You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Defendant May Be Liable for Obstruction in Municipal Right of Way

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (Argyros’s) motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied.  Plaintiff tripped on a piece of wood that was anchored into the ground.  Argyros owned the land and the piece of wood was in the town’s municipal right of way over the land.  There was evidence most property owners cared for the areas in the right of way:

” The law imposes a duty to maintain property free and clear of dangerous or defective conditions only upon those who own, occupy, or control property, or who put the property to a special use or derive a special benefit from it'” … . Here, while Argyros owned the real property on which the accident occurred and the Town possessed a right of way over the portion of it where the plaintiff fell, title to the land under the right of way is not determinative in assessing the issue of duty, as issues of control and maintenance of the property must also be considered … . * * *

The Supreme Court should have denied Argyros’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, as the evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether he controlled or maintained the area of the property where the plaintiff fell … . Riccardi v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06673, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care to Elevator User

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against a company with a contract to maintain an elevator.  The elevator escape door and debris fell on plaintiff.  The court explained that the existence of a contract did not rule out that the company owed a duty of care to the plaintiff:

” Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party'” … . “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … Exceptions to this general rule exist “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launch[e]s 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 the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, [defendant] failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that no questions of fact existed as whether it failed to exercise reasonable care while repairing the subject elevator and whether it thereby launched a force or instrument of harm that caused the accident… . Dautaj v Alliance El Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 06657, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Conveyance Was For Convenience (Getting a Loan) and Was Not a Gift—Property Therefore Remained in Decedent’s Estate

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court correctly found that the conveyance of a one-third interest in property was for the decedent’s convenience and was not a gift.  Therefore, the one-third interest was in the decedent’s estate:

The petitioner presented evidence establishing that the decedent’s conveyance was for his convenience, and was designed to obtain a refinance mortgage loan on the property at a more favorable interest rate than would have been offered had decedent’s name remained on the title. The petitioner also presented evidence that, after the refinancing was completed, the decedent’s one-third interest in the subject real property was to be reconveyed to him. …

“In a turnover proceeding, the burden of establishing that the property was that of the decedent rests with the petitioner, and once that burden is met, it shifts to the respondent to establish that it was a gift” … . Here, the petitioner met her initial burden of establishing that the one-third interest in the subject real property belonged to the decedent. The petitioner’s proof included, inter alia, deposition testimony given by [decedent’s brother] George in a related proceeding, wherein he acknowledged that the decedent’s one-third interest was to be reconveyed to the decedent after the refinancing. [Decedent’s sister] Elaine failed to come forward with clear and convincing proof that the decedent intended to make a gift of his interest in the subject real property… .  Matter of Voyiatgis, 2013 NY Slip Op 06700, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Law School Properly Rescinded Student’s Application for Admission Based Upon Omissions Concerning Criminal Record

The Second Department affirmed a law school’s rescission of admission of a student based upon the student’s responses to a question about criminal charges on the school’s admission form:

When the petitioner endeavored to obtain an advance ruling on his eligibility for and the likelihood of his admission to the New York State bar in light of his conviction, the law school first learned of the original charges that had been asserted against the petitioner, including, inter alia, charges for distribution of LSD in the second degree, possession of LSD with the intent to distribute in the second degree, possession of Ecstasy in the third degree, and possession of Ecstasy with the intent to distribute. The law school then advised the petitioner that he must amend his application for admission and include a full accounting of what transpired with respect to his arrest in July 1999 and an explanation with respect to his failure to initially disclose this information. Although the petitioner advised the law school that the statement in his application concerning his criminal record was not factually incorrect and did not need to be amended, he nonetheless supplemented his application and made available all details and documents surrounding his expunged record. In his supplement, the petitioner acknowledged that he had been arrested for distribution and had knowingly distributed illegal substances, and freely admitted his guilt of that crime, although he maintained that he did not engage in distribution of illegal substances on a regular basis.

The law school’s determination was made on the grounds of the petitioner’s misrepresentations and omissions on his application regarding the extent of his prior criminal background, and was based upon the exercise of discretion after a full review. Despite the petitioner’s subsequent disclosure, under the circumstances presented here, and in light of the true nature of the petitioner’s prior criminal activity, the law school’s determination to rescind his acceptance was not arbitrary and capricious, and does not warrant judicial intervention… . Matter of Powers v St John’s Univ Sch of Law, 2013 NY Slip Op 06688, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Variance Should Not Have Been Granted to Homeowner Who Built Swimming Pool In Violation of Set-Back Requirements

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s annulment of a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determination that a variance should not be granted to a homeowner who, without a permit, constructed a swimming pool in violation of a rear-yard setback:

In deciding whether to grant an application for an area variance, the Board “is required to engage in a balancing test that weighs the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community” … . The Board must consider whether (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will result by the granting of the area variance, (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than an area variance, (3) the requested area variance is substantial, (4) the proposed variance will adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood if it is granted, and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). * * *

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the ZBA’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The evidence before the ZBA supported its conclusions that granting the requested variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, the variance was substantial, and any hardship was self-created (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the ZBA’s granting of two prior applications seeking, inter alia, area variances for rear-yard setbacks of in-ground swimming pools, did not constitute a precedent from which the ZBA was required to explain a departure, because the two prior applications, inter alia, involved lots that were not near the subject property and were located in different zoning districts. Thus, the petitioners failed to establish that either of the two cases in which a variance was granted bore sufficient factual similarity to the subject application so as to require an explanation from the ZBA… . Matter of Blandeburgo v Zoning Bd of Appeals Town of Islip, 2013 NY Slip Op 06680, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s SORA determination because the court failed to follow the procedure required for an incarcerated defendant.  The SORA determination was made at sentencing:

In this case, the Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to a nine-month term of incarceration without any probation supervision. The court conducted the risk assessment hearing and made its risk level determination immediately after sentencing, using a risk level assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office. This violated SORA and deprived the defendant of his right to due process … . Pursuant to the SORA statutory scheme, a risk level determination should not have been made until 30 days before his release from custody (see Correction Law § 168-n[2]… ). The court’s determination should have been preceded by the Board’s risk level recommendation, and the defendant should have been notified of the opportunity to submit to the Board any information that he believed was relevant for its review (see Correction Law § 168-n[2], [3]). Under the circumstances presented here, the fact that the defendant did not explicitly object to this procedure does not indicate that he knowingly and intelligently waived these statutory and due process rights or failed to preserve the issue for appellate review … . Moreover, while Correction Law § 168-l(8) provides that, notwithstanding the Board’s failure to act, a court may still make a determination regarding a sex offender’s risk level, “this must be read as applying only where the Board had the opportunity to make a recommendation in the first instance” … . Here, the Board had no such opportunity, since the risk level determination was erroneously made immediately after the defendant was sentenced. As a result, “the Supreme Court was without a statutorily-authorized basis for making a risk level determination”… .  People v Game, 2013 NY Slip Op 06670, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a “registered voter’s” [Nichol’s] motion to intervene in an action to determine the constitutionality of a local law concerning term limits for public offices.  The court explained:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). Additionally, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … .

Here, contrary to Nichols’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to intervene in the action as a defendant. Although Nichols, who describes himself as a “registered voter in the County of Suffolk and an active supporter of [his] constitutional right to pass and enforce term limit legislation,” may indeed be interested in defending the local law in question, he failed to demonstrate that he has a “real and substantial interest” in the action … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court appropriately noted, he failed to show that any interest he did have would not be adequately represented by the defendant … . Accordingly, the court properly denied Nichols’s motion for leave to intervene. Spota v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06558, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Similar Pending Lawsuit Properly Dismissed—Two Lawsuits Sought Declaratory Judgment Re: Duty to Defend and Indemnify

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action for a declaratory judgment re: an insurance company’s duty to defend and indemnify because of its similarity to another pending action:

Where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same, a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) on the ground that there is another action pending … . “The critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs” … . Under the circumstances of this case, upon the record that existed at the time the Supreme Court issued the order appealed from, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) … . Scottsdale Ins Co v Indemnity Ins Corp RRG, 2013 NY Slip Op 06557, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

, ,

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff did not allege the city had notice of the defect and sought to amend the complaint to add the allegation.  The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend:

… [T]he Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the City’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. Instead, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion and permitted him to amend the pleadings and the notice of claim to add an allegation that the City received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect where, as here, the amendment would not prejudice or surprise the City (see CPLR 3025; General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]…).  Perez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06553, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 2001, to allow the filing and serving of a summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff had timely attempted to file the summons and complaint using a new electronic filing system in Westchester County. It turned out that plaintiff’s counsel had mistakenly used a “practice” filing system designed to familiarize users with electronic filing and the summons and complaint was never actually filed in time.  The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to be allowed to cure the mistake under CPLR 2001 should have been granted after explaining that, in this case, CPLR 2001 should be to correct an error without concern for whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the correction:

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s e-filing error cannot be corrected, as doing so would prejudice the defendant by depriving her of a viable statute of limitations defense. However, we conclude that under a proper reading of CPLR 2001, the issue of prejudice to the defendant need not be reached.

More specifically, we believe that many reported cases in New York reflect a misreading of the language of CPLR 2001. Judicial discretion and the absence of prejudice are not requirements that must be applied in a combined fashion. Rather, a close reading of the statute reveals that CPLR 2001 recognizes two separate forms of potential relief to address mistakes, omissions, defects, or irregularities in the filing of papers. The statute distinguishes between the “correction” of mistakes and the “disregarding” of mistakes, and each invokes a different test. Courts may “correct[ ]” mistakes “upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 2001). The statute then says, set off by an “or,” that mistakes may be “disregarded” if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . Thus, a “correction” of a mistake appears to be subject to a broader degree of judicial discretion without necessary regard to prejudice, whereas a complete “disregarding” of a mistake must not prejudice an opposing party. … The distinction between simply correcting a mistake and overlooking a mistake makes sense, as a party seeking to wholly disregard a filing mistake may understandably be expected to bear a higher burden than a party seeking a mere correction.

A secondary inquiry, therefore, is whether the plaintiff’s request for a nunc pro tunc recognition of his filing in the NYSCEF “practice” system amounts to a mere correction that may be permitted upon terms that may be just, or whether it constitutes a full-scale disregard of the filing error that, in order to be permitted, requires a showing that the defendant will not be prejudiced by the disregard.

… [Here] [t]he “filing” was performed in a mistaken manner and method, which courts are permitted to correct on terms that may be just … . Therefore, the plaintiff was under no burden to demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the defendant. In contrast, excusing a clearly untimely filing would constitute the disregarding of an error, which could not be permitted because it would be prejudicial to a defendant to deprive it of a legitimate statute of limitations defense. Grskovic v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 06545, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

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