You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys Required Dismissal

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a specific monetary loss was proximately caused by the negligence of the attorneys. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to ensure that a note, guarantee and mortgage were enforceable against Nina, who disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity:

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . To establish causation, the plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, “but for the attorney’s negligence” … .

…The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount it could or would have collected if the note, the guaranty, and mortgage had been enforceable against Nina … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was unable to recover the amounts due under the note by other legal means available to it under the terms of the note and guaranty, or that it was unable to obtain equitable relief from Nina even after she disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity (see Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 14, Comments b, c; see also Restatement of Restitution § 139). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the extent to which it would have been unable to enforce the note and the guaranty after it was disavowed by Nina, and the precise extent to which it would have been able to recover had the note, the guaranty, and the mortgage been enforceable against her, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that any negligence on the part of [the attorneys] was a proximate cause of actual and ascertainable damages … . Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02104, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

,

Jury’s Failure to Award Damages for Future Pain and Suffering Did Not Warrant Setting Aside Verdict

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

In determining a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, the court must decide whether the evidence so preponderates in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Resolution of the motion does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors … . Moreover, “[g]reat deference is accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … . Thus, “[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, with consideration given to the credibility of the witnesses and the drawing of reasonable inferences therefrom, and there was no basis in the record for the trial court to disturb the jury’s resolution of credibility issues against the plaintiff … . Raso v Jamdar, 2015 NY Slip Op 01934, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injuries in Labor Law 240(1) Action

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact precluding both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for summary judgment in a Labor Law 240(1) action.  Although the ladder which tipped over was not defective and was appropriate to the task, there were questions whether the ladder was mispositioned and, if so, who mispositioned it.  The fact that plaintiff may have been negligent did not preclude recovery under Labor Law 240(1) as long a plaintiff’s negligence was not the sole proximate cause of his injury:

In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injuries … . Proof that the plaintiff’s own negligence was also a proximate cause will not defeat the claim … . When the evidence establishes, however, that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries, the defendant may not be held liable for those injuries … . The parties’ submissions demonstrated that the ladder itself was not defective and was appropriate to [plaintiff’s] task.

There are triable issues of fact … as to whether the ladder was mispositioned and, if so, who mispositioned it, and, if it was mispositioned by [plaintiff], whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause of the ladder’s tipping over … . Daley v 250 Park Ave., LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 01917, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Motion to Set Aside Verdict Properly Denied—The Jury Determined Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident—Analytical Criteria Explained

In finding the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence was properly denied, the Second Department explained how to analyze the jury’s conclusion the defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . “A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . “[W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view” … . Moffett-Knox v Anthony’s Windows on the Lake, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 01929, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff fell when she stepped in a depression which was filled with water.  Defendant argued the 3/4 inch depression was trivial and Supreme Court agreed.  The Second Department explained the “trivial defect” analytical criteria and noted that plaintiff had alleged the area was poorly lit:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . “Property owners may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip” … . “[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” …, and “a mechanistic disposition of a case based exclusively on the dimension of the . . . defect is unacceptable” … . To determine whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, a court must examine “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance’ of the injury” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . Tesoriero v Brinckerhoff Park, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01938, 2nd Dept 115 3-11-2015

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court

The Second Department noted that a sua sponte determination does not become the law-of-the-case  and does not bind the appellate court:

Supreme Court determined that, pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, it was bound by the prior Supreme Court order to hold that [a nonparty] was a bona fide purchaser of the subject property. On that ground, the Supreme Court concluded that, “[h]aving failed to obtain a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold, [defendant] [was] relegated to an action for money damages, and would not be able to recover the real property” … . However, since the parties had not litigated the sua sponte determination as to [the nonparty’s] status, application of the doctrine of law of the case was improper … . In any event, this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court’s prior determination finding [the nonparty] to be a bona fide purchaser and may reach the merits of that issue … . Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01920, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Prior Written Notice Requirement Does Not Apply When It Is Alleged the Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department noted that the “written notice of a dangerous condition” pre-requisite for municipal liability does not apply when it is alleged the municipality created the dangerous condition:

A municipality that has enacted or is subject to a prior written notice statute, such as Village Law § 6-628 or CPLR 9804, may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective or dangerous condition that comes within the ambit of those laws, such as an alleged defective boardwalk …, unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies … . The only two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement are where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, or where the defect resulted from a special use of the property by the municipality which conferred a special benefit on it … . Moreover, “the affirmative negligence exception is limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition'” … .

Where, as here, the plaintiff expressly asserted in the complaint or a bill of particulars that the municipality created the defective condition by an affirmative act of negligence, the municipality, in order to make a prima facie showing in support of a motion for summary judgment, must demonstrate that it did not create the condition … . Joyce v Village of Saltaire, 2015 NY Slip Op 01925, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) based upon the “single motion” rule.  The defendants had made motions to dismiss certain causes of action in the original complaint.  Therefore the defendants could not make those motions again with respect to an amended complaint:

CPLR 3211(e) provides, in relevant part, that at any time before service of a responsive pleading is required, a party may move to dismiss a pleading “on one or more grounds set forth” in CPLR 3211(a), and that “no more than one such motion shall be permitted.” Accordingly, this “single motion rule prohibits parties from making successive motions to dismiss a pleading” pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) … . The rule bars both repetitive motions to dismiss a pleading pursuant CPLR 3211(a), as well as subsequent motions to dismiss that pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) that are based on alternative grounds … . Here, the defendants previously moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that documentary evidence established a complete defense to the action (see CPLR 3211[a][1]), that the action was time-barred (see CPLR 3211[a][5]), and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). * * * Accordingly, those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss … [substantially identical] causes of action in the amended complaint were procedurally barred by the single-motion rule, and were properly denied (see CPLR 3211[e]…). Bailey v Peerstate Equity Fund, L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 01911, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Criteria for Amendment of Notice of Claim and Serving a Late Notice of Claim Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his notice of claim and has motion to serve a late notice of claim were properly denied.  The criteria for both motions were explained:

A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim ,,, . The proposed amendments to the notice of claim added events that were not described in the original notice of claim and asserted a new claim relating to the operator of the bus … . Such amendments are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . …

Among the factors to be considered in determining whether to extend the time to serve a notice of claim are (1), in particular, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after it arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim, (3) whether the claimant was an infant, or mentally or physically incapacitated, and (4) whether the delay substantially prejudiced the public corporation in defending on the merits … .

The plaintiff failed to submit evidence establishing that the Transit Authority had actual knowledge of the new facts within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter. Priant v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 01933, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Statutes of Limitations for Actions Stemming from the Alleged Fraudulent Transfer of Real Property Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s actions, which stemmed from the allegation defendant had acquired a deed to his property by fraud, were timely. The court explained the statutes of limitations for actual and constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, actions to quiet title, conversion by fraud, money had and received, and constructive trust. In essence, actions which have an equitable component are governed by a six-year statute of limitations:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated … . * * *

The statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought. The Court of Appeals ruled in IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Deal Witter & Co. (12 NY3d at 139):

“New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims. Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging injury to property’ within the meaning of CPLR 214(4), which has a three-year limitations period. Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies. Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” (citations omitted).

Since the plaintiff’s right to the subject property is in issue, awarding damages would not be adequate. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in equity should be applied … . Since the second and third causes of action accrued in 2006, when the defendants allegedly acted contrary to their fiduciary obligations, to the plaintiff’s detriment, those causes of action, interposed four years later in 2010, are not time-barred.

The first cause of action, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, is not time-barred, since the plaintiff was seized or possessed of the premises within 10 years before the commencement of the action and is in essence seeking a determination that the quitclaim deed which he executed in 2003 was part of a mortgage transaction, and not a conveyance of title (see CPLR 212[a]; Real Property Law § 320…).

The fourth cause of action, alleging conversion based upon fraud, is not time-barred, since it is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(8) … .

The fifth cause of action, seeking damages for money had and received …, is equitable in nature and, therefore, the applicable statute of limitations is six years … . Since the defendants’ receipt of money occurred in 2006, and the action was commenced in 2010, the cause of action is not time-barred. Similarly, the sixth cause of action, sounding in unjust enrichment, is equitable in nature, and is not time-barred … .

The seventh cause of action alleging a constructive trust is equitable in nature and governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . The elements of a cause of action to impose a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment … . The cause of action accrued on the date of the “wrongful transfer” of the subject property … . Loeuis v Grushin. 2015 NY Slip Op 01926, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

 

 

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