You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action based upon the presence of snow and ice on the work site.  Plaintiff was directed to carry a piece of plywood over an area covered with ice and snow.  He fell and was injured.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

As a predicate for liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of a snow and ice condition that was permitted to remain on the worksite in violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d). That section of the Industrial Code unequivocally directs that ice and snow “shall be removed” from worksites so as “to provide safe footing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[d]…). The duty imposed is nondelegable … . Indeed, here, the Construction Management Agreement … provided that [the contractor] “shall remove snow or ice from the Project Site.” The plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition and his averments in his affidavit in support of his motion established that he slipped and fell as a result of the snow and ice at the location where he was performing the tasks assigned to him. The plaintiff also demonstrated his freedom from comparative fault, as he was following his employer’s directives, using the equipment provided, and wearing proper shoes as required by his employer. The plaintiff thereby demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . … Moreover, “[s]ince an owner or general contractor’s vicarious liability under section 241 (6) is not dependent on its personal capability to prevent or cure a dangerous condition, the absence of actual or constructive notice sufficient to prevent or cure must also be irrelevant to the imposition of Labor Law § 241 (6) liability” … . Reynoso v Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01256, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

Analytical Criteria for Confirmation of an Arbitration Award Described

The Second Department explained the analytical criteria for confirmation of an arbitration award.  The court noted that an arbitrator does not have the power to award punitive damages:

“The court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him [or her], unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511” (CPLR 7510). “An arbitration award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 and subject to vacatur only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy'” … . “An award is final and definite if the computation of the award is so clear and specific that the determination of the amounts owing is merely an accounting calculation” … . Matter of Olidort v Pewzner, 2015 NY Slip Op 01278, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

One- and Two- Family Homeowners’ Exemption Precluded Labor Law 240 (1) and 246 (1) Causes of Action/Defendant-Owner’s Failure to Demonstrate He Did Not Create or Have Notice of the Alleged Dangerous Condition Precluded Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action

After finding that the Labor Law 240(1) and 246(1) causes of action were properly dismissed (one- and two-family homeowner exemption), the Second Department determined the summary judgment should not have been granted to the homeowner on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action.  The motion for summary judgment failed to address the allegation the owner created or had notice of the dangerous condition:

The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused both by a dangerous condition on the premises and the “means and methods” of construction. Accordingly, in order to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action, Elias was required to address both theories … . Since Elias failed to establish, prima facie, that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises, that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against him should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s papers submitted in opposition… . Pineda v Elias, 2015 NY Slip Op 01254, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

CPLR 5239 Is the Proper Vehicle for Vacation of an Execution—Here Defendant’s Brother Brought a CPLR 5239 Proceeding to Vacate an Execution Against the Brother’s Property Which Purported to Relate to a Debt Owed by Defendant—The Execution Was Vacated Based Upon the Brother’s Proof of Ownership

The Second Department determined Kamel, a non-party, had demonstrated that he did not have an ownership interest in property which was executed against to satisfy a judgment against the defendant, Kamel’s brother. The court explained the procedure to vacate an execution pursuant to CPLR 5239:

Pursuant to CPLR 5239, “any interested person may commence a special proceeding against the judgment creditor or other person with whom a dispute exists to determine rights in the property or debt” (CPLR 5239…). The court may “vacate the execution or order, void the levy, direct the disposition of the property or debt, or direct that damages be awarded” and, if necessary, may hold a hearing to determine the proper disposition (CPLR 5239…). As the party seeking relief, “it [is the] petitioner’s burden to proffer evidence demonstrating that the property was not subject to the lien identified in the notice of sheriff’s sale” … .

At the hearing, Kamel presented mortgage documents relating to the purchase of the LIC property, as well as documents identifying him as the principal of the LLC which held legal title to that property and his own personal guaranty for the $1.45 million mortgage loan for that property. Accordingly, Kamel met his burden of demonstrating that the LIC property was not subject to execution … . Born to Build LLC v Saleh, 2015 NY Slip Op 01232, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Criteria for Review of State Liquor Authority (SLA) Determination Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that the State Liquor Authority (SLA) should have granted petitioner’s application for a liquor license, the Second Department explained its review powers:

In reviewing the SLA’s determination of whether the public convenience and advantage would be served by granting or denying an application for a retail liquor license, the inquiry of the court is strictly limited to whether the SLA acted arbitrarily and capriciously … . A determination is “arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … .

Judicial review of a determination by the SLA “is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” … . “If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative [determination] by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Furthermore, reliance upon an improper basis for its determination requires that the determination be annulled, regardless of whether the SLA also relied, in part, upon valid considerations … . Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp v New York State Liquor Auth, 2015 NY Slip Op 01274, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not Given Res Judicata Effect

The Second Department noted that a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is not a determination on the merits and will not be given res judicata effect:

“As a general rule, a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is not on the merits and, thus, will not be given res judicata effect” … . Since the dismissal of the prior action was not on the merits, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss, on the ground of res judicata… . Hock v Cohen, 2015 NY Slip Op 01243, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the Matters Stated Therein—Notice Improperly Sought Admissions that Went to the Heart of the Controversy

12The Second Department determined defendants’ failure to timely respond to plaintiff’s notice to admit was not an admission of the matters stated therein because the notice sought admissions which went to the heart of the controversy:

“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his notice to admit improperly sought the defendants’ admissions concerning a matter that went to the heart of the controversy in this case … . Since the admissions sought were improper, the defendants’ failure to timely respond to the subject notice should not be deemed an admission of the matters stated therein … . Williams v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01268, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book

The Second Department explained that, under the relevant provisions of the General Business Law, process servers outside the City of New York are not required to keep a “log book” for recording service:

General Business Law § 89-u, which applies to process servers outside of the City of New York, requires process servers to “maintain a legible record of all service made by him [or her] as prescribed in this section” (General Business Law § 89-u[1]). Unlike General Business Law § 89-cc(1), which is applicable in the City of New York, General Business Law § 89-u, which is applicable outside the City of New York, does not expressly require that the “legible record” be “kept in chronological order in a bound, paginated volume” (General Business Law § 89-cc[1]), i.e., a log book. “Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted and excluded” … . Since the Legislature did not include a log book requirement for process servers in counties outside of the City of New York, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the process server in Nassau County was required to maintain such log book. Moret Partnership v Spickerman, 2015 NY Slip Op 01248, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Police May Direct Occupants to Step Out of the Car After a Vehicle-Stop

In affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle stop the Second Department determined the police properly requested that the occupants step out of the car:

“In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 01292, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)

Plaintiff leased a car (from BMW) for several years and then purchased it.  After the purchase plaintiff sought coverage for repairs under the Magnuson-Moss … Warranty Act (Warranty Act) and sought damages pursuant to General Business Law 349 (deceptive business practices).  The Second Department determined the Warranty Act cause of action accrued on the date the car was delivered (leased) and therefore was time-barred.  However, the General Business Law cause of action accrued when the car was purchased and was timely:

In moving to dismiss a cause of action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired … . The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period … . To make a prima facie showing, the defendant must establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued … .

Claims brought under the Warranty Act are covered by the four-year statute of limitations prescribed by UCC 2-725 … . That statute specifically defines the date of accrual to be “when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2]).

Here, BMW met its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff had four years from November 10, 2007, the date she accepted delivery of the vehicle, to commence the Warranty Act cause of action, but that this action was not commenced until November 22, 2011. … The “New Vehicle Limited Warranty” did not guarantee future performance but only promised to repair or replace defective parts for a specified period of time… . …

Actions pursuant to General Business Law § 349 must be commenced within three years of the date of accrual … , which first occurs when the plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice that is in violation of section 349 … . As this cause of action is predicated on the sale of the vehicle, which took place in October 2010, it was timely commenced on November 22, 2011, within the three-year statute of limitations … . Loiodice v BMW of N Am LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01244, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

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