You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

The Arresting Officer’s Stepping in Front of the Appellant As the Appellant Walked Away Was Not a Seizure But Rather Was a Continuation of the Officer’s Common-Law Right to Inquire

The Second Department determined the police officer who followed appellant as appellant walked away from him and then stepped in front of appellant acted properly.  Suppression of the handgun seized from appellant after a pat down search, therefore, was not required. The arresting officer responded to a call describing a disturbance at a restaurant.  The officer saw the appellant leave the restaurant and noticed a bulge in appellant's jacket pocket.  The officer then began following the appellant and eventually caught up to him (and stepped in front of him).  The court found that the officer's stepping in front of the appellant was not a seizure, but rather was a continuation of the officer's common-law right to inquire:

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the totality of the circumstances gave the officers a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, which gave rise to the officers' common-law right to inquire … . While the appellant is correct that, initially, he had a constitutional right ” to be let alone' and to refuse to respond to police inquiry” …, under the circumstances presented here, the arresting officer's conduct in following and stepping in front of the appellant in an attempt to engage him was a continuation of the officer's own common-law right to inquire, not a seizure … . Hence, the conduct of the arresting officer in this regard was not improper.

Moreover, although the appellant continued to walk away from the arresting officer, the arresting officer kept pace with him, and ultimately approached him until they were only an arm's length away from each other. As such, it was proper for the officer to request that the appellant make his hands visible as a reasonable precautionary measure … . Additionally, from this close proximity, the officer observed what appeared to be the outline of a firearm in the appellant's right jacket pocket, which appeared to be pointed at the officer, placing him in fear for his safety. The officer thus properly conducted a limited pat-down search to determine if the bulge was a weapon … . Matter of Shariff H, 2014 NY Slip Op 08435, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

Exclusion from Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Related Coverage Limitations In Policy Issued in Ohio Not Valid in New York

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the provision in a policy issued in Ohio to an Ohio resident which purported to exclude uninsured motorist coverage was invalid and unenforceable in New York:

The respondent, Robert Johnson, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which the car he was driving collided with another vehicle that failed to stop at a stop sign. The car he was driving was owned by Johnson’s sister, who lived in Ohio and was insured under a personal automobile liability policy issued in that state by the proposed additional respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). The policy contained an endorsement for uninsured motorist coverage, which provided for liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, but excluded from the definition of an insured any person who is insured for uninsured motor vehicle coverage under another vehicle policy.

When Johnson eventually made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy, State Farm disclaimed coverage on the ground that, inasmuch as records showed that Johnson had uninsured motor vehicle coverage available through a policy issued to him by the petitioner Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO), he did not meet the definition of an insured for purposes of uninsured motor vehicle coverage under the State Farm policy. * * *

GEICO’s counsel argued that the exclusion in the State Farm uninsured motorist endorsement is not valid in New York and, therefore, the State Farm policy should be deemed to have the full complement of coverage mandated by New York to make the State Farm coverage primary. …

“[I]nsurance policies, like all contracts, should be enforced according to their terms unless they are prohibited by public policy, statute or rule” … . “If an attempted exclusion is not permitted by law, the insurer’s liability under the policy cannot be limited” … . Here, the exclusion contained in the uninsured motorist coverage endorsement of State Farm’s personal automobile liability policy is not permitted by law. “Insurance Law § 3420(f)(1) requires that every automobile insurance policy contain an uninsured motor vehicle endorsement. Neither that statute nor any regulations applicable to it mentions any exclusions” … . Since the exclusion is “without the approval or protection of the law” …, it should not be given effect … .

Further, where, as here, the policy does not contain a term stating that coverage is limited to the statutory minimum, if such exclusion is found to be invalid, no such limitation will be read into the policy … .  Consequently, State Farm’s policy must be read as affording liability up to its full limits. Matter of Government Employees Ins Co v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08433, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the school district had a duty to protect or warn pedestrians concerning a “pole vault box” on a sports field.  Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell over the box. Plaintiff thought she was using a walkway but she was on the pole vault runway:

To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . A defendant has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous … . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact specific, and thus usually a question for the jury … . Whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances … . 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 … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the pole vault box was not inherently dangerous and was readily observable to individuals employing the reasonable use of their senses … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition, while open and obvious, constituted a trap for the unwary. In this regard, the plaintiff submitted photographs of the pole vault area and the affidavit of the injured plaintiff, wherein she stated that she had never been to this area of the athletic fields of the high school before, believed she was walking on a walkway, and was speaking to her daughter trying to determine which field to go to … . Julianne Oldham-Powers v Longwood Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 08411, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Wood Which Fell From a Shelf When Plaintiff Inadvertently Moved It Was the Condition for the Occurrence of the Event, But Not the Cause

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant school was entitled to summary judgment in a personal injury action brought by a student.  The student had been injured when he inadvertently caused wood stored on a shelf to fall on him.  The Second Department determined the wood on the shelf was the condition for occurrence of the event but not the cause:

“In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that a defective condition existed and that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “It is true that whether a certain condition qualifies as dangerous or defective is usually a question of fact for the jury to decide” … . “However, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous” … .

Here, the defendants established prima facie that there was no evidence of a dangerous or defective condition that caused the injured plaintiff's accident. The injured plaintiff testified at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that he, in effect, inadvertently pushed the two two-by-four pieces of wood off the shelving unit with the stick. Under these circumstances, the presence of the two-by-fours resting atop the shelving unit “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event,” but was not one of its causes… . Rant v Locust Val High School, 2014 NY Slip Op 08415, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction for Letters of Administration Re: the Estate of an Incapacitated Person—In Resolving the Dispute the Appellate Court Discussed the Authority of a Public Administrator As Well As Surrogate’s Court’s Jurisdiction and the Decedent’s Domicile

The Second Department dealt with many issues which resulted from the public administrators in two counties applying for letters of administration re: the estate of an incapacitated person, a resident of Kings County who had moved from a nursing home in Kings County to a nursing home in Richmond County, where she died.  The administrator to whom the letters were issued first (Stein in Kings County) prevailed.  The court was asked to resolve many questions concerning a public administrator's authority, as well as questions concerning jurisdiction and domicile (not all of which are mentioned here):

Stein has exclusive authority to administer the decedent's estate pursuant to SCPA 704. That section provides, in part, that “[a] person who applies in good faith therefor, and to whom letters are first issued from a court having jurisdiction to issue them, has exclusive authority under the letters until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]). Here, letters of administration were first issued to Stein by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and the record supports Stein's assertion that he had applied in “good faith” for letters of administration, without notice or knowledge of the petition filed in Richmond County (SCPA 704). Further, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to Stein. Since the decedent was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of her death, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the decedent's estate (see SCPA 205 [1]).

…[T]he Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack personal jurisdiction over certain alleged distributees of the decedent. Pursuant to SCPA 1003(2), “[e]very eligible person who has a right to administration prior or equal to that of the petitioner and who has not renounced must be served with process upon an application for letters of administration” (emphasis added). However, “[w]here the right of the applicant for letters of administration is superior to the right of other persons interested in the estate, process need not issue and letters will be granted upon a proper petition and due qualification” (1-13 NY Practice Guide: Probate & Estate Admin § 13.08; see Margaret Valentine Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1003 at 46-47). Further, SCPA 1001 mandates the issuance of letters of administration to the public administrator where the only known distributees of a decedent are “issue of grandparents, other than aunts or uncles, on only one side” (SCPA 1001[1][f][ii]). * * *

…[T]he county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of her death is not determinative here. Since Stein had “exclusive authority” to administer the decedent's estate under the letters of administration issued by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, “until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]), improper venue would not be a valid ground for revocation of those letters of administration. “Since domicile is a waivable and nonjurisdictional concept, if a court mistakenly, without objection, exercises jurisdiction over the estate of a domiciliary of another county, its decree is not vulnerable to direct or collateral attack for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (…1-2 Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice § 2.12).

In any event, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, correctly determined that the decedent was domiciled in Kings County at the time of her death. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). ” The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . “The law is well settled that an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired,” and “[i]t is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change of domicile to demonstrate such a change by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To meet this burden, the movant must establish the decedent's intention to effect a change of domicile from her [or his] acts, statements, and conduct” (id.), and ” [t]he element of intent is essential'” … . Thus, generally, “an incapacitated person's admission into a health-care facility does not cause a change of domicile if the incapacitated person is unable to express an intention to establish a new domicile” … . Here, [the Richmond County public administrator] failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent changed her domicile from Kings County to Richmond County, inasmuch as the record reveals that the decedent lacked the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile … . Further, the mere fact that [the guardian of decedent's person was] given the authority to choose the decedent's “place of abode,” does not warrant the conclusion that [guardian] had any authority to change the decedent's domicile … . Matter of Bonora, 2014 NY Slip Op 08425, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Grand Larceny 4th and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property 4th, as Those Statutes Relate to Credit/Debit Cards, Require the Theft and Possession of the Physical Card Itself, Not Merely the Unauthorized Use of the Credit/Debit Card Number—Other Offenses in the Penal Law Criminalize the Unauthorized Use of Credit/Debit Card Numbers

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined that the crimes of grand larceny (4th degree) and criminal possession of stolen property (4th degree), as they relate to credit/debit cards, require the theft and possession of the physical card, not simply the use of the card number to make a purchase.  [The 1st Department recently reached the opposite conclusion.]  Here the juvenile (Luis) used his grandfather’s debit card number to purchase sneakers.  The Second Department noted that there are provisions of the penal law which criminalize the unauthorized use of credit/debit card numbers (without physical possession of the card), but those crimes were not charged here:

…[G]iven the text of the provisions at issue, the context of the law and its development over the years, we agree with Luis and the Presentment Agency that “debit card” as used in Penal Law §§ 155.30(4) and 165.45(2) means the physical card, not the intangible account information associated with it. We also agree that, at bottom, this case involves errors made when the petition was drafted. Luis’s acts undoubtedly violated provisions of the Penal Law, but not the provisions charged in the petition.

A person who appropriates account information is not immune from punishment. The legislature has enacted laws to protect account information, in addition to the laws relating to the cards themselves. Specifically, in chapter 619 of the Laws of 2002, the legislature amended or added sections to various statutes in order to address the problem of people who engage in identity theft or use other people’s personal information without authorization. That legislation added the crimes of identity theft in the third, second, and first degrees (Penal Law §§ 190.78, 190.79, and 190.80), as well as unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third, second, and first degrees (Penal Law §§ 190.81, 190.82, and 190.83). Later, the legislature added “aggravated identity theft” (Penal Law § 190.80-a; see L 2008, ch 226, § 2). These provisions, similar to the provisions at issue in this case, make the criminal possession of account information a completed crime; no proof is required that the information was actually used.

One of the crimes added in 2002, unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree (Penal Law § 190.81), directly proscribes what Luis did in this case when he used his grandfather’s debit card number, without permission, to buy sneakers * * *:

Thus, just as the legislature added credit cards to the penal provisions of the law when the use of credit cards became widespread, and added debit cards when the use of debit cards became widespread, it also added provisions related to the unauthorized possession of the intangible account information when technology demanded.

We also note that crimes relating to the theft or possession of cards or account information are distinct from the crimes committed when the cards or account information are subsequently misused; the subsequent misuse is an additional crime, distinct from the taking of the card or the obtaining of the numbers … . Matter of Luis C, 2014 NY Slip Op 08428, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business

The Second Department noted that the power to wind up a partnership (here BDF) is held by the surviving partner (here 6D) and cannot be exercised by the representative of a deceased partner (here Mrs. Benedict):

Under Partnership Law § 68, “[u]nless otherwise agreed the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not bankrupt, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs; provided, however, that any partner, his [or her] legal representative, or his [or her] assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court.” Further, on the death of a partner, “his [or her] right in specific partnership property vests in the surviving partner or partners, except where the deceased was the last surviving partner, when his [or her] right in such property vests in his [or her] legal representative” (Partnership Law § 51[2][d]…). The representative of a deceased partner is not entitled to participate in or interfere with the continuation of or winding up of partnership business by the surviving partner … .

Based on this authority, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, 6D was the only entity with a legal right to wind up BDF's business affairs because 6D was the only surviving partner. Moreover, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, the estate had no legal right to BDF's assets, books, records, or business. Rather, all rights to such property vested immediately in 6D, which was the only entity authorized to wind up BDF's business.  Neilson v 6D Farm Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08409, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

Operative Principles Re: a Collision Where Plaintiff Has the Right-of-Way Explained

In finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment, the Second Department explained the law surrounding a collision where plaintiff had the right-of-way:

A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey traffic laws which require them to yield (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141…). Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a movant seeking summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing that he or she is free from comparative fault … . “Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Smith v Omanes, 2014 NY Slip Op 08418, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Bicyclist Assumed Risk of Injury While Jumping His Bicycle Off a Dirt Mound on a Dirt Bike Trail In a Park

The Second Department determined plaintiff-bicyclist assumed the risk of injury while jumping his bicycle off a dirt mound on a dirt bike trail in a park:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the activity … . Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, [the] plaintiff has consented to them and [the] defendant has performed its duty” by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … .

In support of their motion, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries by voluntarily jumping his bicycle from the subject dirt mound, and that the plaintiff was fully aware of the condition of the mound at the time of the accident, as he successfully jumped off the mound twice prior to the accident… . Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08406, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury

The Second Department determined a personal injury action was properly dismissed because the condition which led to plaintiff's injury (a five-foot drop from the top of a retaining wall to the sidewalk) was not the cause of the accident.  Infant plaintiff lost control of her bicycle, left the path, and was injured when she went over the top of the retaining wall and fell to the sidewalk:

Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact …, “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff, demonstrated that the accident was proximately caused by the infant plaintiff's failure to control her bicycle and the failure of the bicycle's brakes … . The retaining wall, which was erected a considerable distance from the portion of the paved pedestrian path from which the infant plaintiff deviated, merely furnished the condition or occasion for the infant plaintiff's accident, and was not one of its causes … . Any alleged negligence in the design, maintenance, or management of the retaining wall did not proximately cause the subject accident … . Rattray v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08416, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

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