You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

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

 

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.

 

,

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

 

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

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

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

 

,

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

 

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