You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Any Delay In Insured’s Notifying the Insurer of the Accident Was Attributable to the Insured’s “Good-Faith Belief of Non-Liability”

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether any delay in notifying the insurer of the accident was the result of a good-faith belief of non-liability:

“A provision that notice be given as soon as practicable' after an accident or occurrence, merely requires that notice be given within a reasonable time under all the circumstances” … . An insured's failure to provide the insurer notice within a reasonable period of time constitutes “a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” … .

However, there may be circumstances that will explain or excuse a delay in giving notice and show it to be reasonable, such as an insured's “good-faith belief of nonliability” … . The insured's belief of nonliability “must be reasonable under all the circumstances, and it may be relevant on the issue of reasonableness, whether and to what extent, the insured has inquired into the circumstances of the accident or occurrence” … . “Ordinarily, the question of whether the insured had a good-faith belief in nonliability, and whether that belief was reasonable, presents an issue of fact and not one of law” … . “It is only when the facts are undisputed and not subject to conflicting inferences that the issue can be decided as a matter of law” … . Integrated Constr Servs Inc v Scottsdale Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08606, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Motion to Strike Errata Sheet “Correcting” Substantive Discrepancies in Deposition Testimony Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint.  In her deposition plaintiff testified at length about where she tripped and fell but identified a very different location from that described in the complaint.  Plaintiff then sought to “correct” the “errors” in the deposition transcript by executing an errata sheet:

Notwithstanding the detailed, consistent, and emphatic nature of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony regarding the location of her accident, she subsequently executed an errata sheet containing numerous substantive “corrections” which conflicted with various portions of her testimony and which sought to establish that she actually fell at 197 Fifth Avenue, not 140 Fifth Avenue. The only reason proffered for these changes was that, prior to her deposition, she was shown photographs of 140 Fifth Avenue that mistakenly had been taken by an investigator hired by her attorney, and that she thereafter premised her testimony on her accident having occurred at the location depicted in those photographs. The defendants … moved, to strike the errata sheet and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The Supreme Court denied the motions. We reverse.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate reason for the numerous, critical, substantive changes she sought to make in an effort to materially alter her deposition testimony (see CPLR 3116[a]…). Horn v 197 5th Ave Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08605, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

, ,

Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building Inspector In His Individual Capacity After Summary Judgment (In Defendant’s Favor) In an Action Against Defendant In His Official Capacity—Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Explained

The Second Department determined that summary judgment in favor of the defendant (Maikisch) in an action brought against a town and defendant in his capacity as building inspector did not, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, preclude a lawsuit against the defendant in his individual capacity. The court explained the analytical criteria:

This State has adopted the transactional analysis approach in deciding the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Under this analysis, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . “It is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes. A pragmatic' test has been applied to make this determination–—analyzing whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'” … . “One linchpin of res judicata is an identity of parties actually litigating successive actions against each other: the doctrine applies only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'”

…[I]n the prior action, the plaintiff made no claim against Maikisch in his capacity as an individual. Rather, the plaintiff sought relief, in the form of a declaratory judgment, against the Town and Maikisch in his capacity as Building Inspector of the Town. “It has been repeatedly held that persons suing or being sued in their official or representative capacity are, in contemplation of law, distinct persons, and strangers to any right or liability as an individual, and consequently a former judgment concludes a party only in the character in which he was sued” … .

In any event, the differences which exist between the issues raised in the prior litigation and those raised now, namely, the differences in the kind of relief sought, in the kind of facts to be proved, and in the kind of law to be applied, outweigh the similarities to such an extent as to render the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable … . In the prior action, the plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that the subject property was exempt from certain land-use and building code regulations. There, the plaintiff alleged that, for reasons stated, the relevant regulations were inapplicable the subject property. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover money damages from Maikisch individually, based on contract and tort theories. In this action, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Maikisch breached an oral contract between the parties, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff, and tortiously interfered with the plaintiff's business relations. Specialized Realty Servs LLC v Maickisch, 2014 NY Slip Op 08627, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Fight On School Bus Was Not Foreseeable and Could Not Have Been Prevented

The Second Department determined that the duty to supervise students on a school bus is identical to the duty to supervise students in school.  Here infant plaintiff was injured on the bus when punched by another student.  The bus driver did not see the incident and neither the infant plaintiff nor the assailant had been involved in or witnessed any other fights on the school bus. The court held that brief incident was not foreseeable and could not have been prevented:

Like a school, a school bus company has a duty to adequately supervise children in its care, and to exercise the same degree of care toward them as would a reasonably prudent parent under similar circumstances … . However, schools and school bus companies are not insurers of their students' safety; rather, for liability to result, they must have notice of the specific dangerous conduct so as to render the injury foreseeable, as well as a reasonable opportunity to prevent it … .

Here, the bus defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they had no notice of any violent propensities or disciplinary problems on the part of the assailant. Rather, the assailant's act of punching the infant was sudden and unforeseeable, and any lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant's alleged injuries … . Braun v Longwood Jr High School, 2014 NY Slip Op 08595, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous

The Second Department determined a single step separating the carpeted dining area from the rest of the restaurant was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe manner … . However, a property owner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous … . Here, the defendants … submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the single step separating the carpeted dining area from the rest of the restaurant in which the plaintiff allegedly fell, which consisted of wooden flooring, was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . Dillman v City Cellar Wine, Bar & Grill, 2014 NY Slip Op 08598, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

Similar issue and result in Varon v New York City Dept of Educ, 2014 NY Slip Op 08633, 2nd Dept 12-10-14.

 

There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident—Plaintiff, to Prevail On a Motion for Summary Judgment, Must Demonstrate Both Defendant’s Negligence as a Matter of Law and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, in part, because she failed to demonstrate she was free from comparative fault.  Defendant's truck and plaintiff's vehicle were stopped side by side in two left-turn lanes. When the light turned green both vehicles turned left.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant's truck crossed into her lane during the turn, striking her vehicle.  The court noted that there was a question of fact whether the truck crossed into plaintiff's lane, as well as whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent (two possible proximate causes of the accident):

A driver is negligent if he or she violates Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) by, inter alia, failing to drive “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]…). However, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Accordingly, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, the deposition testimony of the parties, which the plaintiff submitted in support of her motion, was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The deposition testimony raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) by failing to drive the tractor-trailer “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane,” and whether negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff, who admitted that she was not aware of what the defendant driver was doing while she made her turn, contributed to the happening of the accident. Kaur v Demata, 2014 NY Slip Op 08607, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Action Dismissed Because Letters of Administration Had Not Been Issued to Plaintiff at the Time the Action Was Commenced

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the action because the plaintiff had not received letters of administration at the time the summons with notice was filed and because the plaintiff did not allege any injury to him individually.  The court also noted that the plaintiff did not have standing (no representative capacity at the time the action was commenced) to request more time to serve the complaint:

A personal representative who has received letters of administration of a decedent's estate is the only party who is authorized to commence a survival action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the decedent or a wrongful death action to recover damages sustained by the decedent's distributees on account of his or her death … . Here, at the time the action was commenced by the filing of the summons with notice, the plaintiff had not yet received letters of administration of the decedent's estate and, thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff in a representative capacity … . Moreover, although the action was commenced by the plaintiff, both individually and as “executor” of the decedent's estate, no cause of action asserted any injury or wrongdoing to him … . Thus, the Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff individually.

Moreover, as the plaintiff lacked standing to sue in his representative capacity at the time he commenced the action, he could not establish any meritorious basis to extend his time to serve the complaint … . Shelley v Sooth Shore Healthcare, 2014 NY Slip Op 08625, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

Sudden and Frequent Stops In Traffic Must Be Anticipated by Drivers

The Second Department, in finding no question of fact had been raised about the existence of a non-negligent explanation for a rear-end collision, explained the relevant law:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … .

“One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision [may be] a sudden stop of the lead vehicle” … . However, “vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” … . Le Grand v Silberstein, 2014 NY Slip OP 08608, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

Defendant Driver Could Not Avoid Striking Bicyclist Who Did Not Stop at a Stop Sign

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant re:  a bicycle/car collision in which the bicyclist was killed.  Defendant driver demonstrated plaintiff's decedent rode through a stop sign and there was no time to avoid the collision:

The defendant was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiffs' decedent would stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way to him … . Moreover, the evidence submitted by the defendant eliminated any triable issue of fact as to the defendant's alleged negligence in failing to avoid the impact … . The defendant established, prima facie, that he had only a second to react … . The evidence further established that, in an attempt to avoid impact, the defendant braked and slowed his vehicle to a stop immediately after impact. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Under the circumstances presented, the defendant's alleged failure to reduce speed or alter his direction prior to impact did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was negligent … . Yun Lu v Saia, 2014 NY Slip Op 08635, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Gun Found In Juvenile’s Shoe (After Juvenile Was Told to Remove His Shoes) Should Have Been Suppressed—Juvenile Could Not Be Arrested and Detained for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct Is Not a Crime) and Nothing More than a Frisk Is Justified During a Temporary Detention Pending the Arrival of a Juvenile’s Parents

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the search of the 15-year-old appellant (Jamal) was illegal and the gun found in appellant's shoe should have been suppressed.  The appellant, who had already been searched twice, was being wrongfully detained on a disorderly conduct charge (a violation, not a crime) at the time he was told to take off his shoes:

CPL 140.10 permits a police officer to arrest a person for any “offense” that is committed in the officer's presence. The term “offense” is broadly defined to include conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or a fine is provided by state or local law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Family Court Act § 305.2(2), however, provides that “[a]n officer may take a child under the age of sixteen into custody without a warrant in cases in which he [or she] may arrest a person for a crime . . . .” The term “crime” includes only misdemeanors and felonies, not violations (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Accordingly, a search may be conducted where a juvenile is taken into custody for conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime … . As disorderly conduct is not a crime, Family Court Act § 305.2(2) prohibited Jamal's warrantless arrest for that offense … . Based on this record, it is clear that upon learning that Jamal was a juvenile the police nonetheless kept him under arrest with no statutory authority for doing so. * * *

…[W]hen Jamal was being held pending his parents' arrival, he was under temporary detention as opposed to arrest. “A temporary detention justifies only a frisk, not a full-fledged search” … . The removal of Jamal's shoes was far more intrusive than a frisk or a patdown … . We find no merit to the presentment agency's argument that safety required the removal of Jamal's shoes. “The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness . . .” … . Considerations of safety provide no justification in this case where Jamal was continuously in police custody and had been searched twice before being directed to remove his shoes. It is of no moment that Jamal was directed to remove his shoes pursuant to an alleged standard procedure. “[A]n unreasonable search is not somehow rendered reasonable, and therefore constitutionally permissible, by the mere fact that a departmental procedure was followed” … . The standard of reasonableness still applies … . We recognize that in appropriate cases law enforcement officers are authorized to employ reasonable measures to guard against detainees' self-infliction of harm. Such reasonable measures may include the removal of belts and shoelaces … . Nonetheless, the removal of Jamal's shoes cannot be justified as a protective measure where, as noted above, he had been twice searched by police officers who had no reason to expect that he had “anything on him” or otherwise posed a danger. Matter of Jamal S, 2014 NY Slip Op 08470, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

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