You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that summary judgment should have been granted to defendants (a residential facility for the elderly/disabled and a related management company) in an action stemming from an assault by a contractor/security guard.  The evidence did not demonstrate defendants knew or should have known of the contractor’s propensity for violence and the contractor had acted outside the scope of employment:

“[A] party may be held liable for a contractor’s negligence under theories of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision” … . To hold a party liable under theories of negligent retention and negligent supervision, “a plaintiff must establish that the party knew or should have known of the contractor’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Here, the appellants demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not know or have reason to know of Lewis’s alleged propensity for violence… . The appellants also demonstrated, prima facie, that they were not vicariously liable for the conduct of Lewis under the doctrine of respondeat superior, since Lewis’s alleged acts were not part of his job and were not incidental to the furtherance of the appellants’ business … . Robert v BHAP Hous Dev Fund Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00520, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

, ,

Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was made (and granted) before plaintiff had completed putting in his case.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder at a work site and alleged a violation of Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence:

Prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, concluding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition at the work site. The Supreme Court thereafter entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. …

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr & Mgt Serv Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00521, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Inference of Defendant’s Negligence Was Not “Inescapable”—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted to Plaintiff Pursuant to the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Plaintiff was struck by a box which fell from a shelf in a retail store.  The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not make the inference of defendant’s negligence “inescapable:”

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident” … . Since “the circumstantial evidence allows but does not require the jury to infer that the defendant was negligent . . . res ipsa loquitur evidence does not ordinarily or automatically entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment . . . even if the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is unrefuted” … . “[O]nly in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment” … . “That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions on the issue of res ipsa loquitur were insufficient to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs did not establish, by sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof, “that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Hoeberlein v Bed Bath & Beyond, 2015 NY Slip Op 00497, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Ordered a Unified (Liability and Damages) Trial–Criteria Explained in Some Depth

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages because the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the nature of his injuries had an important bearing on the issue of liability. Plaintiff, who was driving a golf cart,  was injured when he allegedly swerved to avoid defendant’s on-coming golf cart.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria in some depth:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice [a] court . . . may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Furthermore, “[a] court may determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue” (CPLR 4011). These statutory provisions simply confirm that “the broad common-law powers of New York judges over conduct in their own courtrooms have been continued and have not been eliminated or impinged upon by any of the explicit CPLR provisions.”… .

“Judges are encouraged to order a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action for personal injury where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” (22 NYCRR 202.42[a]…). “As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately” … .

“The decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (…see CPLR 603, 4011). Unified trials should only be held “where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability” … . However, even where a trial is bifurcated, some evidence of injuries may nevertheless be admitted, in the trial court’s discretion, to establish liability at the liability phase of the trial, so long as such evidence is probative of liability and accompanied by “an appropriate limiting instruction” … .

Accordingly, when exercising its discretion in deciding whether to conduct a unified trial or a bifurcated trial, a court should determine whether the nature of the alleged injuries is probative of the issue of liability and, furthermore, should also evaluate the relative importance of such evidence to the parties’ dispute … . In addition, the probative value of such evidence to the issue of liability and its centrality to the parties’ dispute should be weighed against the degree to which the gravity of such injuries will likely engender sympathy for the plaintiff and thereby pose a risk of prejudice to the defendant … . Patino v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 00509, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

“Transacting Business” Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the Connecticut defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendant had transacted business in New York within the meaning of the long-arm statute:

Under New York’s long-arm statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302[a]), regardless of whether that non-domiciliary has actually entered New York State … . Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege[s] of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … . Proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, as long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted … .

Here, the complaint asserts that the defendant, through its agent, solicited the plaintiff’s services while present in New York. The record indicates that the defendant’s agent traveled to New York for three meetings with the plaintiff before the parties finalized their agreement, and that the defendant’s agent subsequently traveled to New York in furtherance of the contract. Moreover, the parties engaged in numerous telephone and email communications regarding the contract. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant conducted sufficient purposeful activities in New York, which bore a substantial relationship to the subject matter of this action, so as to avail itself of the benefits and protections of New York’s laws … . Paradigm Mktg Consortium Inc v Yale New Haven Hospital Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00508, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”) Explained

The Second Department, in upholding the zoning board’s denial of a special exception permit and a variance, explained the criteria for a special exception permit:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . Thus, the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance … . The owner must show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions pertaining to the intended use before a special exception permit may be granted … . The denial of a special exception permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection … . However, where such evidence exists, deference must be given to the discretion of the board authorized to rule upon the application. A court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record … .

Here, the Board’s determination that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the legislatively imposed conditions for issuance of the requested special exceptions was supported by evidence in the record, and was not affected by an error of law, was not arbitrary and capricious, was not an abuse of discretion, and was not irrational… . Matter of M & V 99 Franklin Realty Corp v Weiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 00541, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Time-Limit for Serving a Complaint Was Never Triggered Because the Summons with Notice Was Filed But Not Yet Served at the Time Defendants Served a Notice of Appearance and Demand for a Complaint

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the time-limit associated with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint was never triggered because the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint were made before defendants were served with the summons with notice (the summons with notice was filed but never served here):

The plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons with notice. It is undisputed that the summons with notice was never served on the defendants… . * * *

An action may be commenced “by filing a . . . summons with notice” (CPLR 304[a]…). “Service of the . . . summons with notice . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action or proceeding” (CPLR 306-b…). “If the complaint is not served with the summons, the defendant may serve a written demand for the complaint” (CPLR 3012[b]). “Service of the complaint shall be made within twenty days after service of the demand” (id.). “If no demand is made, the complaint shall be served within twenty days after service of the notice of appearance” … . “The court upon motion may dismiss the action if service of the complaint is not made as provided in this subdivision” … .

As this Court has previously recognized, “[n]o provision is made for an appearance or a demand for a complaint before the summons is served” … . A demand for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) prior to service of the summons is premature and does not invoke the time limitations of CPLR 3012(b) … .

Here, since the summons with notice had never been served, the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint was a nullity and the 20-day period within which the complaint had to be served pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) had not begun to run … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) … . Ryan v High Rock Dev LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00519, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here

The Second Department explained the rules associated with making a demand and motion for a change of venue.  If the demand and motion are not made within the statutory time-limits, granting the motion is a matter of discretion.  Denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion here:

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510[1]) “shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511[a]…). “Thereafter the defendant may move to change the place of trial within [15] days after service of the demand” (CPLR 511[b]). Since the appellants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory time period, they were not entitled to a change of venue as of right, and their motion became one addressed to the court’s discretion … . Giddings v Century 21 Dept Stores LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00493, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Second Department determined that the failure to notify the defendant prior his guilty plea (in 2000) could be the basis of deportation proceedings did not constitute ineffective of counsel:

On March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform noncitizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas. However, Padilla does not apply retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before Padilla was decided … . Without the benefit of the Padilla rule, the alleged failure of the defendant’s attorney to properly advise him of the possibility that he might be deported as a result of his plea does not constitute deficient performance under the United States or New York Constitutions. At the time that the defendant entered his plea of guilty in 2000, defense counsel’s performance was governed by the rule that “the failure of [defense] counsel to warn [a] defendant of the possibility of deportation [did not] constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” … . People v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 00563, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Criteria for Restarting the Statute of Limitations by Acknowledging a Debt Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Although the criteria was not met here. the Second Department explained when a writing will restart the statutory limitations period for collecting on a debt:

General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . “To constitute an acknowledgment of a debt, a writing must recognize an existing debt and contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it” … . Mosab Constr Corp v Prospect Park Yeshiva Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00505, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

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