You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement/Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the grievance (re: longevity pay) was not arbitrable.  The court outlined the analytical criteria:

“The determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to [a] two-prong test” … . “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” … . “If there is no prohibition against arbitrating, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … .

Here, the County did not contend that arbitration of the subject matter of the dispute was prohibited by law or public policy. Thus, the only issue is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute … .

“Unlike general labor disputes in the private sector involving arbitration, the intent to arbitrate of parties to a collective bargaining agreement in the field of public employment may not be presumed” … . “Indeed . . . it must be taken, in the absence of clear, unequivocal agreement to the contrary, that the [parties to a collective bargaining agreement] did not intend to refer differences which might arise to the arbitration forum” … .

Here, contrary to the Union’s contention, the CBA did not broadly provide for the arbitration of any grievance that may arise under the CBA … . Rather, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the CBA limited the availability of arbitration to specifically enumerated matters … .  Matter of County of Rockland v Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn. of Rockland County, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 01798, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Administrative Expungement of a Report of Child Abuse or Maltreatment Explained

In affirming the dismissal of a petition seeking expungement of a “child abuse or maltreatment report” maintained by the NYS Central Register of Child Abuse or Maltreatment, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a preponderance of the evidence … . “It is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” … .

Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record … . Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … .

To establish that maltreatment occurred, the agency must show that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of a parent or other person legally responsible for his or her care to exercise a minimum degree of care … .  Matter of Iacono v New York State Cent. Register of N.Y. State Off. of Children & Family Servs. 2015 NY Slip Op 01802, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not Justify Excluding Vehicle from Coverage Under the “For Hire” Exclusion

The Second Department determined that an insurer, GEICO, was not justified in disclaiming coverage of a vehicle under a “for hire” exclusion.  The evidence demonstrated, at most, that the vehicle was carrying passengers “for hire” on one occasion only (at the time of the accident), and was therefore not subject to the “for hire” exclusion:

Pursuant to regulations issued by New York State Department of Financial Services, an insurer may exclude, from an automobile owner’s policy of liability insurance, coverage for claims arising “while the motor vehicle is used as a public or livery conveyance” (11 NYCRR 60-1.2[a]). GEICO’s disclaimer was based on an exclusion contained in its policy relating to “any vehicle used to carry passengers or goods for hire [except a] vehicle used in an ordinary carpool on a ride sharing or cost sharing basis.” Exclusions from coverage are “construed strictly against the insurer” … . In accordance with this rule of strict construction, a “single use of a vehicle for hire has been held not to make out use as a public livery or conveyance'” … . The facts adduced at the hearing warranted the conclusion that, while GEICO’s insured might have been employing his mini-van to transport a passenger “for hire” at the time of the accident, his use of the vehicle for such purpose entailed a “single isolated use” that was “not tantamount to its employment as a public or livery conveyance'” … . Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Byfield, 2015 NY Slip Op 01805, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

Criteria for Landlord’s Liability in a Dog Bite Case Explained

The Second Department determined that the property owner’s and manager’s motion for summary judgment in a case where a tenant’s dog bit the plaintiff should not have been granted.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or a person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities” … . Vicious propensities include the ” propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation'” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … . “To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises; (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog” … . Velez v Andrejka, 2015 NY Slip Op 01793, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Could Not Show Justifiable Reliance Upon Alleged Misrepresentations in a Stipulation

The Second Department determined the plaintiff, who was seeking to vacate portions of a so-ordered stipulation in a custody matter, failed to show the stipulation was the result of fraud.  In particular, plaintiff failed to show justifiable reliance upon any alleged misrepresentation because attachments to the stipulation reflected the actual facts:

As the party seeking to set aside the stipulation, the plaintiff had the burden of showing that the stipulation was the result of fraud … . “A cause of action alleging fraud requires a plaintiff to establish a misrepresentation or omission of material fact which the defendant knew was false, that the misrepresentation was made to induce the plaintiff’s reliance, the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and a resulting injury” … .

In light of the attachments provided with the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to establish the element of justifiable reliance. Where the plaintiff ” has the means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, he must make use of those means, or he will not be heard to complain that he was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations'” … . Cervera v Bressler, 2015 NY Slip Op 02441, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint seeking foreclosure and sale on the ground plaintiff lacked standing.  The defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, so the lack of standing defense was waived:

A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . HSBC Bank USA NA v Simmons, 2015 NY Slip Op 01609, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

Plaintiff Need Not Submit Any Evidence In Response to a Motion to Dismiss Alleging Failure to State a Cause of Action, Even If Defendant Does

The Second Department explained how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when evidence is submitted in support of the motion.  The court noted that the plaintiff need not submit any evidence and can stand on the pleadings alone:

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)” … . “If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . The plaintiff “may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . The plaintiff may stand on his or her pleading alone to state all the necessary elements of a cognizable cause of action, and, unless the motion to dismiss is converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff will not be penalized because he or she has not made an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint … . In light of these standards, it is clear that the defendant’s motion should have been denied. The complaint stated a cause of action, and the defendant’s submissions did not “conclusively establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . Clarke v Laidlaw Tr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01602, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiffs’ motion for a discontinuance without prejudice, a motion made in response to defendant’s (Parkway’s) motion to dismiss for failure to respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice:

“A motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted unless there are reasons which would justify its denial” … . Such a determination “rests within the sound discretion of the court,” and the motion should be granted “[i]n the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences” …, including an adverse determination of the court …, or the consequences of a potentially adverse determination … .

Here, the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice in response to Parkway’s separate motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to timely respond to its 90-day notice. The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice allowed the plaintiffs to avoid the potentially adverse consequences of having failed to timely respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice (see CPLR 3216), and an adverse determination of Parkway’s motion for summary judgment. Baez v Parkway Mobile Homes Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01596, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) and Town’s Ruling on Proper Remedial Measures for a Hazardous Waste Site Was Restarted When a Different Factual Presentation Was Invited

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a recent reconsideration of the proper remedial measures for a hazardous waste site on petitioner’s property restarted the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s)/Town’s ruling, even though the conclusion reached after reconsideration was the same as was reached in 1995:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner (CPLR 217[1]). An administrative determination becomes final and binding’ when (1) the administrative agency reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury; and (2) the injury inflicted may not be significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party'” … .

In general, a request for discretionary reconsideration does not serve to extend the statute of limitations or render an otherwise final determination nonfinal … . This is because “[a] motion to reconsider generally seeks the same relief, and advances factual and legal issues that were previously litigated at the administrative level” … .

However, where “the agency conducts a fresh and complete examination of the matter based on newly presented evidence,” an aggrieved party may seek review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced within four months of the new determination … .

Here, a different factual presentation was invited … by the DEC, and conducted by the Town. Matter of Riverso v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 01644, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff testified he did not know what caused him to fall.  The testimony of a witness about tree roots in the area of the fall did not establish that plaintiff tripped on the roots:

“Ordinarily, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing that it did not create the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “However, a defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation” … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through the submission of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The affidavit of Angelo Mamone, who was walking alongside the plaintiff when he fell, did not raise a triable issue of fact, since Mamone did not aver that he observed the plaintiff trip, but only observed that there were tree roots in the path where the plaintiff fell. His conclusion that tree roots were the cause of the fall was speculative. Moreover, the portion of a police report relied upon by the plaintiff contained inadmissible hearsay and, thus, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Goldberg v Village of Mount Kisco, 205 NY Slip Op 01608, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

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