You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exceptions

The Second Department determined a 911 recording of an anonymous caller was admissible under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule and the admission of the recording did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation:

The recording satisfied the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, since it evidenced that the caller was under the influence of the excitement of the incident and lacked the reflective capacity essential for fabrication…. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the recording was also properly admissible as a present sense impression, since the caller’s statements were sufficiently contemporaneous … and were corroborated by the evidence adduced at trial…. Additionally, the admission of the recording did not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation. The call was nontestimonial in nature, since its primary purpose was to obtain an emergency response to the shooting….  People v Dockery, 2013 NY Slip Op 04621, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Ambiguity Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Guarantee

In determining the motion for summary judgment based upon a guarantee was properly denied because of ambiguity about which obligations were guaranteed, the Second Department explained:

A written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced so as to give effect to the meaning of its terms and the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the court should determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the contract without looking to extrinsic evidence to create ambiguities…. An agreement “is unambiguous if the language it uses has a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion'”…  Furthermore, “[a] guaranty is a contract, and in interpreting it we look first to the words the parties used”…. “A guaranty must be construed in the strictest manner’”…, and a guarantor should be bound to the express terms of the written guaranty….  The document at issue, prepared by the plaintiff, is entitled “Personal Guaranty.” The “Guarantor” is defined as “Tony Melillo.” There is language in the body of the document indicating that the Guarantor is personally guaranteeing the payment and performance of the obligations of the “Importer.” The “Importer” is variously defined in the document as either “Tony Melillo, LLC,” or as “Tony Melillo.” Thus, there is an ambiguity in the document as to whose obligations Melillo was guaranteeing.  Wider Consl, Inc v Tony Melillo, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04597, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Doctrine of Practical Location Re: Boundary Line Dispute Explained

In a boundary-line dispute, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a counterclaim for a judgment declaring that a hedgerow and chain-link fence running parallel to the recorded boundary line was the legal line under the doctrine of practical location.  The Second Department explained the doctrine as follows:

Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners”…. “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiescence to the boundary by the parties such that it is definitely and equally known, understood and settled'”….  Jakubowicz v Solomon, 2013 NY Slip Op 04578, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Late Notice of Election, Caused by Law Office Failure, Should Have Been Allowed

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court should have granted decedent’s surviving spouse’s petition for leave to file a late notice of election against the decedent’s estate.  The spouse executed a notice of election which was served on the attorney for the executor, but, because of law office failure, was never filed with Surrogate’s Court:

EPTL 5-1.1-A(d)(1) sets forth the specific procedures to be followed in exercising a right of election. “If the spouse defaults in filing such election within the time provided in subparagraph (d)(1) of this paragraph, the surrogate’s court may relieve the spouse from such default and authorize the making of an election . . . provided that no decree settling the account of the personal representative has been made and that twelve months have not elapsed since the issuance of the letters” (EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][2]). “An application for relief from the default and for an extension of time to elect shall be made upon a petition showing reasonable cause and on notice to such persons and in such manner as the surrogate may direct” (id.). Here, the surviving spouse demonstrated “reasonable cause” for her failure to timely file her notice of election by establishing, inter alia, that the delay was caused by law office failure, and she further established the absence of prejudice to any party (EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][2] … .  Matter of Sylvester, 2013 NY Slip Op 04613, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s Visitation

In finding that Family Court did not have enough information to determine whether the termination of father’s visitation was in the child’s best interest, in part because the court did not talk to the child in camera, the Second Department wrote:

A court may modify a visitation order upon a showing of changed circumstances and that modification is in the best interests of the child…. “A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation, and denial of that right must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child”…. A trial court’s determination that the best interests of the child warrants termination of visitation will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record…. “Although a child’s wishes are not determinative, his or her wishes, age, and maturity should be given considerable weight” … . “Generally, visitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children. However, a hearing is not necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children’s best interests”….  Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to determine whether the termination of the father’s visitation with the child was in the child’s best interest. For instance, although the attorney for the child indicated that the child, who was then 13 years old, did not wish to visit the father, the court failed to conduct an in camera examination of the child to ascertain the child’s views.  Matter of Zubizarreta v Hemminger, 2013 NY Slip Op 04617, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Refusal to Allow DSS Workers Into Apartment Did Not Constitute Neglect

The Second Department reversed Family Court’s neglect determination against father.  The sole basis for the neglect finding was father’s refusal to let DSS Emergency Services workers into his apartment, which, the father explained, was based upon his fear the workers were not who they claimed they were:  The Second Department wrote:

“To establish neglect pursuant to section 1012(f)(i)(B) of the Family Court Act, the petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired, or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship”…. Any determination that a child is a neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046;…).   Here, while the DSS properly sought access to Joshua under its order of supervision, it failed to prove at the fact-finding hearing by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected Joshua…. The evidence did not establish that Joshua’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired, or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired, as a result of the father’s refusal to allow the DSS Emergency Services workers into his apartment. Moreover, the evidence established that the DSS Emergency Services workers found Joshua to be clean, healthy, and safe. Matter of Joshua J, 2013 NY Slip Op 04606, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded Decision-Making Authority Re: Education

In affirming Family Court’s award of sole custody to mother, the Second Department determined the father should have been awarded decision-making authority for the child’s education:

When joint custody is not possible because of the antagonistic relationship between the parties…, it may be appropriate, depending upon the particular circumstances of the case, to award some custodial decision-making authority to the noncustodial parent…. The division of authority should be made in a manner intended to take advantage of the strengths and abilities of the noncustodial parent with respect to a particular dimension of child-rearing…. The Family Court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interests to award the mother decision-making authority with respect to the child’s education is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The father researched educational options for the subject child at every stage of his schooling. Once the child started school and began receiving homework assignments, the father supervised his homework, took part in school-related activities, and remained involved with his schooling at every stage. The father contacted the child’s teachers regarding issues of concern. Jacobs v Young, 2013 NY Slip Op 04607, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collision

In finding Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint against a driver (Mabella) who was struck from behind when stopped, due to mechanical trouble, in a moving lane of traffic, the Second Department explained:

Mabella established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his submission of the deposition testimony of the parties, which demonstrates that his vehicle was fully stopped when it was struck in the rear by the Maldonado vehicle…. Although his vehicle was stopped in a moving lane of traffic, Mabella established that this was due to mechanical failure and not the result of any fault on his part…. The plaintiff and the defendants who opposed Mabella’s motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Mabella’s alleged fault in the happening of the accident. Prosen v Mabella, 2013 NY Slip Op 04589, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

 

 

,

Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained

In dismissing a cause of action in a slip and fall case against a tenant based upon the alleged condition of an abutting public sidewalk (in which a pair of metal doors leading to the basement of the rented premises were set), the Second Department explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

An owner or occupier of land which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition…, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting owner or lessee “ either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the owner or lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon that party for injuries caused by a violation of that duty’”…. To recover from a tenant which occupies premises abutting a sidewalk under the theory that the tenant has a special use of the sidewalk, the tenant must be in exclusive possession and control of the alleged special-use area…, and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the special use caused the defective condition which proximately caused his or her injuries….  O’Toole v City of Yonkers, 2013 NY Slip Op 04585, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

,

Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application to amend the notice of claim (to add a second hospital) in a wrongful death action against the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, the Second Department wrote:

The petitioner’s decedent … was severely beaten on November 10, 2010. He was taken first to Queens Center Hospital and soon thereafter transferred to Elmhurst Hospital for surgery, which took place the same day. The decedent died at Elmhurst Hospital a few days later. The petitioner alleged that the respondents’ employees either did not begin the surgery soon enough or did not perform the surgery correctly. In either event, all of the acts and omissions alleged to have been negligent took place on November 10, 2010. The petitioner’s original notice of claim did not mention Elmhurst Hospital, but the petitioner timely sought leave to amend the notice of claim to, inter alia, add allegations regarding the treatment at Elmhurst Hospital. The Supreme Court denied the relief sought by the petitioner.  All of the conduct alleged to have been negligent took place at the two named hospitals on the same day. Moreover, the respondents’ records noted the decedent’s transfer from Queens Center Hospital to Elmhurst Hospital and detailed all of the treatment rendered that day. The respondents could not have been prejudiced by the proposed amendment of the notice of claim and, under the circumstances, there was no need to treat that amendment as the assertion of a new claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[6];…).  Matter of Bingsen Xu v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2013 NY 04601, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

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