You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this “smooth, slippery, shiny floor” slip and fall case. The fact that a floor has been polished does not establish negligence. Plaintiff must show the wax or polish was negligently applied:

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “A prima facie case of the negligent application of wax may be established by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present on the floor” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was no negligent application of wax to the floor … . Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept 9-15-26 

Practice Point: A smooth, slippery, shiny floor is not actionable in a slip and fall case unless there is evidence wax was negligently applied.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the negligence and wrongful death action against the municipal defendants should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim or leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in an order which required mother to “stay away” from father and the child. Plaintiff asked the police for help in serving the order on mother and picking up the child. The police attempted to serve the order, but mother slammed the door and would not let them in. District attorneys were then contacted for advice but determined the police could not enter mother’s home. The next day the police were called to mother’s home where the child was found deceased. Mother was convicted of murdering the child. The Second Department held that there was a special relationship between plaintiff and the municipality and the municipality was not entitled to governmental function immunity: The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

To establish the existence of a special relationship, a plaintiff is required to prove four elements, also referred to as “the Cuffy factors” or “the Cuffy test,” namely:

“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 …). * * *

Generally, the “decision to arrest an individual involves the exercise of discretion . . . and thus is cloaked with governmental immunity” … . However, here, in the face of what was, in effect, a temporary order of protection, the defendant police officers became, at a minimum, “obligated to respond and investigate” … . Therefore, the Village defendants have not conclusively established that their actions were purely discretionary … . Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes a “special relationship” between a plaintiff and a municipality and when a municipality is protected from liability in negligence by governmental function immunity.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the breach of a duty owed to him by defendant contractor. Defendant had entered a contract with defendant municipality to maintain street lights. Plaintiff, a pedestrian struck by a car, alleged the accident was in part caused by a street light which was not working. The complaint, however, did not allege defendant contractor had “launched an instrument of harm,” as opposed to merely a failure to act as an instrument of good:

… [T]he facts alleged do not establish that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, as the defendant is not alleged to have “created or increased the risk [to the plaintiff] beyond the risk which existed even before [the defendant] entered into [its] contractual undertaking” … . The defendant’s purported negligence in failing to restore illumination to a darkened intersection amounts to, at most, a failure to act as an “instrument for good, which is insufficient to impose a duty of care” upon the defendant in the absence of contractual privity with the plaintiff … . Moreover, the contract submitted by the defendant in support of its motion conclusively demonstrated that the defendant’s contractual undertaking was “not the type of ‘comprehensive and exclusive’ property maintenance obligation” that would “entirely absorb” the Town’s duty “to maintain the premises safely” … . Weiss v Fran Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02147, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what “launching an instrument of harm,” as opposed to “failing to act as an instrument of good,” means in the context of a duty owed by a party to a contract to an injured nonparty.

 

, , ,

THE COUNTY CHARTER, WHICH PURPORTED TO ELIMINATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE-NOTICE THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO A BICYCLIST BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN A COUNTY ROAD, DID NOT SUPERSEDE THE HIGHWAY LAW; TO STATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COUNTY MUST DEMONSTRATE BOTH A LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE AND A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, determined the county charter, which allowed the county to “opt out” of the constructive-notice provisions in the Highway Law, did not supersede the Highway Law. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole on a county road. Supreme Court denied the county’s summary judgment motion which argued the county charter eliminated the constructive-notice theory of liability. The Second Department affirmed the denial and further held that the county was required to show both a lack of written notice and a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition to warrant summary judgment:

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident, we are asked to determine whether the defendant, County of Suffolk, may enact legislation pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law that supersedes a New York State law. Specifically, the County contends that, through the enactment of Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2), it may supersede the provision of Highway Law § 139(2) that allows for an action to be maintained against a county, regardless of prior written notice, where the county had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(5). We hold that Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2)(iii) contradicts Highway Law § 139(2) and, thus, the County may not, as it contends, “exercise [its] right to opt out” of the requirements of said statute. The County also contends that, in effect, even if constructive notice could be a theory of recovery in the instant action, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing in the first instance that the County had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. In other words, the County contends that its burden on this motion for summary judgment was only to show that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition before the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the County had constructive notice of the condition. We hold, consistent with our precedent, that, when moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in cases invoking Highway Law § 139(2), the County must establish, prima facie, that it lacked both prior written notice and constructive notice of the alleged defective condition before the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard or with regard to whether another exception applies. Romas v County of Suffolk, 2026 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: A county charter provision which contradicts the New York State Highway Law does not supersede the provisions of the Highway Law.

 

,

THE GUARDIAN’S ILLNESS PRECIPITATED THE PETITION TO REMOVE HER; UPON HER RECOVERY THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR HER REMOVAL; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support the removal of the incapacitated person’s (Frank’s) wife, Zita, as the guardian of the person and property of Frank. The removal petition, brought by Frank’s daughter, Tara, was dismissed:

In December 2022, the wife was temporarily hospitalized, which precipitated the petition … to remove her as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person. …

The determination “to remove a guardian of the person and property of an incapacitated person pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . The “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … . “A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in removing the wife as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35). The wife’s temporary medical crisis that had precipitated the petition was resolved, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the wife’s actions regarding the incapacitated person’s care were a just cause for removal … . Matter of Frank M. (Zita C.–Tara M. M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02116, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Other than the guardian’s illness, there was no support for her removal as guardian. Her recovery, therefore, warranted dismissal of the removal petition.

 

THE APPENDIX SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS INCOMPLETE; APPEAL DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the appeal, determined the appendix submitted by the appellant was insufficient to allow consideration of the issues raised:

“[A]n appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all relevant portions of the record to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” … . “‘The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent, including material excerpts from transcripts of testimony[,] . . . papers in connection with a motion, and critical exhibits'” … . Further, “[e]xcerpts from the transcripts ‘must not be misleading or unintelligible by reason of incompleteness or lack of surrounding context'” … . “‘An appellate court should not be subjected to the task of untangling and mastering the facts from an inadequate and incoherent appendix'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs omitted from the appendix, among other things, material excerpts from transcripts of deposition testimony and each of the defendants’ papers in connection with the separate motions which were the subject of the order appealed from … . “These omissions inhibit the court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal” … . Accordingly, as the plaintiffs have failed to provide this Court with an adequate appendix, we dismiss the appeal …  .Kelly-Newhouse v Chase Meadows Farm, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02108, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: When an appeal is perfected by the appendix method, if the appendix does not include all of the record necessary for consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the appeal will be dismissed.

 

, , ,

IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant NYC Department of Education (DOE) was not entitled to summary judgment in this negligent supervision action alleging a long pattern of abuse of plaintiff-student, J.A., by other students. Notably, the Second Department, as a matter of first impression, held that the 90-day time-limit for filing a Notice of Claim was tolled by the “continuing wrong” doctrine:

This Court holds that the notice of claim was timely because the continuing wrong doctrine applies … . As a general rule, the continuing wrong doctrine may be “employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of the limitations period to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . The continuing wrong doctrine allows a later accrual date of a cause of action “where the harm sustained by the complaining party is not exclusively traced to the day when the original wrong was committed” … . “The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuous effects and a series of independent wrongs” … .

This Court has not previously addressed the question of whether the period within which a notice of claim may be filed is tolled where there is a continuous pattern of harassment and/or unlawful conduct in a school setting and allegedly negligent supervision of a student by school administrators charged with a duty to properly supervise their students. J.A. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02084, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Here in this negligent-supervision action it was alleged plaintiff-student was subjected to a pattern of abuse by other students for a period of months. In a matter of first impression, the Second Department held that incidents which occurred more than 90-days before the Notice of Claim was filed were not time-barred pursuant to the “continuing wrong” doctrine.

 

, , , ,

A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint should not have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not present any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss, as opposed to a motion for summary judgment:

Supreme Court improperly granted the motion of [defendants] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s earlier directive “to provide an affidavit from a physician attesting [to] the merits of her claims.” The burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). A plaintiff need not make an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint in order to defeat such a motion and will not be penalized for failure to do so … . Here, where the motion was not converted into one for summary judgment, the plaintiff had no obligation to provide an affidavit from an expert to support the allegations in the amended complaint in order to defeat the [defendants’] motion … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent … . Wilber v Borgen, 2026 NY Slip Op 02001, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: A plaintiff need not submit any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss the complaint. Here the judge should not have granted the motion on the ground the plaintiff did not comply with the court’s directive to submit an affidavit from a physician.

 

,

SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUPPRESSION MOTIONS REVERSED IN THIS TRAFFIC STOP CASE; THE REPORT THAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ARMED ROBBERY THAT DAY AND THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK OF COOPERATION AT THE TIME OF THE STOP JUSTIFIED BREAKING THE VEHICLE’S WINDOWS, REMOVING THE DEFENDANTS AND HANDCUFFING THEM; OBSERVING A FIREARM IN THE VEHICLE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s suppression of evidence seized during a traffic stop, over a dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and exigent circumstances justified the search of a defendant’s fanny pack. The dissent disagreed about the legitimacy of the search of the fanny pack:

… [T]he police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based upon the fact that the description of the vehicle matched that of a vehicle that had been involved in an armed robbery earlier that day, and the vehicle’s location had been detected by a license plate reader approximately five minutes prior to the stop … . Moreover, the actions of the police officers in drawing their guns and ordering the defendants out of the vehicle were justified under the circumstances as appropriate measures to ensure their safety … . Additionally, when the defendants failed to cooperate with the officers’ instructions, the officers acted appropriately in breaking the vehicle’s “excessive[ly] . . . tint[ed]” front windows for their own safety and then in removing the defendants from the vehicle and placing them in handcuffs … . The police thereafter had probable cause to arrest the defendants once the officer observed a firearm in plain view in the compartment of the driver’s side door of the vehicle … .

… [T]he subsequent search of Rivera’s fanny pack was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest … . * * *

“Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements” … . “The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is ‘not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest'” … . “The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . …

… The police were notified that a vehicle matching the description of the subject vehicle was involved earlier the same day in a gunpoint robbery in Brooklyn. … [A]fter the vehicle was boxed in by police vehicles, the occupants tried to escape the scene in the vehicle and continually refused the officer’s directives to lower the heavily tinted car windows or exit the vehicle. People v David, 2026 NY Slip Op 01980, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court granted defendants’ suppression motions and the Appellate Division reversed finding (1) the guns-drawn traffic stop, (2) the breaking of the vehicle’s windows, (3) the removal of defendants from the vehicle, (4) the handcuffing of the defendants, and (5) the arrest of the defendants upon observing a firearm in the vehicle, were constitutionally justified.

 

,

THE POLICE OBSERVED A GROUP OF PEOPLE CHASING THE DEFENDANT AND ESSENTIALLY JOINED IN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES; THE WEAPON SEIZED IN THE STREET STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction (after trial) and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who participated in the foot chase and street stop of the defendant did not have the requisite “reasonable suspicion.” The police (in civilian clothes) saw a group of people chasing the defendant and essentially simply joined in the chase without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. The seized firearm should have been suppressed:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the pursuit of the defendant, as the police lacked reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . Neither Hain’s [the officer’s] observation of the defendant running away from a “group of civilians” chasing him, nor the female voice saying “that’s him, he’s getting away, grab him,” without reference to any specific acts, were sufficient to confer reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to the defendant being the victim of criminal activity or having no connection to any criminal activity … . Hain acknowledged that “I wasn’t sure exactly what was going on at the time,” and that the group could have been chasing the defendant “for anything.” Further, Hain’s vague testimony that when the group caught up to the defendant, he observed the defendant and a female individual “engaged in some sort of physical altercation,” which he described as “tussling, pulling back and forth at each other,” was insufficient, absent any details, to satisfy the People’s burden of establishing reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Hain acknowledged that “I don’t know if [the defendant] was defending himself,” and he did not testify that the defendant ever struck the female individual or engaged in any conduct constituting an assault or other criminal activity. Therefore, it cannot be determined from Hain’s testimony elicited at the hearing whether the defendant was merely trying to pull away from the female individual to continue running away after she and the group caught up to him.

Thus, Hain’s observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Alberto, 2026 NY Slip Op 01976, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Here the police saw a group of people chasing the defendant and joined in without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. Therefore the street stop was not justified by “reasonable suspicion.”

 

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