You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Procedure for Handling a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action When Documentary Evidence Is Submitted in Support of the Motion Explained—Attorney Discharged For Cause Is Not Entitled to “Quantum Meruit” Attorney’s Fees

In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, the Second Department explained the relevant analysis when documentary proof is submitted by a defendant in connection with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursunt to CPLR 3211(a)(7).  The action was brought by an attorney who had been discharged for cause by his clients prior to the settlement of a personal injury action:

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Where, however, a defendant has submitted evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one, and, “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, . . . dismissal should not eventuate” … . Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is warranted if the evidentiary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, even if the allegations of the complaint, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *

A client has the right to discharge his or her attorney at any time … . While an attorney who is discharged without cause before the completion of services may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit, an attorney who is discharged for cause is not entitled to any compensation or lien … . Here, the court held a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.13(b) with respect to the plaintiff’s cross motion for attorney’s fees. The court determined that the plaintiff was properly discharged for cause, and, therefore, was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit. Siskin v Cassar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07646, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly resolved conflicting contract provisions by reference to General Municipal Law 109-b (2) which governs installment contracts entered into by municipalities.  The contract concerned the operation of a waste disposal facility which closed before the bonds used to fund it were paid off.  The insurance company sought payment from the town’s sanitary district. The court held that the clauses in the contract which insulated the district from liability for the payments (if the funds were not appropriated) were enforecable:

Consistent with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 109-b(2)(f), which applies to installment contracts entered into by municipalities, section 24 of the lease between the District and NCIDA states that:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, (i) this Agreement shall be deemed executory only to the extent of the moneys budgeted and appropriated and available for the purpose of this Agreement, and no liability on account thereof shall be incurred by the District beyond the amount of such moneys, and (ii) it is understood that neither this Agreement nor any representation by any public employee or officer creates any legal or moral obligation to request, budget, appropriate or make available moneys for the purpose of this Agreement.”

Such clauses are intended to be utilized as a shield against the imprudent use of taxpayers’ dollars, and not as a sword to divorce the State, for purposes of its own convenience, from a contract fairly entered into and honestly performed … . Nevertheless, “even though a municipality may possess sufficient funds to satisfy a particular obligation, such funds cannot be deemed available’ if the expenditure thereof would be improvident” … .

Here, although in its lease with the NCIDA the District promised to seek appropriations sufficient to make the lease payments, the lease also repeatedly stated that the District’s liability for payments was conditioned upon the appropriation of funds. Indeed, the District’s promise to seek appropriations was tempered by the provision stating that it was required to do so only “subject to the provisions of Section 24 hereof.” Since “trumping language such as a notwithstanding’ provision controls over any contrary language’ in a contract,” the Supreme Court properly relied upon this section as the basis for its determination … . Frankenmuth Mut Ins v Waste Mgt of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07624, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)

The Second Department determined the evidence of “physical injury” suffered by Sergeant Klein , required for the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Sergeant Klein did not testify at trial. His medical records, which were admitted into evidence, indicated that he suffered a laceration to a finger on his right hand, with abrasions, pain, and swelling. While it is true that, to constitute physical injury, the pain caused by such a wound need not “be severe or intense to be substantial” …, it must, at a minimum, cause “more than slight or trivial pain” (id. at 447) or, to some extent, result in the impairment of the use of the finger (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]). No evidence was introduced that the injuries sustained by Sergeant Klein caused him more than trivial pain, or that the use of his finger was impaired by these injuries … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree under count two of the indictment must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Perry, 2014 NY Slip Op 07689, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Premarital Agreement Was the Product of Overreaching

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that defendant-wife had raised a question of fact about the validity and enforceability of the premarital agreement.  The agreement purported to resolve all financial issues in the event of divorce and entitled defendant-wife only to a payment of $25,000.00 for each year of marriage.  Plaintiff-husband had assets of $10,000,000.00 and defendant-wife had assets of $170,000.00 at the time of the marriage:

An agreement between spouses or prospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse … . Such an agreement may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct … .

There is evidence that the defendant was not represented by independent counsel in connection with the preparation and execution of the allegedly “take-it-or-leave-it” premarital agreement that is the subject of this appeal. In addition, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the preprinted financial forms executed by the parties do not demonstrate that they were expecting to enter into a premarital agreement, as the forms recite that they were furnished by a commercial bank in connection with an application for a mortgage. The defendant therefore raised triable issues of fact as to whether the premarital agreement was the product of overreaching, such that it would be rendered unenforceable … . Bibeau v Sudick, 2014 NY Slip Op 07608, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Appellant’s Running From Area Where Gunshots Were Heard and a Visible Bulge Under Appellant’s Clothing Provided Police With Reasonable Suspicion to Justify Stopping Appellant

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined that seeing the appellant running shortly after hearing gunshots, and seeing a bulge under appellant’s clothing, provided the police with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stopping the appellant.  The suppression of the weapon thrown down by the appellant, therefore, was not required:

Appellate courts have held under the same or similar factual circumstances that the police have reasonable suspicion to pursue an individual observed with a bulge at the waistband while in geographic and temporal proximity of gunshots, who then flees from the police … . The Court of Appeals has recognized that reasonable suspicion, and not probable cause, is the applicable standard in assessing a police stop or detention and that, in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, a defendant’s flight may be considered … .

Here, because the pursuit of the appellant was justified, the gun he discarded during the pursuit was not subject to suppression as a result of any unlawful police conduct … . Matter of Ya-Sin S, 2014 NY Slip Op 07672, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the installation of motorized window shades did not constitute “home improvement” and therefore plaintiff was not required to be licensed to perform the work.  If a license had been required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York, plaintiff would not have been able to recover under contract or quantum meruit:

“Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis” … . Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades in their condominium did not constitute “home improvement” work within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386(2)…). Rather, the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades constituted decorative work, which was not “incidental or related to” the separate home improvement renovations being performed by other contractors at the defendant’s condominium (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386[2]…). Schimko v Haley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07644, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department dismissed the indictment because the unexcused delay in seeking a DNA sample resulted in the violation of the speedy trial statute (CPL 30.30):

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the People’s contention, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA sample from the defendant, the 161-day period between June 5, 2009, and November 13, 2009, was not excludable on the ground that their need to obtain the DNA test results constituted excusable, exceptional circumstances (see CPL 30.30[4][g]…). Adding this period of time to the periods of delay correctly conceded by the People, the People exceeded the six-month period in which they were required to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 granted, and the indictment dismissed. People v Clarke, 2014 NY Slip Op 07680, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Insufficient Break Between Unwarned Statement and Subsequent Warned Statement—All Statements Suppressed/Appellate Court Cannot Consider Argument Not Raised by the People at Trial and Not Considered by the Trial Court

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that there was not a sufficient break between the unwarned portion of defendant’s statement and the subsequent warned statements to remove the taint of the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings.  The court noted that it was precluded from considering any theory supporting the admissibility of subsequent warned statements because the theory was not presented to the trial court by the People and was not considered by the trial court:

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events, there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . On this record …, it is clear that defendant’s two written statements, although produced after she had been Mirandized, were “part of a single continuous chain of events” that included the detective’s initial pre-warning inquiries and statement, defendant’s pre-warning acknowledgment that she knew why she had been brought in, and her pre-warning statement that she and the other alleged perpetrator had asked to use the victim’s phone outside the latter’s house. There was no time differential between the Miranda violation and the Mirandized interview that immediately followed, giving rise to the two written statements; the same police personnel were involved before and after the warnings; there was no change in the location or nature of the interrogation; and defendant had never indicated a willingness to speak to the police before the Miranda violation. Further, although the pre-warning exchange was very brief and did not include any admission by defendant of criminal conduct, her unwarned statements plainly tended to incriminate her by acknowledging that she knew something about the murder of an elderly woman and by placing herself at the scene of the crime with the victim and the other alleged perpetrator … .

Under the foregoing circumstances established by the record, it cannot be said that there was, between the Miranda violation and the making of the subsequent Mirandized written statements, such a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the Miranda violation” … by “return[ing] [defendant], in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” … . * * *

We note that we are precluded from considering whether the break of at least 2 hours and 45 minutes between the completion of defendant’s second written statement and the commencement of her videotaped statement (which began with renewed Miranda warnings administered by the assistant district attorney) sufficed to attenuate any taint from the commencement of the questioning before she was initially Mirandized and, therefore, to render the videotaped statement admissible. The hearing court’s decision denying suppression did not consider any such theory, which had not been raised by the People in opposition to the motion seeking suppression of all three recorded statements. Accordingly, under CPL 470.15(1), we are without power to affirm on the ground that the videotaped statement was admissible and that its admission rendered harmless the error in admitting the written statements … . People v Daniel, 2014 NY Slip Op 07568, 1st Dept 11-6-14

 

,

Dismissal of a Criminal Charge In the Interest of Justice Can Constitute a “Termination In Favor of the Accused” In the Context of a Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action

In affirming Supreme Court’s finding the actions time-barred, the Second Department explained when the one-year statute of limitations starts to run in false arrest (release from confinement), false imprisonment (release from confinement), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (date of arrest) causes of action.  Supreme Court had also dismissed the malicious prosecution cause of action on the ground that the “interest of justice” dismissal of the accusatory instrument in the underlying criminal case was not a favorable termination of the criminal action.  The Second Department disagreed, reinstated that cause of action and described the relevant analysis:

Here, the Supreme Court concluded that the underlying criminal proceeding, in which the accusatory instrument was dismissed in the interest of justice … , was not terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. This conclusion is incorrect. “[A]ny termination of a criminal prosecution, such that the criminal charges may not be brought again, qualifies as a favorable termination, so long as the circumstances surrounding the termination are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … .

In Cantalino [96 NY2d 391], the Court of Appeals considered whether the dismissal of a criminal proceeding in the interest of justice was a ” favorable termination'” for purposes of a malicious prosecution action … . The Court explained that there was no “per se rule that a dismissal in the interest of justice can never constitute a favorable termination” … . Rather, the Court set forth a “case-specific rule,” whereby the courts are to determine whether, “under the circumstances of each case, the disposition was inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … . In the case before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that the interest-of-justice dismissal constituted a favorable termination, citing the Criminal Court’s indication that it was dismissing the charges because they were unfounded … . It contrasted the case before it with a prior case, Ward v Silverberg (85 NY2d 993), in which it had found that an interest-of-justice dismissal was not a favorable termination of the criminal proceeding. The Court explained that, in Ward, unlike in Cantalino, the Criminal Court had “recognized that [the] plaintiff had committed the charged conduct, [but] it did not believe a criminal sanction was appropriate” … . Thus, “the criminal charges in Ward were dismissed out of mercy” … . A dismissal out of mercy “is fundamentally inconsistent with the accused’s innocence” … .

In the present case, the criminal charges against the plaintiff were not dismissed out of mercy. Rather, they were dismissed based upon “the weakness of the proof of guilt” … , a conclusion which is not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s innocence … . Bellissimo v Mitchell, 2014 NY 07464, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert

In affirming the conviction, the Second Department explained the discretionary criteria for qualifying an expert at trial, which does not necessarily depend upon formal training:

The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion … . “The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject” … . People v Dorvilier, 2014 NY Slip Op 07517, 2nd Dept, 11-5-14

 

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