You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Grant of Visitation to Mother of Deceased Father (Grandmother) Reversed​

In reversing Family Court’s grant of visitation to the children’s grandmother, the Second Department wrote:

A court determining a petition for grandparent visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), must undertake a two-part inquiry. First, it must determine whether the grandparent has standing to petition for visitation rights based on the death of a parent or equitable circumstances …. If the court concludes that the grandparent has established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interests of the child … . “[T]he courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent’s wishes” … . “Indeed, it is strongly presumed that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests” … .

In this case, the Family Court should have denied the grandmother’s petition for visitation. The death of the children’s father provided the grandmother with automatic standing to seek visitation (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1]…). Nevertheless, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition. The evidence in the record … established that visitation was not in the best interests of the children at the time the Family Court granted the petition … . Moreover, we note that on this appeal, the attorney for the children supports the denial of visitation. Matter of Pinsky v Botnick, 2012 NY Slip Op 02402, 2012-03338 2012-07576, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13​

 

, ,

Out-of-Pocket Expenses Must Be Alleged in Claim Based on Alleged Failure to Detect Child’s Medical Condition In Utero

In dismissing a medical malpractice action which was based upon a physician’s alleged failure to detect a medical condition from the review of a sonogram, a condition which may have caused the parents to terminate the pregnancy, the Second Department reviewed the available damages in such an action. Ultimately the Second Department determined that the plaintiffs’ failure to raise a question of fact about future expenses they will incur for care of the child (currently paid for by Medicaid) required dismissal of the complaint:

Although a child with a disability may not maintain a wrongful life cause of action, the child’s parents may, under certain circumstances, maintain a cause of action on their own behalf to recover the extraordinary costs incurred in raising the child … . To succeed on such a cause of action, which “sound[s] essentially in negligence or medical malpractice,” the plaintiffs “must demonstrate the existence of a duty, the breach of which may be considered the proximate cause of the damages suffered by” them … . Specifically, the parents must establish that malpractice by a defendant physician deprived them of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy within the legally permissible time period, or that the child would not have been conceived but for the defendant’s malpractice … . Further, the claimed damages cannot be based on mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, and, when sought in the form of extraordinary expenses related to caring for a disabled child, must be necessitated by and causally connected to the child’s condition …. The “parents’ legally cognizable injury’ is the increased financial obligation arising from the extraordinary medical treatment rendered the child during minority’” … . Since the parents’ recovery is limited to their personal pecuniary loss, expenses covered by other sources such as private insurance or public programs are not recoverable ….  Mayzel v Moretti, 2013 NY Slip Op 02379, 2011-11393, Index No 102307/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car which was involved in an accident, injuring plaintiff.  Plaintiff sued the driver of the car she was in (Pistorino).  Based on the finding that Pistorino had violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn in front of an oncoming car driven by defendant Allen, the motion court determined Pistorino’s act was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability. Allen, the driver of the other car, moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against him based on the motion court’s “sole proximate cause” finding.  The Second Department reversed the motion court’s dismissal of the claims against Allen and wrote:

The Supreme Court erred, however, in granting that branch of Allen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims asserted against him. Allen’s motion was based entirely upon the preclusive effect of the finding made by the Supreme Court in deciding the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, that, as between Jaclyn Pistorino and Allen, Jaclyn Pistorino was the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, the issue of the relative fault of Jaclyn Pistorino and Allen was not raised by the plaintiff in her motion. Correspondingly, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that, as between Jaclyn Pistorino and Allen, Jaclyn Pistorino was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  Anzel v Pistorino, 2013 NY Slip Op 02362, 2011-08058, 2011-11125, Index No 4001/11, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Abuse of Discretion in Disallowing Jury Challenge Required Reversal of Conviction

In reversing a conviction because of the trial court’s refusal to consider an “untimely” peremptory challenge, the Second Department wrote:

During the second round of voir dire, after questioning of the second group of prospective jurors was completed and each side had exercised challenges for cause, the Supreme Court asked defense counsel if he wished to exercise any peremptory challenges, and defense counsel responded, “No.” Seconds later, as the court named the first three prospective jurors in the group to be assigned seats, defense counsel interrupted, apologizing, and explained that he had intended to exercise a peremptory challenge against one of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, prospective juror number four. Although that prospective juror was not yet assigned a seat and the reuest was made just moments after defense counsel mistakenly accepted all of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, the court denied defense counsel’s request to challenge that juror as untimely. Under these circumstances, where there was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request to challenge the prospective juror …. Since a trial court’s improper denial of a peremptory challenge mandates automatic reversal …, we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial ….  People v Parrales, 2013 NY Slip Op 02417, 2011-05827, Ind No 1194/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

,

Malpractice/Negligence Claims Can Not Be Brought By Party Not In Privity with Law Firm

The Second Department dismissed a complaint against a law firm for malpractice because the law firm was not in privity with the plaintiffs with respect to the real estate transactions at issue.  The law firm represented the defendant in the transactions:

The law firm established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third and fourth causes of action. In this regard, the law firm submitted evidence demonstrating that it was not in privity with the plaintiffs with respect to the subject transactions. “In New York, a third party, without privity, cannot maintain a claim against an attorney in professional negligence, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances'” … . Accordingly, the law firm established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action. Moreover, the law firm submitted evidence demonstrating that it made no material misrepresentations to the plaintiffs …, thus establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the fraud cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the law firm’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action.  Zinnanti v 513 Woodward Ave Realty, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02244, 2011-10407, Index No 3092/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

,

Action Under Labor Law Based On Injury On a Ship in Dry-Dock Not Preempted by Federal Maritime Law

A worker on a ship in dry-dock was injured when he fell through an open hole in the floor or deck.  He brought an action pursuant to the Labor Law.  Although the action was within the jurisdiction of federal maritime law, the Second Department held that the state labor law claims were not preempted by general maritime law:

…[T]here is no real dispute that the present action falls within federal maritime jurisdiction … . Contrary to the contention of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, however, the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are not preempted by general maritime law. Under the circumstances of this case, the application of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), which are local regulations enacted to protect the health and safety of workers in this state, will not unduly interfere with a fundamental characteristic of maritime law or the free flow of maritime commerce … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs which was for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against the City. Durando v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02214, 2012-00535, Index No 33753/08, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

Delay in Notification Justified Refusal to Defend and Indemnify

The Second Department determined the failure of one insurance company, Fage, to notify another insurance company, Utica, of an automobile accident until 2 ½ years after the accident justified Utica’s refusal to defend and indemnify Fage under the commercial liability umbrella policy issued by Utica to Fage:

The umbrella policy requires Fage to notify Utica of an occurrence or suit as soon as practicable. Such a requirement is a condition precedent to coverage … . Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given as soon as practicable, notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances … . Absent a valid excuse, the failure to satisfy the notice requirement of an insurance policy vitiates coverage … .

Here, no notice was given to Utica by Fage until more than 2½ years after the subject accident and more than 2 years after the underlying action was commenced. This was an unreasonable delay … . Fage has provided no evidence of circumstances, such as lack of knowledge of the accident or a reasonable belief in nonliability, to excuse its delay … . Although Fage claims that its counsel was not aware of the existence of the umbrella policy until October 2009, such unawareness is not a valid excuse for the failure to provide Utica with timely notice … .  Ortiz v Fage USA Corp, 2012 NY Slip Op 02229, 2012-00469, Index Nos 22944/07, 23217/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation

The Second Department explained the burden of proof for demonstrating documents are immune from discovery as material prepared in anticipation of litigation as follows:

“The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery” … . More particularly, “[t]he party asserting the privilege that material sought through discovery was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery … by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … . An attorney’s affirmation containing conclusory assertions that requested documents are conditionally immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, without more, is insufficient to sustain the movant’s burden of demonstrating that the materials were prepared exclusively for litigation … .  New York Schools Ins Reciprocal v Milburn Sales Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02227, 2012-01697, Index no 2848/11, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, ,

Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined a complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that an attorney’s unnotarized affirmation was submitted in opposition to the motion, rather than an affidavit:

When an attorney is a party to an action, and affidavits are required to support or oppose a request for relief, that attorney may not rely upon an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit, as the facts alleged in that affirmation would not be in admissible form (see CPLR 2106…). However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [plaintiff’s] submission of an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in opposition to the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them did not warrant the granting of that motion. “CPLR 3211 allows [a] plaintiff to submit affidavits, but it does not oblige him [or her] to do so on penalty of dismissal” … . Accordingly, [defendant’s] failure to submit an affidavit was not fatal to his opposition, and the Supreme Court should not have granted the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on that basis. Law Offs of Frishberg v Toman, 2013 NY Slip Op 02224, 2011-04956, 2011-07881, Index No 12965/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Determining Sufficiency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Explained 

In reinstating two counts of an indictment that were dismissed upon the trial court’s review of the sufficiency of the proof before the grand jury, the Second Department wrote:

“Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction'” … . ” Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” (CPL 70.10[1]). ” In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes,’ and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference.’ That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference'” … .  People v Woodson, 2013 NY Slip Op 02282, 2012-02226, Ind No 1881/11, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

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