You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the injunctive relief sought by defendants was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issues had been decided in a prior appeal of a related but separate action.  The court explained the respective burdens of proof as follows:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Zanani v Schvimmer, 2014 NY Slip Op 03680, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

Defendants Failed to Make Allegations Sufficient to Demonstrate a Lack of Constructive Notice of the Condition of a Floor Mat (Slip and Fall)—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Favor of Defendants

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied.  The defendants failed to make sufficient allegations demonstrating a lack of constructive notice of the condition of a floor mat:

To impose liability upon the laundromat defendants for the plaintiff’s fall, there must be evidence tending to show that those defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . To meet their initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the laundromat defendants must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … .

Here, the laundromat defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing their [*2]entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The laundromat defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that they inspected the mat within a reasonable time prior to the accident. Thus, they failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the mat … . Francis v Super Clean Laundromat Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03650, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

Same issue and result in Maloney v Farris, 2014 NY Slip Op 03663, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

Same issue and result in Rogers v Bloomingdale’s Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03675, 2nd Dept 5-21-14,  noting that evidence of the store’s general cleaning procedures without any specifics about when the area where the fall occurred was last inspected or cleaned does not raise a question of fact about a lack of constructive notice.

 

,

Expert Testimony Should Not Have Been Precluded Based Upon the Timing of the Disclosure—Short Adjournment Would Have Eliminated Prejudice—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have precluded expert testimony based upon the timing of the expert disclosure:

“CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) does not require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute, unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party'”… .

The defendants did not establish that the plaintiffs willfully or intentionally violated a court directive regarding expert disclosure … . Moreover, any prejudice to the defendants from late disclosure would have been limited, inasmuch as the defendants’ own engineer was present when the plaintiffs’ engineer conducted his inspection (\… . A short adjournment of this nonjury trial could have eliminated prejudice entirely … . Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ application for preclusion of the plaintiffs’ experts (see id.). Accordingly, a new trial is warranted. Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03644, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

No Basis for Liability of Snow-Removal Contractor Re: Slip and Fall

The Second Department determined a snow-removal contractor was properly granted summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about any of the three “Espinal” [98 NY2d 136] situations (which would allow recovery against a contractor with whom plaintiff does not have a contractual relationship):

The Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a party such as the defendant may be said to have assumed a duty of care, and thus potentially may be liable in tort to third persons such as the plaintiff: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . * * *

…[T]he plaintiff offered only speculation and conjecture in support of her contention that the defendant launched a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating the ice patch that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall …, or that the subject snow removal contract was a comprehensive and exclusive agreement which displaced Communicar’s duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition … . Javid v Sclafmore Constr, 2014 NY Slip Op 03656, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied

The Second Department noted that a hospital generally may not be held liable for the actions of a private attending physician (Simoncic) where the hospital employees merely carry out the orders of the private physician.  Here, however, there was evidence the attending physician’s order was contraindicated.  Therefore the hospital’s motion to dismiss was properly denied:

With regard to the Hospital’s potential liability, a hospital may not be held liable for injuries suffered by a patient who is under the care of a private attending physician chosen by the patient where the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital merely carry out the orders of the private attending physician, unless the hospital staff commits “independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” (Cerny v Williams, 32 AD3d 881, 883; see Cham v St. Mary’s Hosp. of Brooklyn, 72 AD3d 1003, 1004).

Here, the Hospital established, prima facie, that Simoncic was a private attending physician, and that its employees did not commit independent acts of negligence and that Simoncic’s discharge order that [the patient] be given a prescription for Levaquin was not contraindicated by normal practice. However, in opposition, the plaintiff, through her opposing medical expert’s affirmation, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the prescribing of Levaquin was contraindicated by normal practice … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Fink v DeAngelis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03648, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

Difference Between Law of the Case and Issue and Claim Preclusion Explained

The Second Department explained the difference between  the doctrines of law of the case and issue and claim and issue preclusion:

“[L];aw of the case rests on a foundation that . . . distinguishes it from issue and claim preclusion. Whereas the latter concepts are rigid rules of limitation, law of the case is a judicially crafted policy that expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is]; not a limit to their power. As such, law of the case is necessarily amorphous in that it directs a court’s discretion, but does not restrict its authority”… . Matter of Mazur Bros Realty LLC v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

, ,

Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College

The Second Department determined defendants security company (Secuitas), security guard (Jarrett) and college (Manhattanville) did not owe any duty to a taxi driver who was allegedly attacked and injured by students on a college campus.  The complaint alleged a security guard (Jarrett) was nearby and did nothing to intervene in the attack:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . Before an injured party may recover as a third-party beneficiary for failure to perform a duty imposed by contract, it must clearly appear from the provisions of the contract that the parties thereto intended to confer a direct benefit on the alleged third-party beneficiary to protect him or her from physical injury … .

The plaintiff here was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Securitas and Manhattanville, as the contract did not contain any express provision that it would protect individuals on the campus from physical injury or attack … . Securitas and Jarrett did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard … . Securitas did not assume a duty pursuant to the contract to prevent assaults, or to protect the plaintiff from physical injury inflicted by intervening third-party assailants … . As such, Securitas and Jarrett established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ramirez v Genovese, 2014 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson” Challenge Alleging the Prosecutor’s Exclusion of Jurors on the Basis of Race

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have proceeded to the second step of a “Batson” challenge alleging the prosecutor was excluding jurors on the basis of race.  The matter was sent back for a completion of the process:

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79), “[s];election procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice” (id. at 87). The first step under Batson requires a defendant to make a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” … . This first step “is not to be onerous,” and is satisfied “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred” … . When a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenged peremptory exclusions … .

The defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination based on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude the only two prospective jurors who were black, the same race as the defendant. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, under the circumstances of this case, those facts were sufficient to create an inference of purposeful discrimination in the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to strike the only two jurors in the venire who were black … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have proceeded with the second step and, if applicable, the third step of the Batson inquiry. People v Chery, 2014 NY Slip Op 03697, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Fraud—Plaintiff Agreed to Forgo Compensation for Work Done for Defendant in Return for a Stake in Defendant’s Business—Defendant Terminated the Relationship Without Paying Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for breach of contract and fraud.  The complaint alleged plaintiff had agreed to forego compensation for his construction and managerial work for defendant in return for a stake in defendant’s business.  The complaint further alleged defendant, after plaintiff had done the work, terminated the relationship without paying plaintiff:

The essential elements for pleading a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach … . According the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint alleged that the defendants breached the parties’ agreement and that, as a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover its normal fees and compensation for the subject work. …

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Where the gravamen of the alleged fraud does not arise from the mere failure of a promisor to perform his or her obligations under a contract, but arises from a promisor’s successful attempts to induce a promisee to enter into a contractual relationship despite the fact that the promisor harbored an undisclosed intention not to perform under the contract, a proper cause of action sounding in fraud may be stated. “[A]; false statement, promissory in nature, may be deemed the statement of a material existing fact, because it falsely represents the [declarant’s]; state of mind and the state of his [or her]; mind is a fact'” … . “There is no doubt that a misrepresented intention to perform a contract may constitute actionable fraud” … , and “a statement of present intention is deemed a statement of a material existing fact, sufficient to support a fraud action” … .

Here, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the third cause of action alleged that the defendants made a promise to give the plaintiff an equity stake in the maple syrup venture if the plaintiff agreed to forego its normal fees and compensation for the subject work, that the defendants made that promise while harboring an undisclosed intention never to give the plaintiff such an equity stake, and that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendants’ representation of intent by performing the subject work for them. These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud. Neckles Bldrs Inc v Turner, 2014 NY Slip Op 03668, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

Statement About Gang Affiliation Should Have Been Suppressed—Not Merely “Pedigree” Information

The Second Department determined that defendant’s statement about his gang affiliation should have been suppressed. The defendant had not yet been read his Miranda rights.  The People’s argument that the statement was simply part of so-called “pedigree” information (like “address” and “phone number”) was rejected.  The error was deemed harmless however.  People v Hiraeta, 2014 NY Slip Op 03698, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

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