You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Landlord Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Tenant Was Not Foreseeable—Landlord’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied landlord’s motion for summary judgment in an action stemming from an assault on a tenant at the landlord’s premises.  The assault took place when the lone security guard took his regular lunch break, leaving the premises unguarded. The defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice of the same or similar criminal conduct and therefore failed to demonstrate the assault was not foreseeable:

A landlord is not the insurer of the safety of its tenants … . Nevertheless, landlords have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect tenants and visitors from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties … . To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location … .

Here, on its motion for summary judgment, [the landlord] failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked notice of the same or similar criminal activity occurring on the premises. Karim v 89th Jamaica Realty Co., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 03329, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, , ,

Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s admission, contained in the hospital records, that he was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision was properly admitted at trial.  Although the statement was not relevant to diagnosis or treatment, it was admissible because it contradicted plaintiff’s trial testimony (plaintiff testified he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident). However, Supreme Court should not have submitted the seat belt defense to the jury because there was no foundational testimony explaining precisely how wearing a seat belt would have minimized plaintiff’s injuries.  The Second Department also noted plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction was properly denied because there was no showing the witness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony:

A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule only if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . However, if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is “evidence connecting the party to the entry” … . At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was using a seat belt at the time of the accident. The hospital records containing the challenged entries clearly indicated that the plaintiff was the source of the information contained therein … . Accordingly, the challenged entries were properly admitted into evidence.

Although the Supreme Court properly declined to redact the hospital record as requested by the plaintiff, the court nonetheless erred in submitting the seat belt defense to the jury, since the defendants failed to demonstrate, by competent evidence, that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been minimized had he been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident … . At trial, both of the plaintiff’s treating physicians testified in general terms that use of a seat belt can reduce the risk of injury. This evidence was insufficient to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof … . Robles v Polytemp, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03341, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

 

,

Hospital Employees, Working With a Non-Employee Attending Physician, Were Not Independently Negligent and Were Not Asked to Follow Orders Which Were Contrary to Normal Practice—Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint Against Hospital Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined defendant hospital (Good Samaritan) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The hospital was not concurrently liable re: conduct of a non-employee attending physician (Schneider) because there was no showing hospital employees acted negligently independently or followed orders made by the attending physician which were contrary to normal practice:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee, and may not be held concurrently liable unless its employees committed independent acts of negligence” … . “However, a hospital can be held concurrently liable with a private attending physician if its employees commit independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” … . Here, the evidence submitted by Good Samaritan established, prima facie, that there were no independent acts of medical judgment on the part of Good Samaritan or its employees apart from following the orders of Schneider, who was the plaintiff’s private attending physician. Nor were Schneider’s orders contraindicated by normal practice, such that ordinary prudence required inquiry into the correctness of those orders. Tomeo v Beccia, 2015 NY Slip Op 03350, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, ,

Failure to Give the “Missing Witness” Jury Instruction Required Reversal of Defense Verdict—Criteria Explained

The Second Department reversed a defense verdict in a slip and fall case. Chinsamy, the owner and operator of the defendant business which abutted the sidewalk where plaintiff slipped and fell, did not testify at trial.  He had given a deposition about his knowledge of the condition of the sidewalk, which was read to the jury by plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff’s request for the missing witness jury instruction should not have been denied.  Plaintiff was entitled to the instruction even though Chinsamy’s deposition testimony was placed in evidence. The court explained the relevant “missing witness charge” criteria:

A missing witness charge “instructs a jury that it may draw an adverse inference based on the failure of a party to call a witness who would normally be expected to support that party’s version of events. . . The preconditions for this charge, applicable to both criminal and civil trials, may be set out as follows: (1) the witness’s knowledge is material to the trial; (2) the witness is expected to give noncumulative testimony; (3) the witness is under the control’ of the party against whom the charge is sought, so that the witness would be expected to testify in that party’s favor; and (4) the witness is available to that party” … .

Under the circumstances, and considering Chinsamy’s unexplained failure to appear and testify at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s request for a missing witness charge … . In this regard, we note that the plaintiff’s use of Chinsamy’s deposition testimony does not constitute a waiver of her right to request a missing witness charge… . Alli v Full Serv. Auto Repair, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03308, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

,

Criteria for Respondeat Superior (Scope of Employment) Liability Succinctly Explained

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant employer.  The employee was test driving a competitor’s car in connection with his job at a Mercedes dealership when the employee was involved in an accident.  The Second Department determined the employer failed to demonstrate the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.  The court explained the relevant law:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “An employer, however, cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business at the time of the incident … . Zwibel v Midway Automotive Group, 2015 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

,

Owners of Single Family Residence Not Liable for Defects in Abutting Sidewalk

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants who owned a single family residence abutting the allegedly defective sidewalk where plaintiff fell, the Second Department explained the relevant New York City law:

[Defendants] demonstrated that they were exempt from liability pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for their alleged failure to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property by establishing that the subject property was a single-family residence, that it was owner occupied, and that it was used solely for residential purposes (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7-210[b]…).  Further, they established, prima facie, that they could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries under common-law principles. ‘Absent the liability imposed by statute or ordinance, an abutting landowner is not liable to a passerby on a public sidewalk for injuries resulting from defects in the sidewalk unless the landowner either created the defect or caused it to occur by special use’… . Shneider v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03148, 1st Dept 4-15-15

 

,

Criteria for Common Carrier Liability for Injury Caused by a Sudden Stop Explained (Not Met Here)

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant transit authority, the Second Department explained the circumstances under which a common carrier may be liable for injuries to a passenger caused by a sudden stop:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging that a common carrier was negligent in stopping a bus, a plaintiff must prove that the stop was unusual and violent, rather than merely one of the sort of ‘jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel’… . Moreover, a plaintiff may not satisfy that burden of proof merely by characterizing the stop as unusual and violent … . There must be ‘objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant’ … . In seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, … common carriers have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the stop was not unusual and violent … .  Alandette v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03113, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

,

CONTRACT LAW/EVIDENCE Parol Evidence (Email) Properly Admitted to Explain Ambiguous Term in Construction Contract with a Merger Clause—Relevant Law Succinctly Explained

The Second Department determined parol evidence was properly admitted to explain the meaning of an ambiguous phrase in a construction contract with a merger clause.  The court succinctly explained the relevant law:

A written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced to give effect to the meaning of its terms and the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the court should determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the contract without looking to extrinsic evidence to create ambiguities … . A contract is considered to be clear and unambiguous where the language used has “a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion” … . Moreover, the parol evidence rule operates to preclude evidence of a prior or contemporaneous communication during negotiations of the agreement that contradicts, varies, or explains a written agreement which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and expresses the parties’ entire agreement and intentions … . Where a contract contains a merger clause, a court is obliged to require full application of the parol evidence rule in order to bar the introduction of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of the writing … .

Here … parol evidence was properly admitted into evidence to explain the ambiguous phrase “cost to Owner” in the change order provision of the construction contract, inasmuch as the term “cost” was not defined, and could have various meanings, including one limited to labor and material costs without an additional markup. Accordingly, parol evidence, such as the email … stating that change orders would not include markups, which does not otherwise vary or contradict the construction contract, was permitted… . Vivir of L I, Inc. v Ehrenkranz, 2015 NY Slip Op 03152, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement

The Second Department determined defendant, who objected at sentencing to the amount of restitution, was entitled to a hearing, even though the specific restitution-amount was (apparently) made part of the plea agreement.  The restitution was related to the “buy money” used by the police in a related drug deal.  The court explained the relevant law:

Under Penal Law § 60.27(9), a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution for funds used by law enforcement in the purchase of drugs, if certain prerequisites are met. Before a defendant may be directed to pay restitution, a hearing must be held if either: (1) the defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish the proper amount; or (2) the defendant requests a hearing (see Penal Law § 60.27[2]…). This procedure must be followed even if the plea agreement contains a provision for a specific amount of restitution … . People v Morrishill, 2015 NY Slip Op 03187, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

, ,

Failed Attempt to Circumvent the Banking Law by Making a High-Cost Home Loan to a Limited Liability Company to which the Home Had Been Transferred

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted on defendants’ counterclaim alleging plaintiff’s violation of the Banking Law which prohibits “high-cost home loans” (Banking Law 6-1).  Plaintiff had attempted to circumvent the law by making the loan to a limited liabilIty company to which the defendants-owners had transferred the home. The Second Department determined the provisions of the Banking Law relating to “high-cost home loans” which (1) prohibited “subterfuge” to circumvent the law, (2) prohibited the consolidation of loan payments made payable in advance, (3) required certain notices, and (4) prohibited excessive points and fees, applied to the transaction in issue:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their first counterclaim, which was to recover damages and for declaratory relief for violations of Banking Law § 6-l, which imposes limitations and prohibits certain “practices for high-cost home loans” (Banking Law § 6-l[2]). The defendants established, prima facie, that the subject loan was a “high-cost home loan” (Banking Law § 6-l[1][d]; see Banking Law § 6-l[1][f][i]-[iii]; [g][ii]…). …[U]nder the circumstances of this case, Banking Law § 6-l applies to the … loan, even though it was made to a limited liability company, and not to “a natural person” (Banking Law § 6-l[1][e][ii]). The provisions of Banking Law § 6-l apply “to any person who in bad faith attempts to avoid the application of this section by any subterfuge” (Banking Law § 6-l[3]). Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that a representative of [plaintiff] attempted, in bad faith, to avoid the application of the statute by “subterfuge,” and that, thus, the statute applied to the Aries loan (Banking Law § 6-l[3]). Moreover, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated, prima facie, that [plaintiff] violated the provisions of Banking Law § 6-l(2) by consolidating the first 12 payments and having them “paid in advance from the loan proceeds provided to the [defendants]” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][e]); engaging in “loan flipping” (Banking Law § 6-[2][i]); making the loan “without due regard to repayment ability” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][k]); failing to provide required notices (see Banking Law § 6-l[2][e]; [2-a][a]); and financing points and fees, as defined in Banking Law § 6-l(1)(f), “in an amount that exceeds three percent of the principal amount of the loan” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][m]).  Aries Fin., LLC v 12005 142nd St., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03115, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

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