You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Motion to Vacate Convictions Granted—People Failed to Provide “Brady” Material In Time for the Defense to Make Meaningful Use of It

The Second Department, pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, vacated the defendants’ convictions because of the People’s failure to turn over documents which would have aided the defense (a “Brady” violation).  Although the documents were provided at the time of jury selection, they were mixed in with a large volume of other documents which effectively deprived the defense of notice of their existence.  There was a “reasonable probability” the documents, had they been used at trial to impeach police witnesses, would have changed the outcome of the trial:

The People have an obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence, known as Brady material, in their possession which is favorable to the defendant and material to his or her guilt or innocence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87…). Such evidence is to be produced regardless of whether a defendant requests the material … . The prosecutor’s duty to exchange Brady material extends to the disclosure of evidence that can be used to impeach the credibility of a witness for the People whose testimony may be determinative of the defendant’s guilt … . Such material is to be turned over to the defendant in time for him or her to use it in a meaningful fashion during cross-examination or as evidence during his or her own case … .

In order to establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to him or her; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued because the suppressed evidence was material … . As to the element of materiality, where there was only a general request by the defendant at the time of trial for exculpatory material, evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different … . Here, the manner in which the prosecution turned over the documents, during the course of jury selection, deprived the defendants of a meaningful opportunity to employ that evidence during their cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses … . People v Wagstaffe, 2014 NY Slip Op 06217, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

Wrong Party Name Could Not Be Remedied by Service of an Amended Summons and Complaint—Supreme Court Could Not Grant Motion to Serve Amended Pleadings Because the Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over the Misnamed Party (Misnamed Party Never Served)—Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The pleadings named a trade name, not the correct name of the business. Supreme Court had allowed plaintiffs to serve an amended summons and complaint.  The Second Department determined Supreme Court never had jurisdiction over the defendant (because the defendant was never served) and the relation back doctrine did not apply:

The Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against “Summit Business Media,” as a trade name is not a jural entity amenable to suit … . In addition, under CPLR 305(c), “an amendment to correct a misnomer will be permitted if the court has acquired jurisdiction over the intended but misnamed defendant provided that . . . the intended but misnamed defendant was fairly apprised that [it] was the party the action was intended to affect . . . [and] would not be prejudiced’ by allowing the amendment” … . Here, because neither the appellant nor its predecessor-in-interest, Summit Business Media, LLC, were served with process, the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, and lacked the authority to grant leave to amend the summons and complaint … . Further, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the relation-back doctrine applied (see CPLR 203[b]…). Honeyman v Curiosity Works Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06176, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a medical malpractice action, finding that the conditional granting of defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from submitting evidence of neurological injuries and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars constituted abuse of discretion.  The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not “willfully and contumaciously fail to appear for a neuropsychological examination” by the defendants’ doctor and the amendment of the bill of particulars would not prejudice the defendants.  The court noted that the plaintiffs’ request to audiotape the neurophsychological examination was not supported by “special and unusual circumstances” warranting it:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure, including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . However, “before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the hospital defendants’ motion which was to conditionally preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of the injured plaintiff’s neurological injuries, since there was no clear showing that the injured plaintiff had willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for a neuropsychological examination. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the conduct of the plaintiffs or their attorney warranted the imposition of sanctions. * * *

“Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . Where there is an unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend, without excuse, and the motion for leave to amend is made close to or on the eve of trial, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the relief … . However, lateness alone is “not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … . In this case, the proposed amendment was first sought in September 2011. Since the hospital defendants and Roca were aware of the plaintiffs’ allegations well before the eve of trial, they were not prejudiced by the amendment. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars … . Dimouslas v Roca, 2014 NY Slip Op 06170, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Consent to Divorce In Exchange for Payments Would Violate Public Policy

In the course of a lengthy decision dealing with several other issues, the Second Department explained why an in-court stipulation was properly vacated, noting that defendant-wife’s consent to the divorce in exchange for financial payments could not be consideration for the stipulated agreement because such an agreement would violate public policy:

To be enforceable, an open court stipulation must contain all of the material terms and evince a clear mutual accord between the parties (see CPLR 2104…). The 2011 on-the-record agreement was too incomplete and indefinite to be enforceable, and was merely a non-binding agreement to agree … . The parties disagreed whether the proposal included a waiver of maintenance and they did not finalize the details of the transfer of the 1999 Trust. Other material terms were never agreed upon, and the agreement was subject to the consummation of future conditions and additional agreements.

The agreement also lacked consideration … . Accepting defendant’s consent to the divorce in exchange for the financial payments would have been against public policy … . In any event, the parties unambiguously agreed that “whether we hammer out the agreement or not, the divorce will go forward uncontested.” There is no merit to defendant’s claim that her decision to avoid a public trial on fault grounds constituted consideration because it would have brought up embarrassing and difficult questions for plaintiff concerning his financial dealings. Cohen v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06157, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

,

Paving Over Walk Where Plaintiff Fell Justified Striking the Answer and Granting Summary Judgment on Liability

The Second Department determined that the defendant’s paving over the walkway where plaintiff fell justified striking the answer and granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability:

“The nature and the severity of the sanction [for spoliation] depends upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the knowledge and intent of the spoliator, the existence of proof of an explanation for the loss of evidence, and the degree of prejudice to the opposing party” … . The determination of spoliation sanctions, whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent, lies within the broad discretion of the court … . “The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to'” prove its claim or defense … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the defendant’s answer and awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability since the defendant paved over the walkway after receiving notice that the plaintiff intended to inspect it and after his own expert was afforded an opportunity to inspect the walkway prior to it being covered in cement … . Lentini v Weschler, 2014 NY Slip Op 06062, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Language of Exclusion from Coverage, Including the Phrase “Arising Out Of” Was Not Ambiguous—Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Defendants

The Second Department determined the insurance policy unambiguously excluded coverage for actions stemming from the taking of property (eminent domain) and, therefore, the insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants:

The plaintiff is an insurance carrier that insured the Village and its officials for claims arising from public officials’ wrongful acts. However, the relevant insurance policy contained an exclusion for “[a]ny injury or damage arising out of or resulting from a taking that involves or is in any way related to the principles of eminent domain, inverse condemnation . . . or dedication by adverse use or by whatever name used.”  * * *

An insurer’s contractual duty to defend is liberally construed, and is broader than the duty to indemnify … . The duty to defend ” arises whenever the allegations in a complaint state a cause of action that gives rise to the reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy'” … . “The duty to defend is not triggered, however, when the only interpretation of the allegations against the insured is that the factual predicate for the claim falls wholly within a policy exclusion” … .

Policy exclusions “are subject to strict construction and must be read narrowly” …, and any ambiguities in the insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer … . However, unambiguous provisions of insurance contracts will be given their “plain and ordinary” meaning … .

In the context of a policy exclusion, the phrase “arising out of” is unambiguous, and is interpreted broadly to mean “originating from, incident to, or having connection with” … . A “but-for” test applies to determine the applicability of an “arising out of” exclusion … . In other words, if the plaintiff in an underlying action or proceeding alleges the existence of facts clearly falling within such an exclusion, and none of the causes of action that he or she asserts could exist but for the existence of the excluded activity or state of affairs, the insurer is under no obligation to defend the action … .

Here, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the remaining claims asserted by the … defendants in the underlying federal and state-court matters all arose out of “a taking that involves or is in any way related to the principles of eminent domain, inverse condemnation . . . or dedication,” a situation that is specifically excluded from coverage by the clear and unambiguous language of the policy … . Scottsdale Indem Co v Beckerman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06071, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Defendants Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Under the Storm in Progress Rule

The Second Department determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case pursuant to the “storm in progress” rule:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow and ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition … . “Under the storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents caused by snow or ice that accumulates on its premises during a storm until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm'” … . “However, once a property owner elects to engage in snow removal activities, the owner must act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, including certified climatological data and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, demonstrated, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident … . Furthermore, the defendants established, prima facie, that their efforts to remove snow and ice from the platform did not create a hazardous condition or exacerbate the natural hazard created by the storm … . Talamas v Metropolitan Transp Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 06196, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

“Temporary Substitute Vehicle” Not Excluded from Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy

The Second Department determined that the language of the policy did not exclude the driver (O’Brien) of a “temporary substitute” vehicle from coverage under the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) policy.  O’Brien, an auto mechanic, was injured when returning a customer’s “loaner” car to the dealer (at the customer’s request). O’Brien was named as an additional driver on the loaner vehicle agreement:

“Generally, it is for the insured to establish coverage and for the insurer to prove that an exclusion in the policy applies to defeat coverage” … . Whether the burden of proof rests on the insured to establish coverage, or on the insurer to establish an exclusion, rests on the language of the policy (see id. ). “Where the provisions of the policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and courts should refrain from rewriting the agreement. The policy must, of course, be construed in favor of the insured, and ambiguities, if any, are to be resolved in the insured’s favor and against the insurer” … .

Here, State Farm bears the burden of establishing that O’Brien’s use of a “substitute temporary car” was excluded from SUM benefits. The opening language of the SUM endorsement states: “This endorsement is a part of the policy. Except for the changes it makes, all other provisions of the policy remain the same and apply to this endorsement.” Moreover, the opening language of the policy states: “We define certain words and phrases below for use throughout the policy. Each coverage includes additional definitions only for use with that coverage.” The general definition section includes a definition of “temporary substitute car,” which is to be applied throughout the policy: “Temporary Substitute Car means a car that is in the lawful possession of the person operating it and that: 1. replaces your car for a short time while your car is out of use due to its: a. breakdown; b. servicing; c. repair; d. loss; or e. destruction; and 2. neither you nor the person operating it own or have registered.”

This Court has held that the purpose of a provision relating to a “temporary substitute” vehicle “is to afford continuous coverage to the insured during the period that a vehicle scheduled under the policy is out of commission, and at the same time limit the risk to the insurer to one operating vehicle at a time for a single, fair premium. Coverage for a substitute vehicle ceases when the insured vehicle is repaired and returned to its owner” … . Here, the SUM endorsement fails to articulate any exclusion for a “temporary substitute car.” Matter of State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v O’Brien, 2014 NY Slip Op 06096, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Emergency Doctrine Explained—Bicyclist Fell In Defendant’s Lane of Traffic–Question of Fact Whether Emergency Doctrine Applied

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the emergency doctrine relieved the defendant driver of liability for striking plaintiff bicyclist.  The bicyclist fell in defendant’s lane of traffic after striking the opening door of a parked vehicle.  The court explained the emergency doctrine as follows:

“The emergency doctrine holds that those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing alternate courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency” … . ” This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed'” … . “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party’s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” … .  Mohr v Carlson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06067, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Insurer Estopped (pursuant to Insurance Law 3420) from Disclaiming Coverage Re: Previously Incurred Defense Costs in a Personal Injury Action

The Second Department determined Insurance Law 3420(d)(2) applied and the insurer, Rutgers Casualty, was estopped from disclaiming coverage for previously incurred defense costs in connection with an underlying personal injury action:

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(d), an insurance carrier is required to provide its insured and any other claimant with timely notice of its disclaimer or denial of coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion, and will be estopped from disclaiming liability or denying coverage if it fails to do so … . Although Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) does not apply if the underlying claim does not involve death or bodily injury …, contrary to Rutgers Casualty’s contention, this provision is applicable where, as here, the coverage the defendant seeks to disclaim is for defense costs incurred in connection with an underlying personal injury action. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, inter alia, declaring that Rutgers Casualty was estopped from disclaiming insurance coverage under the Policy by submitting evidence that it failed to provide a timely written notice of this disclaimer to Key Fat, a claimant in this litigation … . In opposition, Rutgers Casualty failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Key Fat Corp vs Rutgers Cas Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06060, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

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