession was continuous and “‘constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once'” … . As such, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under counts 4 and 10 of the indictment, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and dismiss those counts of the indictment. People v Stewart, 2025 NY Slip Op 06737, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Here criminal possession of firearm convictions were vacated as “inclusory, concurrent counts” of criminal possession of a weapon second degree.

Practice Point: Here three criminal possession of a weapon convictions related to a single “continuing offense” of criminal possession of a weapon. Two of the convictions were therefore vacated.

 

, , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not ensure the pro se defendant was aware of the risks of representing himself or the benefits of having an attorney:

… [T]he court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se and the record does not reveal that the defendant was aware of the disadvantages of representing himself or the benefits of having an attorney … . A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . To make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that a defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court inquired about the defendant’s pedigree information, aside from the fact that he did not have a law license, or that the court ascertained whether the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without a trial attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . The court failed to ensure that the defendant understood the potential sentence that could be imposed or the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … . The court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation nor provided a reliable basis for appellate review” … . In addition, the defendant continually engaged in disruptive or obstreperous conduct … . Under these circumstances, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective and the defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Hall, 2025 NY Slip Op 06727, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a judge, faced with a defendant who wishes to represent himself, should handle the “searching Inquiry” to ensure the defendant is aware of the risks.​

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO SEARCHES FOR DRUGS AND WEAPONS WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO HIS REHABILITATION FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT; THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid and went on to find that the probation condition requiring defendant to consent to “search of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm, or other weapon or contraband” was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation for disorderly conduct:

… [The record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . The Supreme Court’s oral explanation of the appeal waiver and its consequences was unclear and incomplete, and the written waiver cannot be relied upon to cure the deficiency because “the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the written waiver, discussed it with his attorney, or was aware of its contents” … .

… [T]he conditions of probation “shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him [or her] to do so” (Penal Law § 65.10[1]). In addition to specific conditions enumerated in the statute, the court may, in its discretion, impose “any other conditions reasonably related to [the defendant’s] rehabilitation” … and “any other reasonable condition as the court shall determine to be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” … . Therefore, sentencing courts may require a defendant to consent to searches by his or her probation officer for weapons, illegal drugs, or other contraband so long as the condition is “individually tailored in relation to the offense” and “the defendant’s particular circumstances, including his or her background, history, and proclivities” … .

Here, the defendant’s only prior conviction was for disorderly conduct, a violation … , the offense at issue did not involve the use of a weapon or alcohol or other substances, and the defendant was not under the influence of any substances at the time of the offense. … [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing Condition No. 28, as that condition “was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life” … . People v Gibson, 2025 NY Slip Op 06724, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Here the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct which did not involve a weapon or drugs. The probation condition requiring defendant to submit to searches for drugs or weapons was struck.

 

,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, striking the probation condition requiring defendant to “support dependents and meet other family responsibilities’, determined the condition was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation. Defendant was convicted of assault:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), the conditions of probation “shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or assist him [or her] to do so” … . “In Penal Law § 65.10(2), the Legislature set forth a list of conditions intended to be rehabilitative” … , including the condition that a defendant “[s]upport his [or her] dependents and meet other family responsibilities” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][f]). “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant’s rehabilitation'” … . All enumerated probation conditions under Penal Law 65.10 must be “tailored to the particular defendant’s case” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly imposed Condition No. 14. This condition was “not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life” … . People v Aldea, 2025 NY Slip Op 06716, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Courts are striking the probation condition requiring defendant to support dependents when it is not related to the underlying offense, assault in this case.​

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff was directed to retrieve lumber which was near an unprotected trench. He was injured when the trench caved in and collapsed. The facts that the trench was 10 feet deep, unshored, and without planking, barricades or guardrails demonstrated plaintiff was not provided with an adequate safety device in violation of Labor Law 240(1). The same omissions violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1):

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide the plaintiff with an adequate safety device and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries ….* * *

“To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case” … . Here, the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated, inter alia, on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1), “which mandates that holes or hazardous openings at construction sites into which a person may step or fall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by the installation of a safety railing” … . O’Donnell v Rocklyn Ecclesiastical Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06714, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: If a worker is injured when an unprotected trench caves in, both Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) have been violated.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF HVAC CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT IN NASSAU COUNTY; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR COULD NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND COULD NOT ENFORCE A MECHANIC’S LIEN; THE FACT THAT THE HVAC INSTALLATION WAS DONE BY A LICENSED SUBCONTRACTOR MADE NO DIFFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint, determined that plaintiff, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) contractor, could not recover on his breach of contract claim and could not enforce a mechanic’s lien because the company was not licensed to do home improvement in Nassau County. The fact that the installation was actually done by a licensed subcontractor made no difference:

Pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.2, anyone operating a home improvement business must be licensed. “Licensing statutes are to be strictly construed and an unlicensed contractor forfeits the right to recover damages based either on breach of contract or quantum meruit” … . “Moreover, a home improvement contractor must plead possession of a valid license in order to commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien” … .

Here, the complaint, even as supplemented by an affidavit from the plaintiff’s president, failed to allege that the plaintiff was licensed to perform home improvement work in the County. As the plaintiff was not licensed to perform home improvement work in the County, it may not recover damages for breach of contract against the defendant and has forfeited the right to foreclose the mechanic’s lien … . The plaintiff’s contention that recovery should not be denied because the installation of the HVAC system was performed by a duly licensed subcontractor is without merit, as such a relationship is insufficient to permit an unlicensed contractor to recover for work performed … . Nationwide HVAC Supply Corp. v Mosby, 2025 NY Slip Op 06712, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Municipal home-improvement licensing requirements are strictly enforced. Here the HVAC contractor was not licensed in Nassau County but the subcontractor who did the work was licensed. The contractor could not sue for breach of contract and could not enforce the mechanic’s lien. The contractor’s complaint was dismissed.

 

,

THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PLAINTIFF’S RENTED STORAGE FACILITY WAS SOLD AT AUCTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO PAY RENT; WHEN THE DEFENDANT STORAGE FACILITY OWNER REALIZED THE RENT HAD BEEN PAID BY PLAINTIFF’S PARTNER, DEFENDANT RESCINDED THE SALE OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY, WAIVED LATE FEES, RETURNED THE MONEY TO THE BUYER AND ADVISED THE BUYER TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO PLAINITFF; ALLEGING PROPERTY WAS MISSING, PLAINTIFF SUED UNDER LIEN LAW 182 FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” OF THE PROPERTY; AFTER AN EXTENSIVE STATUTORY ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED LIEN LAW 182 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, affirming Supreme Court, determined defendant could not maintain an action against defendant storage facility based on a violation of Lien Law section 182. Defendant storage facility had not noticed that payments made by plaintiff’s partner, who rented a separate storage facility, were supposed to be applied to plaintiff’s rent. At the time defendant learned of the payments made by plaintiff’s partner, defendant had sold the items in plaintiff’s storage facility at an auction. Defendant rescinded the sale, waived the assessed late fees, returned the money paid by the buyer of plaintiff’s personal property, and advised the buyer to return the property. Plaintiff then sued for “wrongful sale” pursuant to Lien Law 182, alleging that some of his property was missing. Lien Law 182(7)(a) provides that any person claiming an interest goods to be sold at auction can bring a special proceeding within 10 days of the service of notice of the auction. No such special proceeding was brought by plaintiff. Both Supreme Court and the Second Department held that Lien Law 182 does not create a cause of action for “wrongful sale:”

Here, Lien Law § 182 provides that the remedy where a person “disputes the validity of the lien, or the amount claimed,” is to “bring a proceeding hereunder within ten days of the service of the notice” (id. § 182[7][a]), for which the remedy, if the person who commences the proceeding prevails, is “the entry of judgment cancelling the lien or reducing the amount claimed thereunder,” and a directive that “the person shall be entitled to possession of the property” if the lien is canceled (id. § 182[9]). The statute also provides for a “[p]rivate right of action” “for recovery of damages and the return of [the] goods” for “[a]ny occupant damaged by an unlawful detention of his [or her] goods or any other violation of this section” (id. § 182[4][a]).

To the extent the plaintiff attempts to equate his allegation of a wrongful sale with an “unlawful detention,” for which the statute recognizes a “[p]rivate right of action” (id. § 182[4][a]), the plaintiff’s contention is without merit. An “unlawful detention of goods” is unambiguously defined under the statute as an owner’s “refus[al] to surrender goods stored by him [or her] for an occupant upon payment by the occupant of the occupancy fees permitted by this section” (id. § 182[3]). That definition does not mention or reference the sale of goods stored by an owner, and thus, the phrase “unlawful detention” cannot be read as encompassing the plaintiff’s allegation of a wrongful sale. Heins v Public Stor., 2025 NY Slip Op 06605, Second De[t 11-26-25

Practice Point: Lien Law 182 provides that a person with an interest in property to be sold at auction pursuant to the Lien Law may bring a special proceeding to dispute the validity of the lien or the amount claimed within ten days of service of notice of the auction (which was not done here). Lien Law 182 does not create a private right of action for “wrongful sale” of the property at the action. Therefore plaintiff’s “wrongful sale” cause of action was properly dismissed after trial pursuant to CPLR 4401.​

 

, , ,

GENERALLY THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO AN ACTION DIVESTS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION AND REQUIRES A STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS; HERE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION HUSBAND AND WIFE OWNED THE PROPERTY AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY; THE PROPERTY THEREFORE REMAINED WHOLLY OWNED BY WIFE UPON HUSBAND’S DEATH; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST HUSBAND’S ESTATE, A STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of one of the parties in this foreclosure action did not require a stay of the proceedings. The defendant wife held the property with her husband as tenants by the entirety. When the husband died, the wife remained as the owner of the entire property. The plaintiff mortgage company, by moving to delete the husband’s name for the caption, elected not to seek a deficiency judgment against the decedent’s estate. Therefore the action should not have been stayed:

“‘Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent'” … . However, “where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case, there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution” … . “[A] mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all his [or her] interest in the mortgaged premises . . . is not a necessary party to foreclosure, unless a deficiency judgment is sought” … .

… [T]he plaintiff established that, upon the decedent’s death, Janice, “as a tenant by the entirety with her husband, remained seized of the entire ownership interest in the subject property” … . Moreover, by moving to amend the caption to delete the name of the decedent and, in effect, to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him, the plaintiff, in effect, elected not to seek a deficiency judgment against the decedent’s estate … .

By virtue of the absolute conveyance of the property from the decedent to Janice, and the plaintiff’s waiver of its right to seek a deficiency judgment against the decedent or his estate, “strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution was not necessary” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Fimbel, 2025 NY Slip Op 06600, Second Dept 11-26-25

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action against husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, the husband’s death did not require a stay of the proceedings because the wife continued to hold the entire ownership interest in the property and plaintiff was not seeking a deficiency judgment against the estate of the husband.

 

, ,

THE ALLEGATION THE LAW ENFORCEMENT DEFENDANTS PRESENTED FALSE TESTIMONY DURING PLANTIFFS’ PROSECUTIONS STATED A VALID FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants violated 42 USC 1983 by presenting false testimony during the course of plaintiffs’ prosecution should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the cause of action alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 as was predicated on a violation of the plaintiffs’ due process rights enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution insofar as asserted against the individual defendants. The plaintiffs’ allegations that, during the course of their prosecution, the individual defendants presented false testimony were governed by the Fourteenth Amendment … . Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, a due process analysis was appropriate … . Batista v City of Yonkers, 2025 NY Slip Op 06592, Second Dept 11-26-25

Practice Point: An allegation that law enforcement officers presented false testimony during plaintiffs’ prosecutions stated a 42 USC 1983 violation-of-due-process cause of action.

 

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