You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

City Immune from Liability for Actions of Police Engaged in a Governmental Function–No Special Relationship with Plaintiff

The Second Department determined the police officers were engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the city and the plaintiff. The city was therefore immune from liability.  Plaintiff called the police when he saw someone (Moran) enter a residence.  When the police arrived plaintiff accompanied them to the residence.  Moran ran from the house and punched plaintiff. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged the police failed to protect him:

…[T]he officers’ conduct during the incident constituted a governmental function … . “Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to furnish police protection, this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created” … . Therefore, the City cannot be held liable unless there existed a special relationship between it and the plaintiff … . “The elements of this special relationship are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Here, the City made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that no such special relationship existed which would give rise to a duty of care to the plaintiff individually … . The evidence submitted by the City demonstrated that the police officers were performing their general duty to the public at large by responding to a call regarding a completed crime, and in the course of the investigation, made no promises to the plaintiff, in word or action, that gave rise to an affirmative duty of care running to the plaintiff personally. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Philip v Moran, 2015 NY Slip Op 02742, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable in New York

The Second Department determined the exclusions from uninsured motorist coverage in a Pennsylvania policy violated New York public policy and the insurer was obligated to provide $300,000 of uninsured motorist coverage:

“[I]nsurance policies, like all contracts, should be enforced according to their terms unless they are prohibited by public policy, statute or rule” … . “If an attempted exclusion is not permitted by law, the insurer’s liability under the policy cannot be limited” … . Here, the exclusions contained in the uninsured motorist coverage endorsement of Progressive’s Pennsylvania policy are not permitted by New York law. “Insurance Law § 3420(f)(1) requires that every automobile insurance policy contain an uninsured motor vehicle endorsement. Neither that statute nor any regulations applicable to it mentions any exclusions” … . Since the exclusions are “without the approval or protection of the law” …, they should not be given effect … .

Since we have determined that the underlying exclusions are invalid, and the policy does not contain a term expressly limiting coverage to the statutory minimum, no such limitation will be read into the policy … . Consequently, Progressive’s policy must be read as affording uninsured motorist coverage up to its stated limit of $300,000. Braithewaite v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 02717, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand

The Second Department noted that the defendant who had obtained an arbitration award was entitled to interest on the award pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003:

…[P]ursuant to CPLR 5002, the defendant was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the arbitration award, April 28, 2009 … . “Interest under CPLR 5002 is a matter of right and is not dependent upon the court’s discretion or a specific demand” … . It “is simply the cost of having the use of another person’s money for a specified period” and is not a penalty on the party owing money … . Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the arbitration award, and to postjudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5003. Dermigny v Harper, 2015 NY Slip Op 02722, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

, ,

City Properly Held Liable for Failure to Address Excessive Speeding on Road Where Infant Plaintiff Was Struck—A Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function Was Involved—The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Did Not Apply Under the Facts

In upholding the jury’s finding the city liable for not addressing excessive speeding on the road where infant plaintiff was struck by a car and seriously injured, the Second Department explained the city’s liability for proprietary versus governmental functions and the inapplicability of the qualified immunity doctrine:

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, the court must first decide whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or was acting in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose … . If the municipality’s activities are proprietary in nature, the municipality is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties … . By contrast, if the municipality was exercising a nondiscretionary governmental function, it will not be held liable unless it owed a “special duty” to the injured party … .

Here, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the City was negligent in that it received numerous complaints that vehicles were speeding and racing along the entire length of Gerritsen Avenue, but completely failed to conduct a proper and adequate study of this speeding problem, and failed to implement a reasonable plan to control or resolve the dangerous condition presented on the roadway. Since a municipality’s duty to keep its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition is proprietary in nature …, the City’s contention that it cannot be held liable under the plaintiffs’ theory absent the existence of a “special duty” to the infant plaintiff must be rejected … .

The City’s argument that the causes of action asserted against it must be dismissed because it is entitled to immunity is also without merit. In the field of traffic design engineering, a municipality is accorded qualified immunity from liability arising out of its highway planning decisions … . The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, will only apply where the municipality has conducted a study which ” entertained and passed on the very same question of risk'” … as was alleged by the plaintiff. Indeed, a municipality may be held liable if, “after being made aware of a dangerous traffic condition, it does not undertake an adequate study to determine what reasonable measures may be necessary to alleviate the condition” … . Moreover, after a municipality implements a traffic plan, “it is under a continuing duty to review its plan in the light of its actual operation'” … . * * *

Considering the testimony and documentary evidence presented, there was a rational process by which the jury could have found that the City had notice that excessive speeding along the length of Gerritsen Avenue created a dangerous condition and that the City failed, in response to the complaints it received, to conduct a study which ” entertained and passed on [this] very same question of risk'” … posed by excessive speeding along Gerritsen Avenue. As such, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply … . Turturro v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02754, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

, ,

Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendants in a lead paint case failed to demonstrate they did not have notice of the dangerous condition.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

Under New York common law, a landowner “has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[I]n order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” … . Constructive notice of a hazardous lead-based paint condition may be established by proof “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … . Greene v Mullen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02729, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Loan to Grandson Was Not Made In Anticipation of the Need to Qualify for Medical Assistance

The Second Department determined the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) finding that the petitioner’s husband did not intend to transfer assets for valuable consideration was not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s husband had loaned $200,000 to his grandson, and the grandson was making regular payments on the loan. The court explained the relevant law:

“In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record, as a whole, to determine if the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law” … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor …, or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … .

When determining Medicaid eligibility, an agency is required to “look back” for a period of 60 months immediately preceding the first date the applicant was both “institutionalized” and had applied for Medicaid benefits, to determine if any asset transfers were uncompensated or made for less than fair market value (42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [B]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][1][vi]). If such a transfer was made during that period, the applicant may become ineligible for Medicaid benefits for a specified period of time (see 42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [E]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][3]), unless there is a “satisfactory showing” that the applicant or the applicant’s spouse intended to dispose of the assets at fair market value or for valuable consideration, the assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance, or all assets transferred for less than fair market value have been returned to the applicant (42 USC § 1396p[c][2][C][i], [iii]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][4][iii]). It is the petitioner’s burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … .

Applying these rules here, the DOH’s determination that the petitioner failed to make a satisfactory showing that her husband intended to transfer the assets for valuable consideration is not supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner correctly concedes that the loan was not made for fair market value since the payments due under the original note and the amended note are not actuarially sound in light of the note’s 15-year repayment term and the age of the petitioner and her husband (see 42 USC § 1396p[c][1][I]). However, the evidence adduced at the fair hearing rebutted the presumption that the transfer was motivated by anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … . In this regard, the petitioner’s husband stated that he entered into the loan agreement in order to create a source of income. The petitioner demonstrated that the loan was documented by the note and the amended note, that the petitioner’s husband received a stream of income from the loan by way of the monthly payments, and that the note provided a significantly greater rate of return than the one or two percent interest rate that the petitioner’s husband could have obtained from a bank at the time. In addition, there was evidence at the fair hearing that some of the petitioner’s assets had previously been loaned to her family members and that those loans were fully repaid. Morever, the letter from the petitioner’s physician supported her claim that she was in good health at the time of the loan, and that she only required Medicaid after she fell and broke her hip. Furthermore, the petitioner’s grandson and his wife averred that they were unable to immediately repay the entire loan because they used the loaned sum to renovate their home. Matter of Rivera v Blass, 2015 NY Slip Op 02768, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

,

Referee’s Authority Exceeded—Authority Comes from Consent of the Parties

The Second Department determined the referee had exceeded his authority in a custody proceeding:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon the consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances,” which are not applicable here … . Here, the parties did not consent to the determination of any issues by a referee, and the order of reference directed the referee to hear and report (see CPLR 4317[a]). Absent the parties’ consent, the referee had the power only to hear and report his findings (see CPLR 4317[a]…). Thus, the referee exceeded his authority in signing an order to show cause pursuant to which the defendant, in effect, sought leave to submit a motion to modify a prior order of custody and to stay the enforcement of an order entered in a related custody proceeding commenced in the Family Court, pending her appeal of that order. The referee further exceeded his authority in temporarily restraining the enforcement of the Family Court’s order and all proceedings in the Family Court pending the determination of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a stay … .  Albert v Albert, 2015 NY Slip Op 02439, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, , ,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Temporary Administrator after Defendant’s Death Properly Denied—Relevant Law Explained

In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s motion to appoint a temporary administrator after the defendant in a lead-paint action had died, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

“If a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]…). “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” (CPLR 1021…). “Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent” … .

In most instances a personal representative appointed by the Surrogate’s Court should be substituted in the action to represent the decedent’s estate … . However, in the event no such representative exists, an appropriate appointment may be made by the Supreme Court and that individual may be substituted in place of the decedent … . Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction with the power to appoint a temporary administrator, and may do so to avoid delay and prejudice in a pending action” … . The determination of whether to exercise its authority to appoint a temporary administrator is committed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and will not be disturbed by this Court so long as the determination does not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to appoint a temporary administrator (see CPLR 1015[a]…). Although in most instances the personal representative of the decedent’s estate should be substituted, here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate what steps she had taken to secure the appointment of a personal representative in the appropriate Surrogate’s Court or that resort to the appropriate Surrogate’s Court was otherwise unfeasible … . Furthermore, the plaintiff did not contend that this action, which is based on events occurring nearly 20 years ago, was trial-ready … . Under the circumstances presented here, the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate why the appointment of a temporary administrator was needed to avoid undue delay and prejudice. Lambert v Estren, 2015 NY Slip Op 02454, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

Subcontractor Which Did Not Supervise Injured Plaintiff or Control Site Safety May Still Be Liable Under Common-Law Negligence for Creating the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed whether a subcontractor (Geiger), which did not supervise the injured plaintiff or control safety measures, could be held liable for common-law negligence for creating the dangerous condition:

Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Geiger’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it. A subcontractor “may be held liable for negligence where the work it performed created the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury even if it did not possess any authority to supervise and control the plaintiff’s work or work area” … . An award of summary judgment in favor of a subcontractor on a negligence claim is improper where the “evidence raise[s] a triable issue of fact as to whether [the subcontractor’s] employee created an unreasonable risk of harm that was the proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries” … . Here, there are triable issues of fact as to whether employees of Geiger created the dangerous condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s accident. Lombardo v Tag Ct. Sq.,LLC,  2015 NY Slip Op 02458, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under DeBour Criteria—Criteria Explained and Applied

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer, Schwizer, properly escalated the intrusiveness of his encounter with the defendant (under the DeBour criteria) based upon the actions of the defendant:

“On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” …, the Court of Appeals established a graduated four-level test for evaluating the propriety of police encounters when a police officer is acting in a law enforcement capacity … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality … . The second level, known as the common-law right of inquiry, requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion … . The third level permits a police officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual. Such a detention, however, is not permitted unless there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime … . The fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime … .

“Encounters between citizens and the police in public places are of an endless variety with no two being precisely alike” … . Here, Schwizer properly exercised his common-law right of inquiry when he initially encountered the defendant, as the defendant matched the general description of a man with a gun at the subject location … .

At this stage in the encounter, absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, Schwizer could not forcibly detain the defendant … . However, during his common-law right of inquiry, Schwizer was permitted to ask the defendant to show or raise his hands as a self-protective measure … .

The defendant’s failure to comply with Schwizer’s request to show his hands, coupled with the nature of the report, and the presence of the defendant’s hands in his waist area, escalated the encounter and justified Schwizer’s conduct in grabbing the defendant’s hands as a self-protective measure … . Once Schwizer felt the firearm in the defendant’s waist area, he was furnished with reasonable suspicion … . People v Abdul-Mateen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02489, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

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