You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Five-Month Delay In Disclaiming Coverage—Insurer Estopped

The Second Department determined the insurer’s delay in disclaiming coverage in a legal malpractice action prejudiced the attorney.  The insurer was therefore estopped from disclaiming coverage:

Where, as here, the matter does not involve death or bodily injury, the untimely disclaimer by an insurer does not automatically estop the insurer from disclaiming on the basis of late notice unless there has been a showing of prejudice to the insured due to the delay … . Although the court did not make a determination that [the attorney] was prejudiced by the defendants’ approximate five-month delay in disclaiming coverage, based upon this record, [the party injured by the alleged malpractice] made a sufficient showing of prejudice to [the attorney]due to the [insurer’s] late disclaimer such that the defendants are estopped from disclaiming coverage … .Moreover, the purported reason for the disclaimer of coverage was evident on the face of the original complaint, and did not require any additional investigation by the insurer … . The [insurer] failed to rebut this showing. B & R Consol LLC v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06287, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the property owner’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  Although the NYC Administrative Code exempts owner-occupied one- two- and three-family residential properties from liability for the failure to remove snow and ice from an abutting sidewalk, the property owner failed to demonstrate the property was owner-occupied:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . However, this liability shifting provision does not apply to the failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk of “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210[b]). The purpose of the exception is to recognize ” the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair'” … .

Here, the defendant property owner … failed to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the theory that he is exempt from liability pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210(b). Although there was evidence that the subject property was a three-family residence, [the owner’s] deposition testimony raises issues of fact as to whether the premises were “owner occupied” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 7-210(b)… . Medina v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 06302, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled

The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to justify the annulment of the marriage of an incapacitated person (Aldo D.). for whom a temporary guardian had been appointed, to the appellant:

…[C]lear and convincing evidence was presented at the hearing that Aldo D. was incapacitated … . Among other things, testimony was adduced that Aldo D. suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and the temporary guardian testified that he observed symptoms of dementia in Aldo D. For example, the temporary guardian related that Aldo D. did not seem to understand that he was being evicted from his apartment, and that he had married without intending to do so. The temporary guardian further testified that Aldo D. was very limited in his ability to walk and dress himself, and he could not cook for himself. He did not recognize his need for help. When questioned by the court, Aldo D. repeatedly denied marrying the appellant, said that he did not remember marrying the appellant, and did not want to be married to her. The appellant acknowledged during her testimony that they had, “to a degree,” two marriage ceremonies, because, at the time of the first ceremony, Aldo D. “wasn’t feeling well.” The evidence before the Supreme Court was legally sufficient to establish that Aldo D. was incapacitated. Because there was legally sufficient evidence presented to the Supreme Court establishing that Aldo D. was incapacitated, it was proper to annul the marriage between him and the appellant pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) … . Matter of Dandridge, 2014 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Risk of Slipping on a Diving Board Was Increased by Worn Traction Strips

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  Although the assumption of risk doctrine could apply to a slip and fall on a diving board, here the plaintiff alleged the traction strips on the board were unreasonably worn:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . One “obvious” risk inherent in the recreational activity of diving is the risk of being injured from slipping on the diving board’s surface and falling off the diving board … . In moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the allegedly dangerous condition, consisting of the depleted traction strips, did not unreasonably increase the abovementioned risk … . The defendant’s submissions, which included the transcripts of a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and the plaintiff’s deposition, demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition unreasonably increased that risk … . Freeman v Village of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 06298, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

,

Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements Required Dismissal of Action Seeking Review of Real Property Tax Assessments—Such a Dismissal is On the Merits

The Second Department determined dismissal of the proceeding questioning the assessment of a parcel of land was properly dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 708(3).  The court noted that such a dismissal is on the merits:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City had standing to seek dismissal of the proceedings based on the petitioner’s failure to give notice of the proceedings to the Superintendent of the District pursuant to RPTL 708(3) … .

As the petitioner correctly concedes on appeal, it failed to give notice of the proceedings to the Superintendent of the District pursuant to RPTL 708(3), and lacked good cause for its failure. * * *

Since a dismissal pursuant to RPTL 708(3) operates as a dismissal upon the merits, the relief afforded by CPLR 205(a) is unavailable … . Matter of Westchester Joint Water Works v Assessor of City of Rye, 2014 NY Slip Op 06208, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a default judgment in a foreclosure action:

” A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … . “Under CPLR 5015(a), a court is empowered to vacate a default judgment for several reasons, including excusable neglect; newly-discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction; or upon the reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior order” … .

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Indeed, the drafters of CPLR 5015(a) “intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but [*2]which the drafters could not easily foresee” … .

“The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” … .

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered on the default of the Cohen defendants “in the interests of substantial justice” … . The documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion raises issues including, among others, whether the plaintiff had “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue” … . Hudson City Sav Bank v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06177, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

Plaintiff Was Catapulted Into the Air from a Flatbed Truck When a Heavy Bundle Landed on the Plank He Was Standing On—Labor Law 240(1) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The Second Department determined that the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff was catapulted into the air when heavy bundles of rebar were being rolled off a flatbed truck.  A bundle landed on the plank plaintiff was standing on and the plank raised up sharply.  A hoist had previously been used to remove the bundles from the truck.  The court also noted that the common law negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action against one of the defendants should not have been dismissed because of a question of fact about the defendant’s supervisory role:

“Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . “The relevant inquiry—–one which may be answered in the affirmative even in situations where the object does not fall on the worker–—is rather whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … .

The launch of the plaintiff from the truck along with the wooden “four by four” plank upon which he was standing flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the bundle of rebar … . The elevation differential between the flatbed truck and the ground was significant given the 8,000-to-10,000-pound weight of the bundles of rebar, and the amount of force they were capable of generating, “even over the course of a relatively short descent” … .

The causal connection between the bundles’ “inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” was unmediated by any safety device, such as the crane that had hoisted the bundles earlier in the day … .

The plaintiff’s evidence established, prima facie, that the … respondents violated Labor Law § 240 by failing to provide an enumerated safety device, such as the hoist that had been provided earlier in the day to secure the bundle of rebar as it was being lowered, and that the Tillary respondents’ failure to provide an appropriate safety device was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury … . Treile v Brooklyn Tillary LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06197, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

, ,

Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants from Contribution Claim by Another Defendant to Whom the Governmental Defendants Owed a Duty of Care

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action against the governmental defendants (the “appellants”) based upon governmental immunity.  The appellants had referred one Smith to another defendant, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as a potential employee.  The appellants had agreed not to refer anyone with a criminal record to NACEC.  Smith was a sex offender who was hired by NACEC.  Smith sexually assaulted the plaintiff at the NACEC facility.  After explaining the relevant immunity criteria in depth, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the action against the appellants.  The Second Department also determined Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the cross-claims against the appellants by NACEC, noting that governmental immunity did not protect the appellants from a contribution claim by a defendant to whom the appellants owed a duty of care:

Here, the appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of governmental immunity by demonstrating that they did not voluntarily assume a special duty to the plaintiff … . Furthermore, the plaintiff does not allege that the appellants violated any statutory duty, and the appellants established that they did not assume positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation … .

“[A] defendant may seek contribution from a third party even if the injured plaintiff has no direct right of recovery against that party, either because of a procedural bar or because of a substantive legal rule. A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff. In such situations, a claim of contribution may be asserted if there has been a breach of a duty that runs from the contributor to the defendant who has been held liable” … . Here, the appellants agreed not to refer anyone to NACEC who had a criminal background. Nonetheless, Smith, who was a level three sex offender, was referred to NACEC by the appellants. Under these circumstances, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC … . Tara NP v Western Suffolk Bd of Coop Educ Servs, 2014 NY Slip Op 06189, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Record Did Not Demonstrate Defendant Understood His Miranda Rights—Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The People failed to demonstrate defendant understood his right to remain silent:

Contrary to the hearing court’s determination, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing was insufficient to establish that the defendant’s statements to law enforcement officials were made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Although the defendant’s refusal to sign the Miranda card did not, in itself, preclude the finding of a valid waiver …, the record was devoid of any indication that the defendant clearly understood his Miranda rights as read to him … . People v Barnes, 2014 NY Slip Op 06209, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Petition to Commence Action Against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Should Not Have Been Denied In the Absence of a Hearing

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have summarily determined a petition to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Insurance Corporation (MVAIC) and ordered a hearing.  Plaintiff alleged he was injured (while riding a scooter) by a driver who left the scene:

Here, while the petitioner sufficiently pleaded the prima facie elements necessary to commence an action against the MVAIC (see Insurance Law §§ 5217, 5218), the MVAIC raised questions of fact precluding summary determination of the petition. Based on the record before us, the issues of (1) whether the petitioner is an uninsured resident of New York, and, therefore, a “qualified person” pursuant to article 52 of the Insurance Law (see Insurance Law § 5202[b]), (2) whether the accident was reported to the police within 24 hours (see Insurance Law § 5218[b]; 5208[a][2][A]), and (3) whether the petitioner served a notice of claim upon the MVAIC within 90 days of the accident (see Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]), could not have been resolved without an evidentiary hearing … . Thus, the Supreme Court should not have summarily determined the petition (see CPLR 409, 410).  Matter of Hernandez v Motor Veh Acc Indem Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06203, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

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