You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Driver of Lead Vehicle Entitled to Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

The Second Department determined that the defendant driver who was struck from behind was entitled to summary judgment.  The court explained the relevant law, noting that the bare allegation the lead vehicle stopped short is not enough to raise a question of fact about the negligence of the lead driver:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . “As a general rule, a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision'” … . This is true whether the lead vehicle is stopped or stopping … .

Where the movant has established his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party’s comparative fault … . A bare allegation that the lead vehicle stopped short is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence on the part of the driver of the following vehicle … . Billis v Tunjian, 2014 NY Slip Op 06044, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Denial of Variance Reversed–Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that the zoning board’s denial of an application for a variance was arbitrary and capricious:

In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board of appeals is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b]…). A zoning board must also consider “(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” (Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b]).

Here, although there was some support in the record for the conclusions of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Muttontown (hereinafter the Board) that the petitioners’ difficulty was self-created, and that the requested lot-depth variance was substantial, there was no evidence that granting the variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, adversely impact on physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community … . Matter of Quintana v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc Vil of Muttontown, 2014 NY Slip Op 06092, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability

The Second Department noted that a guilty plea in a criminal matter (in which plaintiff was injured by the defendant) can bar the convicted defendant from litigating liability in the related civil matter under the doctrine of collateral estoppel:

…[L]iability was established in accordance with the legal principle that ” [w]here a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of . . . liability'” … . Abdelzaher v Sallustio, 2014 NY Slip Op 06040, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Late Motion to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted–No Showing of Prejudice

The Second Department determined a late motion to amend a complaint should have been granted:

…[T]he plaintiff also proposed an amendment to add a cause of action which alleged facts setting forth a cognizable cause of action to recover damages sounding in intentional tort. This cause of action is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that this amendment would prejudice or surprise [defendants]… . Although the plaintiff delayed in making the motion for leave to amend, mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment—it must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side … . [Defendants] cannot claim significant prejudice, since the proposed amendment arises out of the same facts as those set forth in the first amended complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to file a second amended complaint, in effect, to add a cause of action to recover damages sounding in intentional tort … . Ciminello v Sullivan, 2014 NY Slip Op 06048, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Class Certification Not Available When Action Seeks Payment of a Nonwaivable Penalty

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent county’s request for class certification should not have been granted because the action sought payment of a penalty.  The county was seeking to act on behalf of 55 other governmental agencies to recover a “hotel tax” which allegedly was not fully paid by the appellants, online sellers of hotel accommodations:

Pursuant to CPLR 901(b), “Unless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action.” “However, even where a statute creates or imposes a penalty, the restriction of CPLR 901(b) is inapplicable where the class representative seeks to recover only actual damages and waives the penalty on behalf of the class, and individual class members are allowed to opt out of the class to pursue their punitive damages claims” … . Nonetheless, the “waiver” exception to CPLR 901(b) does not apply where a penalty is mandatory and cannot be waived … .

Here, the plaintiff cannot obtain class certification of this action because, under the plaintiff’s own Hotel Tax law, it is required to recover a “penalty” of 5% of the amount of the tax allegedly due from the appellants within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), the recovery of which in a class action is not specifically authorized in the Hotel Tax law, and the imposition of which cannot be waived, as conceded by the plaintiff’s representative during the deposition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR article 9 for class certification of this action. County of Nassau v Expedia Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06050, 2nd Depy 9-10-14

 

60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim

The Second Department determined the 60-day rule with respect to the submission of orders did not apply:

22 NYCRR 202.48, entitled “[s]ubmission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature,” states in pertinent part:

“(a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted.

“(b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown.”

Here, the so-called 60-day rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.48 is not applicable because the Supreme Court’s direction that the defendants submit a proposed order with respect to an award of an attorney’s fee did not specify that the proposed order be settled or submitted on notice … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants abandoned their claim for an award of an attorney’s fee by failing to comply with the 60-day rule is without merit. 47 Thames Realty LLC v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06051, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff’s Action—Defendant’s Alleged Default Irrelevant

The Second Department determined defendant’s default did not preclude the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to the collateral estoppel doctrine:

“The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party,” and “the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … .

Here, the defendant established that the decisive issues in this case were necessarily decided against the plaintiff in the prior case, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that prior determination. Thus, the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from maintaining this action. Although the defendant allegedly defaulted in answering the complaint in the instant action, even where such a default has occurred, a plaintiff is only entitled to a default judgment if the complaint states a viable cause of action … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has no viable cause of action against the defendant that would warrant entry of a default judgment against it … . Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06042, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

,

General Permit for Municipal Storm Water Discharge Does Not Violate Federal or State Law

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that a general permit issued by the NYS  Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to municipalities for storm water discharge violated federal and state law.  One of the principle objections to the general permit was that it did not ensure municipalities would set appropriate limits on storm water pollutants.  The decision is very detailed and cannot be briefly summarized here:

The petition organized the alleged violations of state and federal law into four general groups, asserting that:

(1) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities reduced their pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable, in violation of 33 USC § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) and ECL 17-0808(3)(c);

(2) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities complied with state water quality standards, in violation of ECL 17-0811(5) and ECL 17-0813;

(3) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities monitored their storm water discharges, in violation of 33 USC § 1318(a) and ECL 17-0815(8); and

(4) the General Permit did not provide for public participation in the permit process, in violation of 33 USC §§ 1251(e), 1342(a)(1), and 1342(j), and ECL 17-0805(1)(a)(ix). * * *

The General Permit at issue on this appeal is consistent with the scheme for general permits envisioned by the EPA, and is designed to meet the maximum extent practicable standard prescribed by 33 USC § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) and ECL 17-0808(3)(c). The General Permit requires entities seeking coverage to “develop, implement and enforce” a stormwater management plan designed to address pollutants of concern and “reduce the discharge of pollutants from the small MS4” to the maximum extent practicable, so as “to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the ECL and the Clean Water Act” (see General Permit at 14, 95). A stormwater management plan must, inter alia, identify and describe the chosen best management practices and include measurable goals for each such practice (see General Permit at 95). The General Permit provides applicants with resources, including examples of successful stormwater management plans, a “menu” of best management practices, and suggested measurable goals (see General Permit at 95).  Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council Inc New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 06090, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

City’s Operation of a Parking Garage is a Proprietary Not Governmental Function—City Can Be Sued For Failing to Provide Adequate Safety to Patrons

The Second Department determined a wrongful death action against the city alleging failure to provide adequate safety measures in a parking garage (owned and operated by the city) could go forward.  The court determined the operation of the garage was a proprietary function and the city could therefore be sued:

The security deficiencies alleged by the plaintiffs do not involve governmental functions or arise out of a pure “exercise of discretion . . . with respect to [overall] security measures and the deployment of limited police resources” … . The instant matter does not involve allegations of, for example, the lack of patrol cars or officers on foot patrolling the garage and the lack of general police protection …, “mobilization of police resources for the exhaustive study of the risk of terrorist attack, the policy-based planning of effective counterterrorist strategy, and the consequent allocation of such resources” …, participation by a teacher in supervising a playground as part of a school district’s overall security system strategy …, or a policy decision with respect to how the issue of homelessness should be addressed … . Rather, the gravaman of the complaint is not that the City failed to properly allocate government resources and services to the public at large, which was utilizing the garage, but that it failed in its capacity as a commercial owner of a public parking garage to meet the basic proprietary obligation of providing minimal security for its garage property via lighting, alarms, cameras, and warning signs. These measures are within the normal range of security measures necessary to satisfy the duty of care owed by any landlord or commercial property owner to its tenants or invitees. In the “continuum of responsibility to individuals and society deriving from its governmental and proprietary functions,” the lapses complained of encompass a failure to maintain the reasonable security measures expected of any landlord … .

Since the City acted in its proprietary, rather than its governmental, capacity here, we must consider the issue of whether or not the attack upon the decedent was foreseeable in light of a landlord’s duty to take minimal precautions to protect its tenants and invitees from foreseeable harm … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that triable issues of fact existed as to the foreseeability of an attack upon the decedent, thus precluding the award of summary judgment to the City … . Granata v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 06053, 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