The Second Department determined defendant’s hospital records were properly admitted into evidence because the defendant waived the physician-patient privilege by placing his medical condition in issue. During cross-examination of the police officers, defense counsel attempted to show defendant’s conduct was the result of a medical condition, not intoxication. People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 03391, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department determined that the exclusion of a parking lot from a bodily injury insurance policy did not apply to the failure of a manhole cover in the parking lot. Plaintiff’s decedent drowned in the leaching pool below the manhole. The leaching pool and manhole cover were deemed to be part of the building’s septic system. Therefore the claim arose from operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the parking lot:
The policy provided coverage for bodily injury “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of the premises . . . and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The policy excluded coverage for claims “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of [a specified parking lot] or any property located on these premises; [or] Operations . . . necessary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of those premises” (hereinafter the parking lot exclusion). * * *
Exclusions to coverage must be strictly construed and read narrowly, with any ambiguity construed against the insurer … . “[T]o negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . …
Since the allegedly defective manhole cover and leaching pool into which the decedent fell were part of the building’s septic system, the decedent’s claim arose out of operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the rear parking lot. Thus, strictly construing the parking lot exclusion and reading it narrowly, it does not apply … . Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03331, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department determined the complainant’s in-court and pre-trial identification of the defendant should have been suppressed. After the complainant identified the defendant in the show-up, the complainant told the police all the burglars were wearing masks. The error, however, was deemed harmless. Probable cause to arrest the defendant existed prior to the show-up:
Here, the hearing testimony demonstrated not only that the perpetrators’ faces were covered during the entire time the complainant was with them, but also that the only description the complainant had previously provided to the police was that the perpetrators were black males. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant’s pretrial and in-court identification of the defendant was not founded on the fact that the defendant was the only person standing in the street, in handcuffs, surrounded by the police with high-beam headlights shining on his face, during the showup proceeding … . Nevertheless, the error in admitting this identification evidence at trial was harmless since the other evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including oral and written statements he gave to the police admitting to his participation in the burglary, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to his conviction … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 03390, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the plaintiff Historical Society did not have standing to bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment re: the intent of the grantor of a charitable trust. At stake are trust assets of $81 million distributed to a charitable foundation (Foundation) set up by the grantor. The Foundation was set up to sponsor and encourage historical societies. Plaintiff Historical Society sought a declaratory judgment that it was a beneficiary of the trust. The Second Department held that Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint, explaining that the attorney general is responsible for representing charitable trust beneficiaries and there was no indication the plaintiff Historical Society was a party with a “special interest” entitling it to sue for enforcement on its own behalf:
In an action for the enforcement of a charitable trust, EPTL 8-1.1(f) provides that “[t]he attorney general shall represent the beneficiaries of such dispositions for religious, charitable, educational or benevolent purposes and it shall be his [or her] duty to enforce the rights of such beneficiaries by appropriate proceedings in the courts.” A party with a special interest in the enforcement of the trust may have standing to commence such an action; however, “one who is merely a possible beneficiary of a charitable trust, or a member of a class of possible beneficiaries, is not entitled to sue for enforcement of the trust” … . This “special interest” is found by looking to the trust’s chartering documents to discern the purpose of the trust, and whether there is a class of intended beneficiaries that is entitled to a preference and is sharply defined and limited in number … .
In support of their motion, the appellants submitted the Foundation’s certificate of incorporation … which states that the Foundation’s purpose includes educating the public about state and local history and encouraging and sponsoring existing and future historical societies. That document does not name the Historical Society as a beneficiary, nor does it name any beneficiary. [The grantor’s] will did not mention the Historical Society. Accordingly, the Historical Society was not part of a class of potential beneficiaries of the Foundation that is sharply defined and limited in number. Therefore, it lacked standing to commence this action … . Sagtikos Manor Historical Socy., Inc. v Robert David Lion Gardiner Found., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03342, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
In finding that the cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud should have been dismissed, the Second Department explained the pleading requirements:
To plead a cause of action to recover damages for aiding and abetting fraud, a complaint must allege the existence of an underlying fraud, knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud … . Here, the complaint failed to adequately allege the existence of an underlying fraud. A plaintiff asserting a cause of action alleging fraud must plead all of the following elements: (1) a material misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and which the defendant knew to be false, (2) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it, (3) the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury … . In addition, in any action based upon fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (… see CPLR 3016[b]). “[A]n essential element of any fraud [claim] is that there must be reasonable reliance, to a party’s detriment, upon the representations made” by the defendant against whom the fraud claimed has been asserted … . The plaintiff must show a belief in the truth of the representation and a change of position in reliance on that belief… . Nabatkhorian v Nabatkhorian, 2015 NY Slip Op 03335, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff alleged that a ladder twisted out from under him when he was carrying materials to the roof and defendant (Sigma) did not raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court explained the circumstances under which a tenant, the defendant (Sigma) here, is liable under the Labor Law:
Labor Law § 240(1) applies to owners, contractors, and their agents (see Labor Law § 240[1]…). A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or contractor under the Labor Law when it has the ” ability to control the activity which brought about the injury'” … . A lessee of real property that hires a contractor and has the right to control the work at the property is considered to be an owner within the meaning of the law … . Moreover, a lessee of property may be liable as an “owner” when it “has the right or authority to control the work site, even if the lessee did not hire the general contractor” … . The key question is whether the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed … . Here, the evidence established that Sigma was the lessee of the premises where the accident occurred and that the president of Sigma hired the injured plaintiff to perform the work and controlled his work. Seferovic v Atlantic Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03343, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because it did not submit the lease and therefore did not demonstrate the absence of any obligation to remove ice and snow. The court noted that it could not consider evidence presented for the first time in reply papers:
An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . Here, the plaintiff did not allege that the landlord’s duty was statutory or based on a course of conduct. Thus, to prevail on its motion, [defendant] was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had not retained control over the premises, or that it had no contractual duty to remove snow and ice from the area where the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. [Defendant] failed to sustain this burden because it failed to submit a copy of the lease between it and the entity that was the tenant of the subject premises at the time of the accident … . Poole v MCPJF, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03142, 2nd Dept 4-15-15
Infant plaintiff was struck by a car as he was crossing a street after leaving school. There was no crossing guard at the intersection where infant plaintiff was struck, but there were crossing guards at nearby intersections. The Second Department determined that the placement of crossing guards was a “discretionary,” not a “ministerial” action. “[D]iscretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result … “. The municipality (village) was not liable absent a special relationship with the infant plaintiff apart from a duty to the general public:
“Government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . ” [D]iscretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'” … . The assignment of crossing guards to intersections falls within the definition of a discretionary function … .
Here, the Village established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its actions were discretionary. Although the Village had assigned crossing guards to certain intersections near the school, its decision not to post a crossing guard at the subject intersection does not give rise to liability on the part of the Village … . McCants v Hempstead Union Free School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 03136, 2nd Dept 4-15-15
The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint against the hospital in a medical malpractice case, but improperly set aside the $6.8 million verdict against the doctors. Plaintiff alleged the doctors caused a 13-month delay in the diagnosis of cancer, which required her to have extensive surgery and reduced her chance of survival. The suit against the hospital was based upon respondeat superior. However the employment contract between the doctor, Aloia, and the hospital related to duties other than Aloia’s treatment of patients. Therefore the complaint against the hospital was properly dismissed after trial pursuant to CPLR 4401. The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations and, therefore, the verdict against the doctors should stand. “…[T]here was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have rationally concluded that the physician defendants departed from good and accepted medical practice, and that the delay in diagnosing the injured plaintiff’s cancer proximately caused her to have a worsened prognosis or decreased 10-year survival rate:”
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” … . “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee while acting within the scope of employment. The general rule is that an employee acts within the scope of his employment when he is acting in furtherance of the duties owed to the employer and where the employer is or could be exercising some degree of control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities” … . Although the issue is usually a factual issue for the jury, “[w]here the proof on the issue of control presents no conflict in evidence or is undisputed, the matter may properly be determined as a matter of law” … .
Here, there was no real dispute as to the employment arrangement between Aloia and [the hospital] as set forth in the clear and unambiguous employment contract … . Aloia’s employment contract permitted him to maintain his private practice in endocrinology, as well as internal medicine and bone densitometry, outside of his employment with [the hospital]. * * *
“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR . . . 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” … . “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … . Luna v Spadafora, 2015 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-15-15
The Second Department noted that in an appeal from an order made upon the appellant’s default, the only issues which can be reviewed are those which were contested below. Here only appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel was contested, therefore that was the only issue the appellate court could consider. The court determined the denial of the adjournment request was not an abuse of discretion. “In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .” The court noted the appellants’ lack of cooperation with their second counsel and their consent to second counsel’s being relieved:
Where, as here, the order appealed from was made upon the appellants’ default, “review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below” … . Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the appellants’ request for an adjournment … .
The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the court … , and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … . In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .
Applying these principles here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel after their second counsel was relieved, as second counsel requested that the appellants permit it to be relieved of the obligation of representation, based on the appellants’ lack of cooperation with second counsel, and the appellants thereupon voluntarily consented to second counsel’s request … . Hawes v Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 03127, 2nd Dept 4-15-15
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy