You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity

The Second Department noted that a corporation must be represented by counsel and an answer submitted by a corporation pro se was a nullity:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in accepting an untimely, pro se answer from the defendant corporation, and in thereby denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment on the complaint. The proffered answer was a nullity, since a corporation must be represented by an attorney and cannot proceed pro se (see CPLR 321[a]…). Boente v Peter C Kurth Off of Architecture & Planning PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00473, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

, ,

Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Applied In Civil Suit Alleging Sexual Abuse Where Defendant Pled Guilty to Offenses Described in the Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied where the issues raised in a civil suit, based upon allegations of sexual abuse to which the defendant pled guilty, were identical to the offenses described in the plea transcript. The doctrine, however, did not apply to the civil allegation of rape because the defendant did not plead guilty to rape:

“Where 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 his liability” … . The doctrine applies whether the conviction resulted from a plea or a trial … . “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” … . Morrow v Gallagher, 2014 NY Slip Op 00489, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

Society Supporting Protection of Preservation Area Had Standing to Challenge Waiver Allowing Business to Operate in Area

The Second Department determined that the petitioners had standing to challenge the planning commission’s determination that the respondents should be granted a hardship waiver (Environmental Conservation Law 57-0121(10)) to continue a commercial landscaping and horticultural services business in a preservation area (Long Island Central Pine Barrens).  Richard Amper, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Long Island Barrens Society, Inc, opposed the granting of the waiver and brought the underlying Arcticle 78 proceeding.  The Second Department determined the respondent had met the requirements for a hardship waiver.  On the question of standing, the Second Department wrote:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in holding that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the determination. Whether an organization or association has standing involves the application of the three-pronged test set forth in Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d 761). As pertinent to this appeal, the first prong of that test requires that the organization or association demonstrate that “one or more of its members would have standing to sue” as an individual (id. at 775). An individual has standing where he or she “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” (id. at 774) and “the in-fact injury of which [he or she] complains . . . falls within the zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (id. at 773 …). In Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany (13 NY3d 297), the Court of Appeals held that, in land-use and environmental cases, “a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing . . . to challenge government actions that threaten that resource” (id. at 301). Here, the petitioners established that Amper, in both his individual and professional capacities, uses and enjoys the Pine Barrens to a greater degree than most other members of the public. The fact that Amper lives some distance from the property in question is not dispositive (see id. at 305…). Further, the petitioners established that the threatened injury to Amper caused by development within the core preservation area of the Central Pine Barrens falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act of 1993 (L 1993, ch 262) (hereinafter the Act) … . Thus, Amper has standing to sue individually, and his standing satisfied the first prong of the test for the Society’s organizational standing. The Society meets the second and third prongs of the organizational standing test, namely that its interests in the instant proceeding are germane to its purposes, and that “neither the asserted claim nor the appropriate relief requires the participation of the individual members.” Therefore, the Society also has standing to challenge the Commission’s determination (id. at 775). Matter of Long Is Pine Barrnes Socy, Inc v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 00511, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

Parked Garbage Truck Furnished Condition for the Accident, But Was Not Proximate Cause of the Accident

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed because the accident was caused by plaintiff’s failure to see what he should have seen.  Plaintiff’s vehicle struck a garbage truck which was stopped partially in the roadway:

Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the jury …, liability may not be imposed upon a party who “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event” but was not one of its causes … . Here, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidentiary proof that [defendant’s] conduct in stopping his truck partially in the roadway merely furnished the condition for the accident, but was not a proximate cause thereof… . Lee v D Daniels Contr Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 00487, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause/Defendants Did Not Establish Freedom from Comparative Fault

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have dismissed causes of action against a restaurant and a valet parking service.  Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed as she attempted to cross the street when defendant driver passed cars double-parked in front of the restaurant:

” There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident'” … . Thus, ” the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law'” … . The issue of comparative negligence is generally one for the trier of fact … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants each failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. On this record, even assuming, arguendo, that the actions of [the driver] and the decedent were negligent and were proximate causes of the accident, the evidence submitted by [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants, in support of their motion and cross motion, respectively, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether those defendants were free from comparative fault….  Spadaro v Parking Sys Plus, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00494, 1st Dept 1-29-14

 

Contract of Adhesion/Unconscionable-Contract Cause of Action Should Have Survived Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a hearing was required on respondents’ motion to dismiss the cause of action which alleged a contract of adhesion.  The action was brought against the respondents-operators of “three-quarter houses” by residents who had committed their housing allowances to the operators only to find themselves (according to the complaint) “living in abject and overcrowded conditions with no support services on site:”

A contract of adhesion contains terms that are unfair and nonnegotiable and arises from a disparity of bargaining power or oppressive tactics'” … . ” A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made'” … .

“In determining the conscionability of a contract, no set weight is to be given any one factor; each case must be decided on its own facts” … . “However, [in general, it can be said that] procedural and substantive unconscionability operate on a sliding scale; the more questionable the meaningfulness of choice, the less imbalance in a contract’s terms should be tolerated and vice versa” … . ” The determination of unconscionability is a matter of law for the court to decide'” … . ” Where there is doubt . . . as to whether a contract is fraught with elements of unconscionability, there must be a hearing where the parties have an opportunity to present evidence with regard to the circumstances of the signing of the contract, and the disputed terms’ setting, purpose and effect'” … . ” However, [w]here the significant facts germane to the unconscionability issue are essentially undisputed, the court may determine the issue without a hearing'” … . “Thus, on a motion for summary judgment, [t]he question . . . then is whether the record presents an issue as to the existence of unconscionability which should not be resolved without a hearing'”… . * * *

…[T]he plaintiffs submitted … affidavits of residents who signed the agreements in question and who stated that they signed the subject agreements under conditions that were procedurally unconscionable. Under these circumstances, a hearing was warranted on the issue of unconscionability, and as such, summary judgment should have been denied… .  David v #1 Mktg Serv Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00477, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that parolees are “in custody” within the meaning of the 2011 amendments to the Drug Law Reform Act and, therefore, parolees may move for resentencing under the act:

In 2011, a New York State budget enactment consolidated and modernized several state agencies and created new departments (see L 2011, ch 62). This legislation merged the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole into a single agency, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (see id.). At that time, CPL 440.46(1) was amended by changing “department of correctional services” to “department of corrections and community supervision,” so that now “[a]ny person in the custody of the department of corrections and community supervision,” otherwise qualified, could apply to be resentenced (CPL 440.46[1]). People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00524, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

,

Counsel’s Expressed Objections to His Client’s Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea Required the Assignment of New Counsel

The Second Department determined defendant should have been assigned a different attorney after his attorney expressed objections to the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea:

Assigned counsel expressed his opinion that the defendant should “maintain his plea” and informed the court that he didn’t “feel that [he] could represent [the defendant] at any further proceedings.” The defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to the defendant’s with respect to that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to withdraw his plea of guilty to attempted use of a child in a sexual performance … . The County Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined that branch of the defendant’s motion… . People v Duart, 2014 NY Slip Op 00373, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

Stipulation that Did Not Comply with Child Support Standards Act Upheld

In upholding a child support stipulation which did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), the Second Department explained the procedure for waiving the act:

Parties to a separation agreement are free to “opt out” of the provisions of the CSSA so long as their decision is made knowingly … . To ensure that waivers of the statutory provisions of the CSSA are truly knowingly made, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(h) requires specific recitals: (1) that the parties have been made aware of the CSSA; (2) that they are aware that the guidelines would result in the calculation of the presumptively correct amount of support; (3) that in the event the agreement deviates from the guidelines, it must recite the presumptively correct amount of support that would have been fixed pursuant thereto; and (4) the reason for the deviation … . The policy reasons underlying the requirement that waivers must be knowingly made are so strong that agreements that do not comply with the strictures of the CSSA are invalid and unenforceable, at least to the extent of the child support provisions set forth therein… . Rockitter v Rockitter, 2014 NY Slip Op 00336, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether vacuuming an HVAC duct was a covered “cleaning” activity under Labor Law 240(1):

Outside the sphere of commercial window washing (which is covered by Labor Law § 240[1]), the determination of whether an activity may be characterized as “cleaning” under the statute depends on a consideration of four factors. An activity cannot be considered “cleaning” under the statute if it: “(1) is routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, [*2]weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise, nor the unusual deployment of labor; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those inherent in typical domestic or household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law § 240(1) to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration or repair project” … . Collymore v 1895 WWA, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00320, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

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