You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Admissions in Pleadings, Including the Failure to Deny an Allegation, Are Always In Evidence for All Purposes in a Trial

In a trial stemming from an automobile accident, during deliberations the jury asked if there was any evidence a defendant, Kahn, was the driver of one of the vehicles.  The judge responded “no.”  Ultimately the jury found in favor of the defendant.  The Second Department determined the judge’s telling the jury there was no evidence the defendant was the driver was reversible error. The defendant’s answer to the complaint included admissions re: operation.  The court noted that the failure to deny an allegation in a complaint is an admission. Pleadings “are always in evidence for all purposes of the trial of an action:”

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it advised the jury that there was no evidence in this case that would answer its question of whether Khan was the driver of the taxicab in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The failure to deny an allegation in a complaint constitutes an admission to the truth of that allegation (see CPLR 3018[a]…). “Facts admitted in a party’s pleadings constitute formal judicial admissions, and are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they are made” … . Moreover, “admissions . . . in pleadings are always in evidence for all the purposes of the trial of [an] action” … . In response to the jury’s inquiry about whether Khan was the driver, the court should have informed the jury of Khan’s and Ali’s admissions in their answer concerning their operation and ownership of a certain vehicle which was involved in an accident … on the same date as the plaintiff’s accident and at the same location, so that the jury could draw its own inferences on this question. DeSouza v Khan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04085, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, , ,

Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained

In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (where documentary evidence was submitted), the Second Department determined a mortgagee in possession of property (here because the property owner went bankrupt) has a duty to care for the property which is identical a property owner’s duty.  Here plaintiffs alleged the property, which had been damaged by fire, was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that plaintiffs’ neighboring property was damaged. The causes of action for nuisance, negligence and trespass survived the motion to dismiss.  The court noted its role when documentary evidence is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action:

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . While the documentary evidence submitted by One West established that it did not own the defendants’ property at any relevant time … , that evidence did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ contention that One West had a duty based on its status as a mortgagee in possession. In fact, the documents, which establish ownership, did not address the plaintiffs’ contention regarding One West’s alleged status as a mortgagee in possession … . Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” … .

The plaintiffs’ contention that [defendant] was a mortgagee in possession has not been shown to be “not a fact at all” … . If [defendant] were, in fact, a mortgagee in possession, it was “bound to employ the same care and supervision over the mortgaged premises that a reasonably prudent owner would exercise in relation to his [or her] own property; he [or she] is bound to make reasonable and needed repairs, and is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his willful default or gross neglect in this regard” … . Thus, the complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of the plaintiff Emeta Allen, which was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss …, properly set forth causes of action alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, and the plaintiffs have causes of action sounding in nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Allen v Echeverria, 2015 NY Slip Op 04075, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained

Noting that CPLR 3216 is extremely forgiving and never requires dismissal based on “neglect to proceed,” the Second Department determined Supreme Court, under the facts, should not have dismissed the action.  A dual showing of a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal:

While generally, the Supreme Court is prohibited from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay in the prosecution of the action and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…) , such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including the minimal 4-day delay in filing the note of issue, the fact that the defendants demanded additional discovery subsequent to the court’s certification order containing the 90-day demand, the absence of any claim of prejudice, and the lack of evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect and delay in prosecuting the action or of any intent to abandon the action, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to excuse the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the deadline for filing the note of issue … . Rossi v Scheinbach, 2015 NY Slip Op 04110, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence was properly denied.  Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when he struck the open door of defendant’s (Roche’s) vehicle.  Defendant testified the door was ajar, not fully open: “A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … .  A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause … . [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view… . However, where a jury verdict with respect to negligence and proximate causation is irreconcilably inconsistent, because the only reasonable view of the evidence is that a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence … . In this case, it was within the jury’s province to credit Roche’s testimony that she did not open her car door into the plaintiff’s path. The jury reasonably could have concluded that Roche was negligent in some other respect—such as the positioning of her car or her act of leaving the door “slightly ajar”—but that, despite such negligence, the plaintiff should have been able to avoid the collision and, thus, his conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.” [quotations omitted] Membreno v Roche, 2015 NY Slip Op 04102, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance of Corporate Duties/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted) Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly denied.  Plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell over a hole left when a for sale sign was removed. The defendant moved to dismiss alleging the property was owned by the corporation of which defendant was the sole shareholder.  The Second Department noted that an officer of a corporation may be personally liable for torts committed in the performance of corporate duties. The court explained its role in determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted: “When a defendant submits evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one … . “[U]nless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, . . . dismissal should not eventuate… ‘. [quotations omitted] Orlando v New York Homes By J & J Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04104, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Single Act of Excessive Corporal Punishment Justified Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings/Single Act of Domestic Violence Did Not Justify Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings—No Proof the Three-Month-Old Child Was Aware of the Domestic-Violence Incident

The Second Department determined a single act of excessive corporal punishment (slamming to the floor and choking) justified a finding of neglect and derivative neglect.  However a single act of domestic violence did not justify the same findings because there was no proof the three-month-old child was aware of the domestic violence.

[Re: corporal punishment, the court wrote:] “While parents have the right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child’s welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect … . A single incident of excessive corporal punishment may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect…” .

[Re: witnessing domestic violence, the court wrote]: “While domestic violence may be a permissible basis upon which to make a finding of neglect, [n]ot every child exposed to domestic violence is at risk of impairment'” … . Here, although there was testimony that the father engaged in an act of domestic violence against the mother while [the child], then three months old, was somewhere in the room, there is no evidence that the child saw, or was aware of, what happened, or that his emotional condition was impaired or placed in imminent danger of impairment by it …”. Matter of Dalia G. (Frank B.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04127, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to withdraw admissions made in response to a notice to admit. Plaintiff was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by an employee of defendant, Islip Pizza.  In response to a notice to admit, the defendant stated that the employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. Because defendant’s liability, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, depended entirely on whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, the admission went to the heart of the matters at issue. A request for an admission which deals with an ultimate conclusion is improper (CPLR 3123 (a)). Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw it (CPLR 3123 (b)):

Under CPLR 3123(a), a party may serve upon another party a written request that it admit, among other things, “the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry” (CPLR 3123[a]). The legislative policy underlying CPLR 3123(a) is to promote efficiency in the litigation process by “eliminat[ing] from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial. A notice to admit which goes to the heart of the matters at issue is improper” … . Furthermore, under CPLR 3123(b), a court may at any time permit a party to amend or withdraw any admission “on such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3123[b]…).  Altman v Kelly, 2015 NY Slip Op 04076, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Court Not Required to Obtain a New Risk Assessment Instrument After People Filed a Petition for an Upward Modification Based Upon a New Offense Committed In Violation of Defendant’s Probation

Re: the People’s petition for upward modification, the Second Department determined County Court was not required to obtain a new Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) after the defendant committed a “new” sex crime in violation of his probation.  The petition for upward modification was properly sent to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) and the Board properly responded by letter:

Correction Law § 168-o specifies that, upon the receipt of such a petition, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the board and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o[4]). The County Court followed this procedure and received an “updated recommendation” from the Board, in the form of a letter. The RAI, an “objective assessment instrument” created by the Board to assess an offender’s “presumptive risk level” … was designed to assist the courts in reaching an initial SORA determination. Indeed, if a new RAI was completed upon the filing of the People’s petition, it would be almost identical to the initial RAI, in which 10 out of the 15 risk factors addressed the subject sex offense and crimes committed prior to that offense … . Thus, the County Court was not required to obtain a new RAI from the Board in considering the People’s petition for an upward modification pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(3). People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04108, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied mother’s petition to relocate. The analytical criteria were described as: “When reviewing a custodial parent’s request for permission to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child … . Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements … . In relocation proceedings, this [the appellate court’s] authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …”. [quotations omitted] Matter of DeCillis v DeCillis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04126, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Most of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Were Allegations Concerning the Conduct of a State Employee in His Official Capacity—Therefore, Those Causes of Action Were Actually Against the State and Could Only Be Heard in the Court of Claims/Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained

The Second Department upheld the dismissal of several causes of action (brought in Supreme Court) which were determined to constitute actions against the state because they were directed at the official conduct of an individual employed by the state. Actions against the state can be heard only in the Court of Claims. The suit was brought by a doctor employed by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and alleged breach of contract, wrongful termination of employment, promissory estoppel, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Second Department concluded that only defamation should survive because that cause of action was against plaintiff’s boss, Dr. Abulafia, in his individual, not official, capacity.  The intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, which was also against Dr. Abulafia in his individual capacity, was dismissed because it was not sufficiently alleged:

“The Court of Claims has limited jurisdiction to hear actions against the State itself, or actions naming State agencies or officials as defendants, where the action is, in reality, one against the State—i.e., where the State is the real party in interest” … . Generally, “[t]he Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for money damages against State agencies, departments, and employees acting in their official capacity in the exercise of governmental functions” … . “Where, however, the suit against the State agent or officer is in tort for damages arising from the breach of a duty owed individually by such agent or officer directly to the injured party, the State is not the real party in interest—even though it could be held secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract, wrongful termination of employment, and promissory estoppel insofar as asserted against Abulafia, correctly concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain those cases of action insofar as asserted against Abulafia, as those causes of action arose from acts performed, and determinations made, by Abulafia as a State employee acting in his official capacity… . * * *

“In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the complaint must allege conduct that was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency . . . and [was] utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … . Even accepting as true the allegations in the complaint regarding Abulafia’s conduct, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, Abulafia’s conduct was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree” as to qualify as intentional infliction of emotional distress … .  Borawski v Abulafia, 2014 NY Slip Op 03221, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

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