You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury

Over a dissent, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s failure to replace a manhole cover was the sole proximate cause of his injury:

As to Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks, liability would attach where a violation of that duty proximately caused injuries … . Conversely, where a plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident or injury, no liability attaches under the statute … . Where a plaintiff has an adequate safety device readily available that would have prevented the accident, and for no good reason chooses not to use it, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply … .

Here, plaintiff was provided with the perfect safety device, namely, the manhole cover, which was nearby and readily available. He disregarded his supervisor’s explicit instruction given that day to replace the cover before dismantling the enclosure. Plaintiff has not afforded any good reason why he started taking apart the enclosure before ascertaining whether the cover was in place. Having just emerged from it, plaintiff should have known that the manhole was still open, and covering it at that time would have avoided the accident. Barreto v Metropolitan Transp Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 07118, 1st Dept 10-31-13

 

,

Seizure of Property for Construction of Firehouse Okay

The Second Department affirmed the eminent-domain seizure of petitioner’s property (under EDPL article 2) for construction of a firehouse:

“The principal purpose of EDPL article 2 is to insure that an agency does not acquire property without having made a reasoned determination that the condemnation will serve a valid public purpose” … . Judicial review of a condemnation determination is limited to whether the proceeding was constitutional, whether the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor’s statutory jurisdiction or authority, whether the determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and whether a public use, benefit, or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition (see EDPL 207[C]…). Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any basis for setting aside the Common Council’s determination.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record shows that the determination to condemn a portion of its property is rationally related to the stated public purpose and that such public purpose is dominant … . ” [T]he fact that an intended public use confers incidental benefit to private persons or entities will not invalidate the condemnation'” … . Matter of Peekskill Hgts Inc v City of Peekskill Common Council, 2013 NY Slip Op 07046, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

Failure to Serve Superintendent of Schools in Accordance with RPTL Required Dismissal of Property Tax Certiorari Proceeding

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated an order which directed the school district to repay back taxes for 2006 through 2010 on the ground that the superintendent of schools was not properly served in the tax certiorari proceeding:

It is undisputed that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 708(3) which provide, in pertinent part, that in a tax certiorari proceeding, within 10 days after service upon the Assessor, “one copy of the petition and notice shall be mailed . . . to the superintendent of schools of any school district within which any of part of the real property on which the assessment to be reviewed is located.” RPTL 708(3) further provides that “[f]ailure to comply with the provisions of this section shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless excused for good cause shown.” RPTL 708(3) requires a petitioner to show good cause to excuse its failure to notify the appropriate school district, and not merely to demonstrate the absence of prejudice to that school district … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it failed to establish good cause for its failure to serve the petitions on the School District … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s cross motion [for leave to make late service] (see CPLR 2004, 2005; RPTL 708[3]…). Matter of Cornwall Yacht Club, Inc. v Assessor, 2013 NY Slip Op 07039 [110 AD3d 1070], 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

No Justification for Vacation of Arbitration Award—Strict Standard Applies

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred in vacating an arbitration award in a case involving an uninsured motorist endorsement. Petitioner had won a $25,000 (default) civil judgment against the driver, but in the arbitration under the uninsured motorist endorsement, the arbitrator awarded $10,000:

The Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitration award. “[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . ” An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator “offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached”‘” … . In addition, an “arbitrator’s award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice” … . “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” … . Insofar as is relevant to the instant proceeding, pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii), a court may only vacate an arbitration award if the rights of the party moving to vacate the award were prejudiced by the arbitrator “exceed[ing] his [or her] power or so imperfectly execut[ing] it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” “Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … .

Here, the terms of the SUM endorsement clearly provide that any sum [the insurer] was obligated to pay the petitioner, which the petitioner was legally entitled to recover, was subject to arbitration, and that the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s award.  Matter of Aftor v Geico Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07032, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

No Fiduciary Duty Re: Purchase of One Shareholder’s Stock by Another in a Close Corporation

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on one shareholder’s purchase of another shareholder’s stock in a close corporation, the Second Department noted that the status of an officer, director or shareholder of a close corporation does not, without more, create a fiduciary relationship:

“The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct” … . “A fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for . . . the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation” …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, [the purchaser’s] status as an officer, director, or shareholder of a close corporation “does not, by itself, create a fiduciary relationship as to his individual purchase of [another shareholder’s] stock” … .  Varveris v Zacharakos, 2013 NY Slip Op 07028, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing as a Youthful Offender—No Statute Allows Such an Appeal

In dismissing the People’s appeal, the Second Department explained that there was no statutory right for an appeal of the judge’s vacating defendant’s conviction and sentencing defendant as a youthful offender.  The only vehicle for the People was an article 78 prohibition proceeding:”

The Criminal Procedure Law expressly enumerates and describes the orders appealable by the People to the Appellate Division in a criminal case (see CPL 450.20…), and “[n]o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute” … . As no statute authorizes an appeal by the People to the Appellate Division from an order, in effect, vacating a conviction and adjudicating a defendant a youthful offender (see CPL 450.20), the People’s appeal must be dismissed …. The proper vehicle for challenging the Supreme Court’s determination is a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition… . People v Tony C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07055, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Anders Brief Rejected

In finding an “Anders” brief insufficient, the Second Department wrote:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to adequately recite the underlying facts in the case and analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” …, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant… . People v Francis, 2013 NY Slip Op 07058, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

Curtailing of Defense Counsel’s Summation Argument Re: Lack of Motive Was (Harmless) Error

Although the Second Department found the error harmless, the court noted that the trial court improperly curtailed defense counsel’s summation argument concerning the lack of a motive.  People v Papas, 2013 NY Slip Op 07065, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Admission of Cell-Phone-Location Data Did Not Required Frye Hearing; Prior Crime Evidence Properly Admitted to Prove Defendant’s Identity as Perpetrator of Charged Crime

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mastro, the Second Department affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction.  One piece of evidence against the defendant was location-data based on the use of defendant’s cell phone.  The Second Department determined there was no need for a Frye hearing before expert testimony about cell-phone location was presented because no novel scientific theory was involved. The Second Department also determined prior crimes demonstrating a similar unique pattern to that of the charged offense were admissible to prove identity.  With respect to some of the prior crime evidence, which did not sufficiently match the pattern of the charged crime to be admissible on the issue of identity, the erroneous admission of that evidence was deemed harmless. In discussing the prior-crime evidence, the court wrote:

In this case, the evidence of other crimes was offered to establish the defendant’s identity as [the victim’s] killer. Such evidence may be admitted if, as a threshold matter, the defendant’s identity is in issue and is not “conclusively established” by other evidence …, and it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is the same person who committed the other crimes …. Here, it cannot be said that the defendant’s identity as the killer was conclusively established so as to warrant the preclusion of other crimes evidence to prove identity. Indeed, while the evidence that the defendant was the person who killed [the victim] was compelling, it was also entirely circumstantial. Moreover, the defendant vigorously contested the identification issue and presented as a defense the assertion that his employer… had been the actual killer. Thus, the identity of the murderer was a disputed issue in the case, and any admissible evidence tending to establish identification was relevant… . People v Littlejohn, 2013 NY Slip Op 07063, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

Judge’s Failure to Comply with CPL Re: Response to Jury Note Required Reversal

The Second Department held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Criminal Procedure Law 310.10 with respect to responding to a note from the jury concerning accomplice liability required reversal (despite the absence of an objection):

A new trial is required due to the trial court’s failure to meaningfully comply with CPL 310.10. During deliberations, the jury sent four notes to the trial court. The record reflects that, on the fourth occasion, the court did not disclose the contents of the note to the prosecutor and defense counsel until serially reading, and immediately responding to, the questions contained therein in the presence of the jury. All three of the questions in this note concerned the subject of accomplice liability.

The jury’s requests for further explanation of the meaning of accomplice liability within the context of this case required a “substantive response”, rather than a merely “ministerial” one … . As such, the trial court’s failure to afford defense counsel “the opportunity to provide suggestions” … regarding the court’s responses to the jury’s questions constituted “a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal” …, despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s handling of the jury’s fourth note … .  People v Gadson, 2013 NY Slip Op 07059, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

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