You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Unsigned Depositions Deemed Admissible

In a Labor Law action stemming from a fall through an open manhole, the plaintiffs submitted transcripts of one the plaintiff’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the certified deposition transcripts submitted by them were not signed.  In determining that Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiffs’ motion on that ground, the Second Department wrote:

By submitting the transcript of [plaintiff’s] deposition, the plaintiffs adopted it as accurate …. Further, the … defendants … did not challenge the accuracy of any of the transcripts submitted by the plaintiffs …. Consequently, those deposition transcripts were admissible ….  Carey v Five Bros, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03626, 2nd Dept. 5-22-13

 

 

, ,

Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​

In finding defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to sell was against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department (with a dissent) wrote:

…[T]he amount of cocaine recovered from the defendant was relatively small and not inconsistent with personal use. Indeed, convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance involving intent to sell generally stem from situations where a significantly greater quantity of drugs is recovered from the defendant’s person…. Even more important, the defendant was found to be in possession of no drug paraphernalia or weapons, and he had only $20 in cash … .Although there was testimony that street drug sales often involve bags of drugs costing $20 each, the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a single $20 bill cannot be considered indicative of an intent to sell.  People v McFadden, 2013 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept, 5-22-12

 

,

Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration; Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​

The Second Department determined that a trial judge can rescind a mistrial declaration and noted that a mistrial granted with the consent of the defendant does not bar retrial:

When a mistrial is declared in a criminal case without the consent, or over the objection, of the defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York Constitution precludes a retrial for the same offense unless ” there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated'”…. Conversely, when a defendant requests or consents to a mistrial, double jeopardy typically does not bar a retrial ….

The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration…. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the District Court did not retain the discretion to rescind its previous declaration of a mistrial prior to the discharge of the jury. Moreover, the District Court’s initial declaration of a mistrial, made without the petitioner’s consent, was rescinded and, thereafter, a mistrial was declared upon the petitioner’s consent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent that it did, and in barring a retrial of the petitioner on the ground of double jeopardy. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2013 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Court’s Quashing of Defense Subpoena Deprived Defendant of Right to Present a Defense​

The Second Department determined the trial court quashing of an subpoena served upon a defense witness deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense and required a new trial. People v Eastment, 2013 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Trial Court Should Have Stayed Arbitration and Held Framed-Issue Hearing to Determine Whether Another Driver Involved in Collision​

There was a collision involving a car self-insured by Hertz, the petitioner.  The respondent driver of the Hertz car alleged she collided with another car which left the scene.  Based on a description of the other vehicle and the last four digits of the license number. Hertz determined the owner, Morrison, and insurer, Travelers, of the other car.  Morrison denied involvement in the accident and Travelers denied the respondent’s property damage claim on that basis. The respondent sought supplementary uninsured motorist arbitration with Hertz.  Hertz then commenced a proceeding to temporarily stay arbitration pending a framed-issue hearing to determine if Morrison was involved in the collision.  In determining Hertz petition should have been granted, the Second Department wrote:

“The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay”…. Thereafter, the burden is on the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing…. Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue …. Here, the documents submitted by Hertz in support of the petition demonstrated the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue justifying a temporary stay. In opposition to the petition, Morrison denied any involvement in the accident. As the evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Morrison’s vehicle was involved in the subject accident, the Supreme Court should have conducted a framed-issue hearing on that issue before rendering a determination on the petition … .  Matter of Hertz Corp v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 03674, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear at Time of Stipulation and Benefits Later Determined by Court of Appeals to Be Marital Property

The Second Department determined that plaintiff-wife’s stipulation that variable supplement fund (VSF) benefits were not marital property should be upheld, even though the law was unclear at the time of the stipulation and the Court of Appeals subsequently determined the benefits were marital property:

The Referee was correct in noting that, at the time of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, the law on the issue of whether VSF benefits were subject to equitable distribution was unclear. The law was later clarified when the Court of Appeals held that VSF benefits were marital property subject to equitable distribution …. However, the fact that the plaintiff did not have definitive guidance on the issue of whether VSF benefits were subject to equitable distribution is not a sufficient basis upon which she may avoid the effects of her otherwise knowing and voluntary waiver. Thus, it was error to permit the defendant to avoid the consequences of her waiver of any interest in the VSF. Lamassa v Lamassa, 2013 NY Slip Op 03639, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Single-Family House Exemption to Labor Law Action Applied

In finding the homeowner’s exemption of Labor Law 240(1) and 240 applied to work on a single-family house in which the business owners lived and from which the defendant business derived no income, the Second Department wrote:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241, which impose certain nondelegable safety duties upon “contractors[,] owners and their agents,” specifically exempt “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” Here, Green Chimneys [defendant] demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to, inter alia, its claim that it was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241 by establishing that the Founder’s House was a single-family dwelling used solely as a residence for Green Chimneys’ founder and his wife, the house served no commercial or business use for Green Chimneys, which received no income from the house, and Green Chimneys did not direct or control the work being performed…. Parise v Green Chimneys Children’s Servs, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03649, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

 

No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor

Plaintiff was struck by a small piece of sheetrock a worker dropped from the third floor.  In affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the Second Department wrote:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, not every injury caused by a falling object at a construction site is covered by the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1)…. Rather, in a “falling object” case under Labor Law § 240(1)…, a plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” … or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”…. The plaintiff also must show that the object fell “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute”…. The statute does not apply in situations in which a hoisting or securing device of the type enumerated in the statute would not be necessary or expected…. Moncayo v Curtis Partition Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03644, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

Appropriate Surcharge and Interest Imposed for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In determining the appropriate surcharge to be imposed upon an executor which breached its duty to preserve decedent’s tangible property, as well as the appropriate interest rate to impose with respect to a delay in distributing assets, the Second Department wrote:

“[A] nominated executor has the duty to preserve estate assets for the protection of those persons eventually entitled to receive them” … . * * * [W]e find no reason to disturb the Surrogate’s finding that the petitioner breached its duty, thereby warranting the imposition of a surcharge. * * *

Where a surcharge is imposed for a breach of fiduciary duty, it is a matter within the discretion of the trial court whether to award interest upon the surcharge, and at what rate (see CPLR 5001[a]; 5004;…). While the highest rate of interest might be appropriate where the trustee’s breach of duty is willful or characterized by bad faith…, here, the record reflects that the petitioner’s failure in its duty to secure the decedent’s tangible personal property constituted an honest mistake. …

As a general matter, legacies are payable seven months after issuance of letters testamentary unless otherwise directed by the testator or required by the circumstances of the estate, including the executor’s need to retain sufficient funds to cover administrative costs and debts of the decedent (see EPTL 11-1.5[a]…). Under certain circumstances, an executor may retain a disposition as a setoff for a debt owed by the beneficiary to the decedent or the estate …. In a proceeding to compel payment of a disposition or distributive share, “[t]he rate of interest to be paid on a pecuniary bequest is governed by EPTL 11-1.5” …. The court may fix interest on any disposition awarded at the rate of 6% (see EPTL 11-1.5[d]), or, upon the court’s additional finding that the fiduciary’s “delay in payment was unreasonable” (EPTL 11-1.5[e]), the court may fix interest at the annual rate of 9% set forth in CPLR 5004 …. Matter of Marsh, 2013 NY Slip Op 03679, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

Will Provisions Can Not Be “Re-Written” by Court Even If Intestacy Results

In determining Surrogate’s Court properly determined mortgages secured by notes represented personal property and not “interests in real property” within the meaning of the will, the Second Department wrote:

Here, as the Surrogate’s Court properly recognized, notes secured by mortgages are generally construed to be personal property…, and there is nothing in the language of the decedent’s will that manifests an intent to include the subject notes within the clause devising his “interests in real property” to the petitioner. The construction suggested by the petitioner cannot be accepted since the court should not rewrite a will or supply an omission not necessarily implied by the language used, even though intestacy with respect to a particular asset results … . Matter of Cincotta, 2013 NY Slip Op 03671, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

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