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

 

, ,

County Could Seek Judicial Intervention Re: the Collection of a County Hotel Tax Without Exhausting Administrative Remedies—Constitutional Underpinning of Local Tax Laws Explained

The Second Department, in determining the plaintiff county was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies (and then commence an Article 78 proceeding) in order to seek judicial review of whether the defendant has been paying the correct amount of a county hotel and motel accommodation tax, explained the underpinning of local tax law in New York:

The appellants contend that the branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the first cause of action seeking enforcement of the Hotel Tax against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should have been granted because, inter alia, the Enabling Act required the plaintiff to exhaust certain administrative remedies before judicial intervention could be obtained, and that the plaintiff failed to do so.

In New York, local governments do not have an independent power to tax. The New York Constitution vests the taxing power in the State Legislature and authorizes the Legislature to delegate that power to local governments (see NY Const, art. XVI, § 1…). The New York Constitution places fundamental limitations on such delegations. The Legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute (see NY Const, art XVI, § 1…). In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation (see NY Const, art IX, § 2[c][8]…).

As a general rule, tax statutes should be strictly construed and limited to their terms, which should not be extended by implication … . Any ambiguity in a tax law should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing authority … .

Applying these principles here, contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing this action, and judicial review is not limited to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . County of Nassau v Expedia Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06049, 2nd Dept 9-1014

 

,

Seriousness of Injuries Warranted Allowing Service of Late Notice of Claim

The Second Department determined that the seriousness of plaintiff’s injuries justify granting leave to serve a late notice of claim:

In this case, the extremely serious and incapacitating injuries that the claimant suffered in the underlying car accident reasonably excused the minimal delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim against the County of Nassau (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). The record further demonstrates that the County acquired actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim within the 90-day statutory period or within a reasonable time thereafter …. Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the County was not prejudiced by the delay in serving the notice of claim … . Matter of Lopez v County of Nassau, 2014 NY Slip Op 05879, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

,

Case Against Non-Debtor Not Entitled to Automatic Stay

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s granting of a stay, explained the circumstances when cases by and against non-debtors can be stayed under the bankruptcy law (11 USC 362(a)):

“[T]he bankruptcy court can stay actions against any party, even a non-debtor, whenever the objective of the action is to obtain possession or exercise control over the debtor’s property. Unless a case involves unusual circumstances, however, the bankruptcy court cannot halt litigation by non-debtors, even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.

“The unusual circumstances in which the bankruptcy court can stay cases against non-debtors are rare. They typically arise where there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor. In other words, the automatic stay will apply to non-debtors only when a claim against the non-debtor will have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor’s estate” … . Bankdirect Captial Fin v Insurance Co of State of PA, 2014 NY Slip Op 05824, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

,

Allowing the Prosecutor to Tell the Jury in Summation that the Person Who Provided the Police with a Tip Must Have Identified the Defendant as the Perpetrator Was Reversible Error—The Prosecutor Effectively Told the Jury Another “Witness” Had Identified the Defendant, But that “Witness” Did Not Testify and Could Not, Therefore, Be Cross-Examined

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor, in summation, had improperly been allowed to tell the jury that the person who provided the police with a tip must have identified the defendant as the perpetrator.  Because the person who provided the tip did not testify, the defendant was effectively deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a “witness against him:”

During summation, the prosecutor strongly implied that whoever had provided the tip had implicated the defendant: “Someone calls 577-TIPS . . . . [The detective] gets this information and where does he go? 82-01 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, make a left out of the elevator. I’m looking for a guy named Rick who lives on the sixth floor. Ricardo Benitez.” After defense counsel’s objection to this remark was overruled, the prosecutor continued: “Gave Detective Lopez the following address. 82-01 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, 6B. Rick. Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Rick.” Defense counsel again objected, but the Supreme Court again overruled the objection.

The only purpose of the prosecutor’s improper comments was to suggest to the jury, in this one-witness identification case, that the complainant was not the only person who had implicated the defendant in the commission of the robbery (see People v Mendez, 22 AD3d 688, 689). Moreover, in overruling defense counsel’s objections, the Supreme Court “legitimized” the prosecutor’s improper remarks (People v Lloyd, 115 AD3d 766, 769). The defendant, of course, was given no opportunity to cross-examine the unnamed witness who had allegedly provided the tip … . The evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, so there is no basis for the application of harmless error analysis … . To the extent that the defendant failed to preserve the claim by specific objection, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and reverse the judgment … . People v Benitez, 2014 NY Slip Op 05890, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

, ,

Town Not Liable for Negligently Picking Up Personal Items from Driveway During Garbage Collection—Garbage Collection Is a Ministerial Function—No Special Relationship with Plaintiff

The Second Department determined the town was not liable for picking up items plaintiff had placed in his driveway to dry out after a storm.  The items were picked up as “bulk garbage” prior to the date bulk-garbage collection was slated to begin:

Garbage collection is considered a governmental function … . A municipality cannot be held liable for negligence in the performance of discretionary acts, but can be held liable for negligence in the performance of ministerial acts, if there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant … . The difference between ministerial or discretionary acts is described thusly: ” discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'”… . Garbage collection falls within the definition of a ministerial function.

A special relationship based upon a duty voluntarily assumed by the municipality requires proof of the following elements: ” (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking'” … . No facts were alleged indicating that the defendants undertook an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, no basis was alleged to impose liability upon the defendants, based on the negligent destruction of property. Katz v Town of Clarkstown NY, NY Slip Op 05843, 2nd Dept 8-20-14 

 

,

Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership Not Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have appointed a receiver to wind up the dissolution of a partnership because the criteria for the appointment (irreparable loss or waste of property) had not been met:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver to wind up the affairs of a partnership … and to liquidate and distribute its assets. “A party moving for the appointment of a temporary receiver must submit clear and convincing evidence of irreparable loss or waste to the subject property and that a temporary receiver is needed to protect their interests'” (…see CPLR 6401[a]…). Here, the plaintiffs failed to make a “clear evidentiary showing that property of the [partnership] was in danger of being removed from the state, or lost, materially injured or destroyed'” … . Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for the appointment of a temporary receiver should have been denied. Magee v Magee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05845, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

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