You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained

The Second Department explained the pleading criteria for a shareholder’s derivative action for inspection of corporation records.  Here the court determined the shareholders failed to first demand that the corporation initiate an action before bringing the derivative action, and the shareholders’ speculative and conclusory allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate a “proper purpose” for the inspection of corporate records:

A plaintiff in a shareholders’ derivative action must demand that the corporation initiate an action before commencing an action on the corporation’s behalf, and the complaint must “set forth with particularity” his or her efforts “to secure the initiation of such action by the board or the reasons for not making such effort” … . Demand may be excused because of futility where the complaint alleges with particularity, inter alia, that a majority of the board of directors is interested in the challenged transaction[s] … . However, “[i]t is not sufficient . . . merely to name a majority of the directors as parties defendant with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers to justify failure to make a demand” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions failed to allege specific facts supporting their contention that the defendant directors were interested, such that demand was not required, and the Supreme Court … properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss [the relevant] causes of action on that ground… . * * *

…”[A] shareholder has both statutory and common-law rights to inspect the books and records of a corporation if inspection is sought in good faith and for a valid purpose” (…Business Corporation Law § 624[f]). However, the plaintiffs failed to allege that their demand for an inspection of [the] books and records met the requirements for such relief under the Business Corporation Law (see Business Corporation Law § 624[b]). The plaintiffs also failed to state a cause of action for an inspection of [the] corporate books and records at common law, since a plaintiff asserting his or her common-law right must plead a “proper purpose” for the inspection …. Apart from the claim concerning the nonpayment of profit distributions …, the plaintiffs’ asserted purposes for the inspection were speculative, vague, and conclusory. As such, they were insufficient to establish a proper purpose for the inspection… . JAS Family Trust v Oceana Holding Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05734, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

Plaintiff Can Not Recover Under Her Own Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy When Her Recovery Exceeded the Limit of that Policy

The Second Department explained how plaintiff’s supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) policy related to her recovery of damages under the policy when she, as a pedestrian, was struck by a car and recovered damages in excess of the SUM limit:

When a policyholder purchases supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage in New York, he or she is insuring against the risk that a tortfeasor’s underinsurance (or complete lack of insurance) will provide less protection for the policyholder than the policyholder provides to others when at fault in causing bodily injury … . SUM coverage is not a “stand-alone policy to fully compensate the insureds for their injuries” … .

Here, the respondent, who was struck by a car while walking in the street, had an automobile policy of her own. In that policy, she chose to provide coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person in the event she was at fault in causing bodily injuries. By paying for SUM coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person, she also ensured that she was protected for that same amount in the event that an uninsured or underinsured motorist caused her to sustain injuries. Although the respondent was injured, she received $400,000 from the tortfeasors, which is $300,000 more than the coverage she provided to others. Consequently, under paragraph 6 of her SUM endorsement, the amount she was entitled to recover under her SUM coverage was reduced to zero. Matter of Unitrin Auto & Home Ins Co v Gelbstein, 2013 NY Slip Op 05749, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Criteria for Imposing Order of Protection for Longer than Two Years Based on Family Offense Involving Aggravating Circumstance (Use of Weapon Here) Explained

The Second Department, in a family offense proceeding involving the use of a weapon, explained the criteria for issuing an order of protection for a period longer than two years:

To issue an order of protection with a duration exceeding two years on the ground of aggravating circumstances, the Family Court must set forth “on the record and upon the order of protection” a finding of such aggravating circumstances as defined in Family Court Act § 827(a)(vii) (Family Ct Act § 842). The statutory definition of “aggravating circumstances” includes five distinct situations, set forth in the disjunctive: (1) “physical injury or serious physical injury to the petitioner caused by the respondent,” (2) “the use of a dangerous instrument against the petitioner by the respondent,” (3) “a history of repeated violations of prior orders of protection by the respondent,” (4) “prior convictions for crimes against the petitioner by the respondent,” “or” (5) “the exposure of any family or household member to physical injury by the respondent and like incidents, behaviors and occurrences which to the court constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner’s family or household” (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]…),

A finding of aggravating circumstances under the fifth situation set forth in Family Ct Act § 827(a)(vii) must be supported by a finding of “an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner’s family or household” (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]; …). To the extent that certain language in Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding (101 AD3d at 1118) might suggest that the “immediate and ongoing danger” requirement pertains to the other four situations enumerated in Family Court Act § 827(a)(vii) as well, it is not to be construed as such. Where the aggravating circumstances involve the use of a dangerous instrument (cf. Penal Law § 10.00[13]…), the “immediate and ongoing danger” requirement does not apply (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]… .  Matter of Kondor v Kondor, 2013 NY slip Op 05747, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

 

, ,

Wife’s Concealment of Terminal Cancer Did Not Warrant Rescission of Divorce Settlement Agreement

The Second Department determined the wife’s concealment of the condition of her health (terminal cancer) during the negotiation of a divorce did not constitute actionable fraud.  The husband sought to rescind the agreement after learning of his wife’s illness (after her death), alleging he would not have entered the agreement had he been aware of it:

While a party’s health is material to the equitable distribution of marital assets (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d][2]…), the plaintiff does not challenge the manner in which the parties agreed to distribute the marital assets … . Rather, the plaintiff only claims that he would not have agreed to settle with the wife at all had he known of her condition. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the wife’s alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning her health were not material to the plaintiff’s decision as to whether to enter into any settlement agreement at all with the wife and, thus, would not warrant the equitable remedy of rescission … . To hold otherwise would be to recognize, contrary to public policy favoring settlement and fair dealing …, that the plaintiff was entitled to a “fair” opportunity to stall in settling the action with the goal of retaining all of the marital assets upon the wife’s death. Equity is not served by permitting the plaintiff to rescind the separation agreement for lack of this opportunity.  Petrozza v Franzen, 2013 NY Slip Op 05739, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

, ,

Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend His Answer to Add Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to amend his answer by adding the passing of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.  The Second Department explained:

Here, it is undisputed that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to a cause of action alleging wrongful death began to run on August 14, 2007, the date of the decedent’s death (see EPTL 5-4.1), and that the plaintiff commenced the second action, in which Lehman was a named defendant, more than two years after the decedent’s death. Accordingly, Lehman’s proposed affirmative defense of the statute of limitations as to so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for wrongful death was not palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit on its face, and the plaintiff’s contentions regarding the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 203[b]) did not warrant the denial of Lehman’s motion. Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment … . “If [the plaintiff] wishes to test the merits of the proposed added . . . defense, [the plaintiff] may later move for summary judgment upon a proper showing” … . Carroll v Motola, 2013 NY Slip Op 05728, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

, , ,

School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After Hours on School Grounds; Failure to Lock Gate Not Proximate Cause of Injury

Plaintiff was assaulted on an athletic filed owned by defendant school district while in a group which was on the field without permission at 9:30 pm. The plaintiff alleged the school district was negligent in not providing security and in not locking the gates to the field. The Second Department determined the school district owed no special duty to the plaintiff and the failure to lock the gates was not the proximate cause of the injury:

The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and . . . no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” … . This special duty arises when a municipality assumes an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a specific party, and that party justifiably relies on the direct assurances of the municipality’s agents … .

… The mere provision of security does not give rise to a special duty of protection …. The District established that it did not make direct assurances regarding security to the infant plaintiff and that he did not rely on the provision of security in deciding to congregate with others on the field. * * *

A public entity may not escape liability for negligent acts which it performs in a proprietary capacity and which are a proximate cause of an injury which was sustained as the result of a foreseeable act by a third party … . However, the District demonstrated, prima facie, that the failure to lock the gates accessing the field was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries, since the assault here was not a foreseeable act. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Weisbecker v West Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY slip Op 05743, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Snow Removal Contractor Owed Duty to Slip and Fall Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff in a slip and fall case was owed a duty of care by a snow-removal contractor.  The Second Department explained the relevant law and its application to the facts of the case as follows:

“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), the Court of Appeals identified three situations where a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care and thus be potentially liable in tort to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches an instrument of harm or creates or exacerbates a hazardous condition, (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 (id. at 140)” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability… [—-] the defendant’s oral agreement with the property owner constituted a comprehensive and exclusive contractual obligation for the defendant to maintain the exterior of the subject premises and to clear the parking lot and walkways of snow and ice. This was sufficient to support a duty of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff based on the defendant’s displacement of the property owner’s duty to maintain the premises safely… . Sarisohn v Plaza Realty Servs Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05741, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional Recovery for Diminution in Resale Value

Plaintiff’s brand new Mercedes was damaged in an accident but was fully repaired, and the repairs were paid for by the defendants’ insurance carrier.  Plaintiff sought damages based upon the diminution in resale value resulting from the fact that potential buyers would be made aware of the car’s involvement in the accident.  The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint explaining that diminution in resale value is not to be taken into account:

The defendants established that the plaintiff has no cause of action to recover the damages he seeks herein. “The measure of damages for injury to property resulting from negligence is the difference in the market value immediately before and immediately after the accident, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is the lesser” … . “Where the repairs do not restore the property to its condition before the accident, the difference in market value immediately before the accident and after the repairs have been made may be added to the cost of repairs” … . However, where, as here, there is no dispute that the repairs fully restored the vehicle to its condition before the accident, and the only basis of the claim made by the plaintiff for the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the accident is not that his automobile could not be fully repaired, but, rather, that after repair the resale value would be diminished because the car had been in an accident, “the diminution in resale value is not to be taken into account” … . Parkoff v Stavsky, 2013 NY slip Op 05737, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Negligent Diversion of Water by Private Property Owner and Negligent Repair by Town Caused Dangerous Icy- Road-Condition; Defendant Driver Lost Control of Her Car on the Ice and Collided with Plaintiffs

The Second Department determined that questions of fact existed about whether defendant abutting property owner (Gromley) and the defendant town created the icy road condition that caused defendant driver to lose control of her car, thereby allegedly injuring the plaintiffs in a collision with the school bus in which plaintiffs were riding:

A private landowner may be liable for injuries sustained in a car accident that is proximately caused by an ice condition occurring on an abutting public roadway, where that ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway… . … [T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the artificially diverted water from the Gormley defendants’ property contributed to the ice condition on the subject roadway that caused [defendant driver] to lose control of her car and collide with the school bus… . * * *

…[T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town affirmatively created the condition through an act of its own negligence, and whether the Town’s negligence at the time the road was repaired immediately resulted in the existence of the hazardous condition … . Cebron v Tuncoglu, 2013 NY slip Op 05729, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

Question of Fact Whether Defect in Basketball Court Was Concealed Precluded Summary Judgment Based upon Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined there was a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped on part of a defunct sprinkler system while playing basketball on defendant-town’s court, assumed the risks associated with using the court.  The Second Department wrote:

Here, the Town failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all triable issues of fact as to the applicability of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk … . The evidence submitted in support of its motion, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographs of the basketball court and metal cap, demonstrated that the metal cap was small, was raised only slightly above ground level, was painted the same color as the basketball court, and was difficult to see from more than a few feet away. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the condition was concealed, and it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff assumed the risks associated with it … .  Bunn v Town of North Hempstead, 2013 NY Slip Op 05727, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

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