You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Third-Party Beneficiary of an Indemnification Agreement May Enforce Obligations Owed to the Judgment Debtor by the Indemnifying Party

The Second Department determined the third-party beneficiary of an indemnification agreement could bring an action to collect a debt by suing the entity which entered the indemnification agreement with the judgment debtor. “Pursuant to CPLR 5227, a special proceeding may be commenced by a judgment creditor ‘against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor.’ Such a proceeding is properly asserted against one who agreed to indemnify the judgment debtor in the underlying proceeding … . The judgment creditor stands in the judgment debtor’s shoes, and may enforce the obligations owed to the judgment debtor by the indemnifying party… “. Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03549, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)

The Second Department determined the property owner, Murphy, was entitled to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale because he was not properly served.  The summons was not served at Murphy’s primary residence in Manhattan (Reade Street), where Murphy had always received correspondence about the subject property (a vacation home referred to as the Noyack property) and where Murphy had requested all correspondence regarding the subject property be sent.  Rather the summons was served on someone other than Murphy (who was not identified) at the Noyack property and was mailed there as well. The court determined the service was invalid because it did not comply with the two prongs of CPLR 308(2):

CPLR 308 sets forth the different ways in which service of process upon an individual can be effected in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction over that person. CPLR 308(2) provides, in pertinent part, that personal service upon a natural person may be made “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by . . . mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence” (emphasis added). “Jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308(2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been strictly complied with” … . It “is a two-step form of service in which a delivery and a mailing are both essential” (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:3).

Since, under the circumstances of this case, the Noyack property, although Murphy’s vacation home, could properly be characterized as his dwelling place or usual place of abode … , we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff satisfied the first prong of CPLR 308(2) by a fair preponderance of the evidence by serving process upon a person of suitable age and discretion at the Noyack property … .

However, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof that its mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to that same address satisfied the second prong of CPLR 308(2). The undisputed evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff received notice from Murphy that the Reade Street address was to be used with respect to all notices concerning the Noyack property. Thereafter, from 2003 through December 2008, a period of time extending beyond the date of the mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to the Noyack property, the plaintiff actually utilized the Reade Street address to send Murphy all correspondence and notices relating to the Noyack property, including those referable to the mortgage statements and Murphy’s default thereunder. The only documents that the plaintiff mailed to the Noyack property were the summons and complaint, despite its knowledge that Murphy had given notice in accordance with the terms of the mortgage that his residence was the Reade Street address, and that it was at that address that he was to receive all mail. Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03520, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace

Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator as he was in a trench directing the operation of the excavator.  The Second Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200/common-law negligence, and Labor Law 240(1) causes of action was properly granted.  But the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, based upon an Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR 23-9.5(c)) prohibiting close proximity to an excavator, should not have been dismissed. Labor Law 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace and requires compliance with the Industrial Code. The Labor Law 200/common-law negligence causes of action were defeated by the city’s demonstration that it did not have the authority to control, direct or supervise the method or manner in which the relevant work was performed.  The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the injury was not the result of an elevation-related incident. The court explained the operative principles re: Labor Law 200 and Labor Law 241(6) causes of action:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to exercise due care in providing a safe place to work … . Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories, namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed … .

The instant case did not involve a dangerous or defective premises condition. “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … .

Here, the City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, asserted against them, by demonstrating that they did not have the authority to control, direct, or supervise the method or manner in which the work was performed. * * *

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide a safe workplace to workers, and applies to “all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed.” Pursuant to that duty, owners, contractors, and their agents must comply with those provisions of the Industrial Code that set forth specific requirements or standards … . The City defendants contend that, since the injured plaintiff was a member of the “excavating crew,” as that term is employed in 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(c), he was authorized to be within range of the moving excavator bucket … , and they submitted an expert’s affidavit in support of that contention. However, a person authorized pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 to operate or be within the range of an excavator’s bucket may, contrary to the City defendants’ contention, still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-4.2(k) … . Torres v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03519, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

Statutory Balancing Test Properly Applied In Denial of Area Variance Re: Lot-Width

The Second Department determined the zoning board’s denial of an area variance re: lot-width had a rational basis and should not have been disturbed by Supreme Court. The Second Department explained how the zoning board is to apply the five statutory factors: “In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board must engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]…). The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors, as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational … . … The granting of the variances would have resulted in the creation of the most nonconforming lot in a unique neighborhood … , the requested variances were substantial … , and the hardship was self-created… .  Matter of Traendly v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 2015 NY Slip Op 03548, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

Evidence of General Cleaning Practices, As Opposed to Evidence When the Area of the Slip and Fall Was Last Inspected and Cleaned, Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined the lessee’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied.  The lessee, Ban Do, was responsible for snow and ice removal in the area of the fall.  In support of its motion for summary judgment, Ban Do presented only evidence of its general cleaning practices and did not specifically demonstrate when the area was last inspected and cleaned. Therefore Ban Do was unable to demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the icy condition:

Ban Do failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice of the ice condition alleged by the plaintiff. Ban Do failed to present evidence establishing when it had last cleaned or inspected the area of the walkway where the plaintiff slipped and fell, relative to the time of the accident … . The affidavit of Ban Do’s principal established nothing more than Ban Do’s general cleaning practices in relation to the walkway at the rear entrance to its store, which was insufficient to demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the ice condition on which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … . Sartori v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 03516, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Despite Absence of Written Notice of the Dangerous Condition, There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Village Created the Dangerous Condition by Its Snow-Removal/Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious Speaks Only to Comparative Negligence

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the dangerous sidewalk-condition by its snow-removal efforts.  The fact that the condition was open and obvious raised only a comparative-fault issue. So, despite the absence of written notice (to the village) of the dangerous condition, Supreme Court properly denied the village’s motion for summary judgment:

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defect or a dangerous condition which comes within the ambit of the law unless it has received written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition prior to the occurrence of the subject accident, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies … . “Recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement exist where the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a special benefit upon it” … .

Here, the Village established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the snow and ice upon which the infant plaintiff slipped and fell, as required by section 116-1(D) of the Code of the Village of Hempstead. However, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the snow and ice condition upon which the infant plaintiff slipped was created by the Village’s snow removal efforts … . Lopez-Calderone v Lang-Viscogliosi, 2015 NY Slip Op 03505, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

,

The Prosecutor’s Acting As an Unsworn Witness (Suggesting He Had Been Present at a Trial In Which the Defense Expert Had Lied) and The Prosecutor’s Repeated Questioning of the Expert and Another Defense Witness About Their Alleged Lying Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial on the Murder Count

The Second Department reversed defendant’s murder conviction because of the misconduct of the prosecutor in questioning the defense expert and another defense witness.  The prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness by suggesting he was present in a trial where the defense expert lied and the prosecutor improperly and repeatedly questioned the expert and another defense witness about their alleged lying:

The prosecutorial misconduct during the voir dire questioning and cross-examination of the defense’s expert included statements that the expert had repeatedly lied to judges in other cases and during his testimony in the instant case. In addition, the prosecutor presented himself as an unsworn witness at the trial, suggesting that he had been present at the trial of another case at which the defendant’s expert had lied. The prosecutor furthermore repeatedly questioned another defense witness about lying. The cumulative effect of this misconduct … unfairly deprived the defendant of the ability to present his defense of extreme emotional disturbance to the charge of murder in the second degree … . People v Martinez, 2015 NY Slip Op 03568, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Although the Town Code Imposes a Duty on Abutting Property Owners to Keep Sidewalks in Good Repair, It Does Not Impose Tort Liability On Abutting Property Owners for a Violation of that Duty

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the town and the abutting property owners in a sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted.  The property owners, the Schoenfelds, demonstrated they did not create the dangerous condition (a raised sidewalk flag) and did not subject the sidewalk to a “special use.”  The town demonstrated it did not have written notice of the defect. With respect to the potential liability of an abutting property owner, the court explained that, although the town code imposed a duty on property owners to keep abutting sidewalks in good repair, it did not impose tort liability on property owners for a violation of that duty:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions to public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner” … . “An abutting owner or lessee will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk only when the owner or lessee either created the condition or caused the condition to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner or the lessee and expressly makes the owner or the lessee liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty” … . Here, in support of their motion, the Schoenfelds demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not make special use of the sidewalk adjacent to their home. The Schoenfelds also demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not negligently create the condition of the raised sidewalk flag through negligent sidewalk repair. Further, while the Code of the Town of Hempstead imposes a duty on, among others, landowners to keep contiguous sidewalks in good and safe repair, it does not impose tort liability upon such parties for injuries caused by a violation of that duty … . Maya v Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 03507, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

The Decision Whether to Raise the Defense of Justification Is for the Defendant, Not Defense Counsel, to Make—Counsel Was Not Ineffective for Failing to Raise the Defense Over Defendant’s Objection—The Court Did Not Err By Failing to Instruct the Jury, Sua Sponte, on the Justification Defense In Response to a Jury Note Which Indicated the Jury Was Considering It

The Second Department, in a detailed and extensive opinion by Justice Mastro (not fully summarized here), over an equally detailed and extensive two-justice dissent, determined that defense counsel was not ineffective, and the court did not err, in rejecting the justification defense.  The defendant, accused of murder, insisted on a misidentification defense in this one-eyewitness case.  The defendant made it clear he did not want to rely on the justification defense (which would contradict his claim of innocence). In response to a jury note which implied the jury was considering whether the defendant had acted in self-defense, the judge, in accordance with the wishes of defense counsel, did not explain the justification defense to the jury and directed the jury to consider only the issue of intent.  On appeal, the defendant argued defense counsel was ineffective in not raising the justification defense and the judge erred by not instructing the jury on the defense sua sponte in response to the jury’s note.  In rejecting those arguments, the Second Department held that the decision whether to rely on the justification defense was for the defendant, not defense counsel, to make, and no error was made by defense counsel or the judge in following defendant’s wishes:

…[W]hen a defendant accepts the assistance of counsel, he or she retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions, such as whether to plead guilty, whether to waive a jury trial, whether to testify at trial, and whether to take an appeal … . Matters of strategy and tactics, such as whether to request the submission of lesser-included offenses for the jury’s consideration …, whether to seek or consent to a mistrial … , or whether to introduce certain evidence at trial …, generally fall within the purview of counsel. However, and of particular significance in the present case, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a defendant unquestionably has the right to chart his own defense” … . Contrary to the defendant’s current position, his decision to pursue a defense based solely on misidentification, and to affirmatively reject an alternate defense based on justification in steadfast furtherance of that misidentification defense, involved a matter that was “personal” and “fundamental” to him …, and “did not implicate a matter of trial strategy or tactics” … . Indeed, under our law there simply is no more personal and fundamental right than that of the accused to rise before the trial justice and proclaim—to the court and to the world—his or her complete factual innocence of the crimes with which he or she has been charged. To require defense counsel in this case, over his client’s objection, to undermine that assertion of innocence by the injection into the case of a factually and logically inconsistent defense would, under the circumstances presented, impermissibly compromise that personal right. People v Clark, 2015 NY Slip Op 03558, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

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

 

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