You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the building owners failed to demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the defect in the elevator door which caused plaintiff’s injury. The denial of the owners’ motion for summary judgment was therefore proper.  Supreme Court erred, however, when it denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the owners’ contractual-indemnification cross claim.  The contract with the elevator maintenance company, Dunwell, provided the company would indemnify the building owners for damages that did not arise solely and directly out of the owners’ negligence. Dunwell failed to raise a question of fact about whether the owners had actual knowledge of the defect and whether the injury arose “solely and directly” from the owners’ negligence. With regard to indemnification, the court wrote:

A party’s right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the relevant contract … . The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances … . Under the full-service elevator maintenance contract at issue here, Dunwell assumed responsibility for the maintenance, repair, inspection, and servicing of the elevators, including the electrical systems or devices that operated the opening and closing of the elevator doors. Dunwell also agreed to indemnify the building defendants for any claim arising out of the performance of its work, regardless of whether it was negligent in its performance, unless the claim arose “solely and directly out of” the building defendants’ negligence. Goodlow v 724 Fifth Ave. Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03501, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

Attorney-Defendants Demonstrated the Dismissal of the Complaint Was an Error Which Would Have Been Corrected Had the Plaintiffs Appealed—Therefore There Was No Question of Fact Whether the Actions of the Attorneys Constituted the Proximate Cause of the Damages Alleged

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment to the attorney defendants.  The defendants demonstrated that plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the cause of action against the hospital in the underlying medical malpractice action (the defendants had agreed to discontinue the action against the hospital). And the defendants demonstrated that Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute was an error which would have been corrected had the plaintiffs appealed.  Therefore there was no question of fact whether the actions of the defendant attorneys proximately caused the alleged damages:

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the merits of their underlying medical malpractice action insofar as asserted against the Hospital, regardless of whether the defendants consented to the discontinuance … . The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the Hospital staff involved in the underlying medical procedures properly carried out the directions of the attending private physicians and did not engage in any independent negligent acts … . …

The defendants also established, prima facie, that their alleged negligence in failing to prosecute the action was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged in the complaint since the plaintiffs chose not to appeal from the order that dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants. The failure to pursue an appeal in an underlying action bars a legal malpractice action where the client was likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action … . The Court of Appeals has stated that this “likely to succeed” standard “obviate[s] premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow[s] attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients’ unfavorable result” (Grace v Law, 24 NY3d at 210). By establishing that an appeal would likely have been successful, a defendant in a legal malpractice action can establish that the alleged negligence did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s damages (see id.).

Here, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the court in the underlying action dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . As the defendants correctly contend, that order would have been reversed on appeal since it was error, as a matter of law, to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 where no 90-day demand had been served and where a note of issue had previously been filed and remained in effect … . Furthermore, the defendants adequately demonstrated that dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 was inapplicable since the case was not “marked off or stricken from the trial calendar” … . Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs were likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action and that the asserted malpractice in failing to prosecute the action was a not a proximate cause of the alleged damages … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Buczek v Dell & Little, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 03492, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Court Has Discretion to Grant a Recess to Allow a Conference Between a Lawyer and a Testifying Witness

In a decision affirming Family Court’s findings in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the Second Department noted that a judge has the discretion to recess the proceedings to allow a conference between a lawyer and the witness:

“[T]he decision to grant a recess and to allow a conference between a lawyer and a testifying witness falls within the broad discretion allowed a trial court in its management of a trial” … . Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the fact-finding court providently exercised its discretion in granting the presentment agency’s application for a mid-testimony conference with a testifying witness … . Matter of Isaiah D., 2015 NY Slip Op 03528, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

Family Court Should Not Have Directed that Visitation With the Father Be Only to the Extent Agreed Upon by the Parties Without Holding a Hearing—There Is a Presumption Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is In the Best Interests of the Child, Even Where the Noncustodial Parent Is Incarcerated—Absent Exceptional Circumstances, Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is Always Appropriate

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have held that father’s visitation with the children should only be to the extent agreed upon by the parties without first conducting a hearing to determine what visitation arrangement was in the best interests of the children.  The Second Department noted that (1) absent exceptional circumstances visitation with a noncustodial parent is always appropriate, (2) visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child, even when the father is incarcerated, and (3) the presumption must be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence:

Family Court erred in, without a hearing, awarding the father visitation only to the extent as agreed upon by the parties. “Absent exceptional circumstances, some form of visitation with the noncustodial parent is always appropriate” … . Visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the best interests of a child, even when that parent is incarcerated … . That presumption may be rebutted, however, by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “under all the circumstances visitation would be harmful to the child’s welfare, or that the right to visitation has been forfeited” … . Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed determination as to the children’s best interests so as to render a hearing unnecessary on the issue of the father’s visitation. Matter of Bell v Mays, 2015 NY Slip Op 03524, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Whether Hospital Liable for Independent Actions of Its Employees Under Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring/Retention Theories

In finding that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case was properly denied, the Second Department explained that the hospital can be liable for the independent actions of its own employees, despite the involvement of a non-employee attending physician, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as well as under a negligent hiring/retention theory.  The court explained the relevant law:

In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself … . Thus, “a hospital may not be held liable for injuries suffered by a patient who is under the care of a private attending physician chosen by the patient where the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital merely carry out the orders of the private attending physician, unless the hospital staff commits independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” … . A hospital may also be liable on a negligent hiring and/or retention theory to the extent that its employee committed an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment, where the hospital was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act… .  Seiden v Sonstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03517, Second Dept 4-29-15

 

 

 

,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied the juvenile’s motion for issuance of an order making specific findings that would allow her to petition the United State Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The court determined the record supported the child’s motion and noted that the Federal government retains control of the immigration determination of whether the child receives SIJS, which cannot be decided by Family Court. The case was remitted to Family Court for a hearing to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador, and for a new determination on the child’s motion. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

A child may request that the Family Court issue an order making certain specific findings that will enable him or her to petition the USCIS, an agency within the United States Department of Homeland Security, for SIJS … . The findings required to support a petition for SIJS include: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of the State or an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her country of nationality or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i], [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]…). Once those specific findings have been issued, the eligible child may seek the consent of “the Secretary of Homeland Security” to receive special immigrant juvenile status (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]…).

Here, the child is under the age of 21 and unmarried, and has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual . . . appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) … . Further, based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from the child, fully supports her contention that reunification with her father is not a viable option, due to abandonment … . Matter of Pineda v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 03540, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

Court Properly Accepted Defendant’s Consent to the Determination He Is a Sex Offender Requiring Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)—The Relevant Statute Does Not Mandate a Hearing

The Second Department determined the court properly accepted defendant’s consent to the determination he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). On appeal defendant argued that the statute required a hearing and the court should not have accepted his consent. The statute, Mental Hygiene Law 10.07 [f], states only that “[t]he parties may offer additional evidence, and the court shall hear argument … “. That language did not mandate a hearing:

Mental Hygiene Law article 10, the main component of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, “establishes the standards and procedures governing the civil management of sex offenders” … . Mental Hygiene Law article 10 provides that where, as here, it is determined that a person is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, “the court shall consider whether the [person] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring [SIST]” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). The statute further provides that, at this phase of the proceeding, “[t]he parties may offer additional evidence, [*2]and the court shall hear argument, as to that issue” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] [emphasis added]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the statute does not mandate a dispositional hearing. Thus, it was not improper for the Supreme Court to accept the appellant’s decision to not offer additional evidence and to accept his consent to a determination that he is a sex offender requiring SIST … . Matter of State of New York v Wayne J., 2015 NY Slip Op 03545, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Defects in On-the-Record Waiver of Appeal Not Cured by Written Waiver

The Second Department, in determining defendant’s waiver of appeal was insufficient, noted that signing a written waiver does not cure defects in the court’s on-the-record inquiry about the defendant’s understanding of the waiver:

The record fails to establish that the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . An appeal waiver is not valid unless the defendant’s understanding of the waiver is evident on the face of the record … . Here, the trial court’s statement to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, followed by its inquiry as to whether his attorney had explained that right to him, was insufficient to demonstrate a valid waiver … . The defendant’s execution of a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right” … . People v Little, 2015 NY Slip Op 03567, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct

The Second Department ordered a new trial after determining defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.  Defendant was admitted to a hospital with a gunshot wound and a ring and his cell phone in his possession were placed in an envelope by hospital personnel.  Defendant was later identified as the perpetrator of a robbery who was shot by the homeowner.  The ring in the envelope had been stolen in the robbery.  At the time the police at the hospital opened the envelope, however, they were under the impression the defendant was a victim and the cell phone was examined in an attempt to identify next of kin. The Second Department held that, notwithstanding the defendant’s ostensible status as a “victim,” not a perpetrator, he had an expectation of privacy in the contents of the envelope and the police not were not justified in opening the envelope and examining its contents.  The People failed to meet their “burden of going forward” at the suppression hearing because the legality of the police conduct was not demonstrated:

“On a motion by a defendant to suppress physical evidence, the People have the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance'” … . Here, the People did not meet this burden. The People’s contention that the police had probable cause to search the bag containing the defendant’s personal belongings because it contained evidence of a crime is without merit … . The defendant had an expectation of privacy in his personal belongings despite the fact that he was being treated at the hospital and his belongings had been taken by hospital personnel and given to the police for the purpose of safeguarding them … . “[T]he fact that the [police] perceived the defendant to be a victim rather than a suspect did not strip the defendant of Fourth Amendment protection” …, regardless of the Nassau detective’s testimony that the cell phone was searched for the purpose of finding next of kin information. People v Salvodon, 2015 NY Slip Op 03570, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

Town Board Is Not a Proper Party In an Action Seeking Review of a Determination Made by the Town’s Zoning Board

The Second Department noted that the Town Board is not a proper party to an action seeking review of a determination by the town’s Zoning Board.  The Zoning Board “is an independent, quasi-judicial, administrative arm of the Town … . The Town Board … had no jurisdiction to hear or determine the subject application and, in fact, neither heard nor determined it.” Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v Town of Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03547, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

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