You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly dismissed the complaint in a medical malpractice action because the plaintiffs refused to identify the mohel who had performed the circumcision of infant plaintiff.  In finding dismissal of the entire complaint an appropriate sanction, the court wrote:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . “The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious”… . Further, the court can infer that a party is acting willfully and contumaciously through his or her repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders … .  Silberstein v Maimonides Med Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 05813, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

Obstructing Governmental Administration Conviction Reversed—Police Not Engaged in “Authorized Conduct”

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction for obstructing governmental administration as against the weight of the evidence. The court determined there was not sufficient proof the police were engaged in authorized conduct at the time of the contact with the defendant:

“A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he [or she] intentionally . . . prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Thus, a defendant may not be convicted of obstructing governmental administration unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct … . As determined by the Supreme Court, the initial chase of the defendant by the police was not supported by reasonable suspicion … . Further, in light of the defendant’s acquittal by the jury on the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, which we may consider in conducting a weight of the evidence review … , the evidence, when properly weighed, did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer was performing an official function authorized by law when he tried to disarm the defendant following the chase … . Thus, the record reflects that, when considering whether the People satisfied the “performing an official function” element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, the jury failed to give the weight properly due to its credibility finding that the defendant was not in possession of a weapon … .  People v Small, 2013 NY slip Op 05842, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Mitigating Factor (12 Years Since Release) Did Not Warrant Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding

he Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s refusal to depart downward in a SORA proceeding, even though the fact that defendant had not been convicted of any sex offenses in the 12 years following his release from prison was a mitigating factor not taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines:

… [T]he defendant requested that the Supreme Court downwardly depart from his designation as a presumptive risk level two sex offender. In that respect, the defendant demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had not been convicted of any sex offenses in the 12 years following his release from prison, which is a mitigating factor not adequately taken into account by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines … . Nevertheless, in light of the grievous nature of the defendant’s offense and, thus, the danger he poses to society should he reoffend, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level (…Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 2 [2006]). People v Rivera, 2013 NY Slip Op 05808, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Criteria for Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for a downward departure in a SORA proceeding:

A court has the discretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level in a proceeding pursuant to SORA (see Correction Law article 6-C) only when the defendant makes a twofold showing … . The defendant must first identify, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which “tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines” (…see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006 ed]). Next, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support the applicability of that mitigating factor … . In the absence of this twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … . Here, the defendant failed to make the requisite showings. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … . People v Ologbonjaiye, 2013 NY Slip Op 05807, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, ,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim

The Second Department explained the four-year statute of limitations for a rent overcharge claim:

“A rent overcharge claim, whether made in a judicial or administrative forum, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations” (… see CPLR 213-a; Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516[a][2]). “[T]he Rent Regulation [*2]Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA) (L 1997, ch 116) clarified and reinforced the four-year statute of limitations applicable to rent overcharge claims (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a])” …, “preclud[ing] a court from examining the rental history of a housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint” …, except in situations where there are substantial indicia of fraud.

Here, the DHCR [NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal] properly determined that July 17, 2005, was the “base date” of this proceeding, that is, the date four years prior to the filing of the relevant rent overcharge complaint. The DHCR properly refused to examine the rental history of the subject apartment prior to the “base date,” since there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that there were substantial indicia of fraud in connection with the landlord’s establishment of the amount of the initial legal registered rent… .  Matter of Watson v New York State Div of Hous & Community Renewal…, 2013 NY Slip Op 05828, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

“Law of the Case” Doctrine at the Appellate Level Explained

The Second Department explained the “law of the case” doctrine at the appellate level in the context of a Family Court matter:

As a general rule, the law of the case doctrine precludes this Court from reexamining an issue which has been raised and decided against a party on a prior appeal where that party had a full and fair opportunity to address the issue … . Review of the mother’s contention regarding the prohibition against telling the child that any man other than the father is the child’s biological father is barred by the doctrine of law of the case, as this Court has already decided this exact issue on a prior appeal …, and there has been no showing of subsequent evidence or change of law … . Matter of Fulmer v Buxenbaum, 2013 NY Slip Op 05819, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Teacher Had Not Acquired “Tenure by Estoppel”

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a teacher had not acquired tenure by estoppel:

“In general, estoppel is a bar which precludes a party from denying [that] a certain fact or state of facts exists to the detriment of another party who was entitled to rely on such facts and had acted accordingly” … . “Tenure may be acquired by estoppel when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term” … . Although Education Law § 3012(1) provides that certain teachers shall be appointed “for a probationary period of three years,” it “does not contain a provision which would prevent a probationary teacher from knowingly and voluntarily waiving the three-year probationary period” … .

Here, as indicated by the petitioner’s own letter to the principal, the petitioner agreed to extend his probationary period for an additional year. Consequently, the petitioner’s probationary period had not expired when the School District terminated his employment and, thus, he had not acquired a tenured position by estoppel.  Matter of Chishom v Hochman, 2013 NY slip Op 05818, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Out-of-Possession Landlord—Injury Caused by Defect in Floor

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord (Hudson).  Plaintiff alleged a defect in a concrete floor caused his injury.  The Second Department wrote:

An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty … .

Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor… . Volpe v Hudson View Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, , ,

“Professional Judgment Rule” Did Not Preclude Lawsuit; Plaintiff Bitten by Police Dog While Assisting Police in a Search

The plaintiff was bitten by a police dog while assisting the police in a search.  Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the Second Department affirmed, explaining there was a question of fact about whether the “professional judgment rule” applied:

“The professional judgment rule insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions” … . However, “the immunity afforded a municipality for its employee’s discretionary conduct does not extend to situations where the employee, a police officer, violates acceptable police practice” … .

Here, the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A question of fact with respect to whether the conduct of the dog’s handler was consistent with acceptable police practice was presented by the defendants’ evidentiary submissions … . Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied … .  Newsome v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 05805, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Snow-Removal Contractor—”Espinal” Exceptions Explained

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to defendant snow-removal contractor (Lemp) in a slip and fall case, the Second Department clearly explained the applicable law, including the “Espinal” exceptions to the rule a contractor is not liable to third parties:

As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties … . However, in Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136, 140), the Court of Appeals recognized that exceptions to this rule apply (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.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendant Lemp Landscapers, Inc. (hereinafter Lemp), made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering proof that the injured plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal contract with the defendant Woodland Pond Condominium Association (hereinafter Woodland), and that it thus owed no duty of care to the injured plaintiff … . Since the plaintiffs did not allege facts in their complaint or bill of particulars which would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, Lemp, in establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply … .

In opposition to Lemp’s prima facie showing, the plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their contentions that Lemp launched a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating the icy condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff Ernest Rudloff’s fall … . By merely plowing the snow in accordance with the contract and leaving some residual snow or ice on the plowed area, Lemp cannot be said to have created a dangerous condition and thereby launched a force or instrument of harm. Moreover, a claim that a contractor exacerbated an existing condition requires some showing that the contractor left the premises in a more dangerous condition than he or she found them … . Therefore, even if Lemp failed to sand or salt the roadway on which the injured plaintiff fell, the plaintiffs have offered nothing more than speculation that the failure to perform that duty rendered the property less safe than it was before Lemp started its work … . Rudloff v Woodland Pond Condominium Assn, 2013 NY Slip Op 05812, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

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