You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Courts Do Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Disputes Requiring Inquiry Into Religious Doctrine

The Second Department determined a dispute among religious parties could not be determined in the courts because it would involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs. Civil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution” … . Here, the claims asserted by the plaintiff are nonjusticiable, as they cannot be resolved based on neutral principles of law. Rather, resolution of the issues raised would necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice … . Rodzianko v Parish of the Russion Orthodox Holy Virgin Protection Church Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03249, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

Plaintiff Cannot Be the Only Link between the Defendant and the Forum/Defendant’s “Minimum Contacts” with New York Not Demonstrated

The Second Department determined New York courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction in an action against a Texas physician who had treated plaintiff’s late mother when she resided in Texas and Florida.  The court explained the relevant analysis:

Where a motion is made to dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff who bears the ultimate burden of proving a basis for such jurisdiction … . A plaintiff relying on CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) “must show that (1) the defendant committed a tortious act outside New York; (2) the cause of action arose from that act; (3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York; (4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in New York; and (5) the defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . Once those elements are met, an assessment must then be made as to whether a finding of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s alleged tortious act — prescribing medication in Texas to the plaintiff’s mother while she was in Texas and in Florida — caused injury in New York … . Moreover, under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in New York, or that the defendant “derive[d] substantial revenue from interstate . . . commerce” (CPLR 302[a][3][ii]). In addition, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had the requisite “minimum contacts” with New York such that the prospect of defending a suit here comported with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” as required by the Federal Due Process Clause … .

On February 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision refining the “minimum contacts” analysis set forth in International Shoe Co. (see Walden v Fiore, _____ US _____, 134 S Ct 1115). The Supreme Court determined that a “plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him” (id. at 1122). Moreover, the Supreme Court held that, “[d]ue process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State” … . Waggaman v Arauzo, 2014 NY Slip Op 03259, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

,

Murder Conviction Against the Weight of the Evidence—Strangulation Was the Result of an Attempt to Increase Sexual Pleasure—No Intent to Kill

The Second Department determined that defendant’s conviction for intentional murder was against the weight of the evidence.  The victim died of strangulation, but the defendant’s actions were motivated by the desire to increase sexual pleasure, not by an intent to kill.  People v Davis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03277, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

Motion to Disqualify an Attorney Who Had Previously Represented Both Parties and Related Businesses Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined a motion to disqualify an attorney who had represented both parties in related matters should have been granted:

Here, prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant’s attorney had provided legal advice to both the appellant, Barbara Gordon, and the defendant in their capacity as business partners and members of several limited liability companies. There was a substantial relationship between the involvement of the defendants’ attorney in the formation of those limited liability companies, and his involvement as general counsel to those limited liability companies in connection with the instant action for an accounting. In his capacity as general counsel, the defendant’s attorney was in a position to receive relevant confidences regarding several of those limited liability companies, in which the plaintiff’s interests are now adverse to the defendant’s interests. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to disqualify the defendants’ attorney… . Gordon v Ifeanyichukwu Chuba Orakwue Obiakor, 2014 NY Slip Op 03232, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

,

Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Explained

The Second Department, in determining an order of seizure had been properly granted, explained the law of replevin and an order of seizure:

“The action of replevin is essentially possessory in its nature.”… . “A cause of action sounding in replevin must establish that the defendant is in possession of certain property of which the plaintiff claims to have a superior right” … .

“An order of seizure is not a final disposition of a matter but is a pendente lite order made in the context of a pending action where the movant has established, prima facie, a superior right in the chattel” … . Pursuant to CPLR 7102, an application for an order of seizure must be supported by an affidavit that “clearly identif[ies] the chattel to be seized” and states, among other things, facts demonstrating “that the plaintiff is entitled to possession” of the chattel, that “the chattel is wrongfully held by the defendant,” and that “no defense to the claim is known to the plaintiff” (CPLR 7102[c]…). Southeast Fin LLC v Broadway Towing Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03254, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

,

Owner of Land through Which Power Lines Pass Pursuant to a Utility Easement (Servient Owner) Does Not Have a Duty to Maintain the Easement—Servient Owner Not Liable for Damage to Abutting Property Stemming from a Vegetation Fire Started by Sparks from the Power Lines

The Second Department determined the easement which allowed the power company’s lines to pass through the owner’s property did not impose a duty to maintain the easement on property owner.  Vegetation around the power lines caught fire causing damage to an abutting landowner’s property. The plaintiff insurer paid the claim and sued the owner of the land through which the power lines passed (the servient owner). The Second Department explained that “a servient owner has no duty to maintain an easement to which its property is subject. Indeed, a servient owner has a passive duty to refrain from interfering with the rights of the dominant owner” … .  Encompass Ins. Co. of Am. v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03800, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

,

Divorce and Right to Equitable Distribution Did Not Abate Upon Husband’s Death

The Second Department determined the divorce action and the right to equitable distribution did not abate upon the husband’s death. The final adjudication of divorce had been made before the husband’s death and death did not abate a vested right to equitable distribution:

Contrary to the contention of the executor of the husband’s estate, the actions did not abate upon the death of the husband. The Supreme Court had made the final adjudication of divorce before the husband’s death, but had not performed the ” mere ministerial act of entering the final judgment'” … . Moreover, a cause of action for equitable distribution does not abate upon the death of a spouse … . ” Consequently, if a party dies in possession of a vested right to equitable distribution, and that right has been asserted during the party’s lifetime in an action in a court of this State, that right survives the party’s death and may be asserted by the estate'” … .  Charasz v Rozenblum, 2015 NY Slip Op 03798, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

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

 

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