You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The lease indicated the landlord had responsibility for maintenance of the ramp where plaintiff fell:

… “[A]n out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord. The defendant’s submissions in support of its motion, including its written lease with Petco and a transcript of the deposition testimony of its principal, did not demonstrate that it was an out-of-possession landlord with respect to the subject ramp. The lease obligated the defendant to maintain all appurtenant exterior areas, including the parking area, and the defendant’s principal testified at his deposition that the ramp was part of the parking lot, which the defendant maintained … . Further, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether its allegedly negligent maintenance of the ramp was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident  … . Thepenier v BGTWO Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06272, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord can be liable for a slip and fall on the property depends on the terms of the lease. Here the landlord had the responsibility to maintain the parking lot ramp where plaintiff fell.

 

,

THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant county’s motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff allegedly tripped over a section of rebar protruding from a concrete island in a court parking lot. Although parking lots are not explicitly mentioned in the statute requiring written notice of a dangerous condition as a prerequisite for the county’s liability, the Second Department held that the parking lot served the function of a sidewalk and therefore was subject to the written notice requirement:

The County has a prior written notice statute which provides, in relevant part, that “‘[n]o civil action shall be maintained against the County for damages or injuries to person or property sustained by reason of any sidewalk . . . unless written notice of such defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition of such sidewalk [is given] . . . [and s]uch written notice shall specify the particular place and nature of such defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition . . . [and that n]otice required to be given as herein provided shall be made in writing by certified or registered mail directed to the Office of the County Attorney'” … . * * *

The County demonstrated … that its prior written notice statute applied here because the concrete island with the protruding metal “served the same functional purpose as a sidewalk” … . The County further demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect.  Sanchez v County of Nassau, 2023 NY Slip Op 06270, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Here the statute required written notice of a dangerous condition on a sidewalk before the county could be liable for a slip or trip and fall. The plaintiff tripped in a county parking lot. The parking lot was deemed the functional equivalent of a sidewalk, triggering the written-notice requirement.

 

,

THE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES DID NOT SUPPORT THE UNDERWRITER’S CLAIM THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HEART CONDITION; THEREFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The insurance company alleged plaintiff’s decedent misrepresented his medical condition when applying for the term life insurance policy eight months before his death. The insurance company failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s decedent made a material misrepresentation:

“To establish materiality as a matter of law, an insurer must present clear and substantially uncontradicted documentation concerning its underwriting practice, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, which show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application … . …

Although the defendant’s chief underwriter testified at his deposition that the defendant would not have issued the subject policy to the decedent at the same premium rate had he disclosed the extent of his heart conditions, the underwriting guidelines submitted by the defendant do not state that the heart conditions which the decedent failed to disclose must be assessed at a higher premium … . Ruiz v First Invs. Life Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 06269, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Here the underwriting guidelines did not support the insurance company’s claim that it would not have issued plaintiff’s decedent’s life insurance policy had it been aware of his heart condition. Therefore the company did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s decedent made a material misrepresentation when applying for the policy.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily dismissed defendant’s serious request for new counsel without making an inquiry and factual findings. Defendant’s right to counsel was violated:

In 2017, the defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, among other crimes. While the matter was pending, the defendant submitted to the Supreme Court a writing, dated December 24, 2018, in which he claimed that he had had no conferences or meetings with his assigned counsel, that counsel had failed to appear in court on several control dates, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication between the defendant and counsel, and that counsel’s omnibus motion contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The defendant also requested a six-week adjournment to attempt to secure representation from a particular attorney who purportedly had agreed to represent the defendant.

At a pretrial proceeding on January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s application without making any inquiry. During a subsequent appearance, in June 2019, the defendant read a lengthy statement in which he recounted that his prior application was denied and listed his reasons for not wanting to be represented by his assigned counsel. * * *

… Supreme Court’s conduct in summarily denying the defendant’s application for an adjournment, without conducting any inquiry, and telling him that the court would not relieve assigned counsel and that his alternative was to represent himself pro se, violated the defendant’s right to counsel …. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 06261, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: A serious request for new counsel should not be summarily denied without an inquiry. Here defendant was denied his right to counsel by the judge’s failure to address his request. A new trial before a different judge was ordered.

 

THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the dismissal of the complaint did not nullify the counterclaims for which discovery had been demanded:

… Supreme Court should not have denied, as academic, the [plaintiffs’] cross-motions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the counterclaims and to compel the defendants to comply with certain discovery demands. “A cause of action contained in a counterclaim . . . shall be treated, as far as practicable, as if it were contained in a complaint” (CPLR 3019[d] …). “Thus, dismissal of the . . . complaint did not, in itself, extinguish the [defendants’] counterclaims,” which were independent of the causes of action asserted in the complaint … . Banschick v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Here the dismissal of the complaint should not have been deemed to render the counterclaims academic. Causes of action in counterclaims should be treated as if they were in a complaint.

 

,

THE RIGHT TO SEEK REMOVAL OF A CLOUD ON TITLE IS NEVER BARRED BY A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action which sought to remove a cloud on title should not have been dismissed as time-barred because the right to that relief is never barred by a statute of limitations:

Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss as time-barred the first and second causes of action, which sought to set aside and cancel, as null and void, the two mortgages held by the defendants. The Trust, as the alleged owner of the subject property, is “presumptively entitled to possession” … , and the first and second causes of action seek to remove the cloud on title resulting from the allegedly fraudulent mortgages. “[W]here a plaintiff seeks to remove a cloud on title, the right to such relief ‘is never barred by the Statute of Limitations. It is a continuing right which exists as long as there is an occasion for its exercise'” … . Mostafa v Pension Solutions, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06134, Second Dept 11-29-30

Practice Point: The right to seek removal of a cloud on title is never barred by a statute of limitations.

 

,

ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against one defendant (G Buddy) should have been dismissed because G Buddy had no control or supervisory duties at the worksite:

The express terms of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241(6) provide that “the nondelegable duties imposed by those statutes apply only to ‘contractors and owners and their agents'” … . “To hold a defendant liable as an agent of the general contractor or the owner for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), there must be a showing that it had the authority to supervise and control the work that brought about the injury” … . Here, G Buddy established, prima facie, that it was not an agent of either the Board or the contractor at the time of the plaintiff’s accident by submitting evidence demonstrating that G Buddy had no control over or supervisory responsibilities on the worksite … . Hossain v Condominium Bd. of Grand Professional Bldg., 2023 NY Slip Op 06128, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: In order to hold a party liable under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) as an agent of a contractor or owner, the party must have exercised supervisory control over the worksite.

 

,

A DEEDED EASEMENT CAN ONLY BE CREATED WHEN THE GRANTOR OWNS THE DOMINANT AND SERVIENT PROPERTY; HERE THE CRITERIA FOR A DEEDED EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; BUT THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate they had a deeded easement over the disputed land, but did demonstrate they had a prescriptive easement, although the extent of the easement must be determined at trial:

“An easement is not a personal right of the landowner but is an appurtenance to the land benefitted by it . . . and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement” … . “An easement appurtenant occurs when [an] easement is created in writing, subscribed by the creator, and burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate” … . However, “[t]he long-accepted rule in this State holds that a deed with a reservation or exception by the grantor in favor of a third party, a so called ‘stranger to the deed,’ does not create a valid interest in favor of that third party” … . Thus, “[f]or an easement by grant to be effective, the dominant and servient properties must have a common grantor” … .

Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the plaintiffs do not have a deeded easement over the disputed area by “establishing that, at the time the easement was purportedly created, the grantor owned the servient property, but not the dominant property … .  * * *

… [P]laintiffs established … their predecessors in interest acquired an easement by prescription over the disputed area, which easement ran with the land when the plaintiffs purchased the property in 2018 … . Notably, the defendant learned of the purported deeded easement in 2005 and assumed that it was valid until at least July 2019. Therefore, the defendant’s relationship to the dominant estate’s use of the driveway area was one of acquiescence, rather than permission … . … Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross-motion which was for summary judgment declaring that they have a prescriptive easement over the disputed area. Daniello v Wagner, 2023 NY Slip Op 06116, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: The criteria for a deeded easement and a prescriptive easement are clearly explained.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION RE: SHARING HUSBAND’S PENSION AT A FUTURE DATE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND NEED NOT BE REFORMED; THE STIPULATION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE REFORMED PURSUANT TO A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation that was incorporated but not merged into the divorce judgment was not ambiguous and should not have reformed the stipulation based upon a mutual mistake. The stipulation was not ambiguous and required the husband to share his pension when he turned 62. In addition, reformation of the stipulation was not appropriate pursuant to a motion. A plenary action is required to reform stipulation which is incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce:

… Supreme Court should have rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the stipulation of settlement was ambiguous. The interpretation of the stipulation advanced by the plaintiff would render meaningless the terms of the stipulation providing that distribution of pension benefits to the plaintiff would commence in the future, when the defendant reached the age of 62 … . Inasmuch as the language of the stipulation disclosed the parties’ intent to defer the plaintiff’s pension distribution until the defendant reached age 62, at a time he would have been eligible for regular service retirement benefits, and is not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the agreement is not ambiguous … .

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court determined that the stipulation of settlement was affected by a mutual mistake, reformation was not appropriate. A motion is not the proper vehicle for challenging a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce. Rather, the plaintiff was required to commence a plenary action to reform the stipulation … . In any event, reformation of the stipulation was unwarranted, as the parties’ mistake regarding the category of benefits the defendant would receive did not “involve a fundamental assumption of the contract” … . Anderson v Anderson, 2023 NY Slip Op 06108, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Here the judge should not have determined the stipulation incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce was ambiguous because it was subject to only one interpretation.

Practice Point: A stipulation which is incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce cannot be reformed pursuant to a motion. A plenary proceeding must be commenced.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was 150 feet away from a broken utility pole which needed to be removed. The pole was damaged when struck by a vehicle and the attached electric wires were live. Plaintiff was injured diving under a truck when there was an explosion as the pole was being hoisted:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the work they were performing at the time of the incident constituted routine maintenance or repairs not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) … . The defendants’ evidentiary submissions indicated that the incident occurred while the defendants were hoisting a portion of the utility pole to enable the total replacement of the pole, which had been severely damaged after a vehicle hit the pole. Thus, the defendants’ evidentiary submissions did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the work involved merely “replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” …. . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no authority to supervise or control the work being performed by the defendants’ own employees at the time of the incident … . Further, to the extent the plaintiff alleged that the incident was caused by a dangerous condition, the defendants did not address the issues of whether they created or had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 … . Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) does not apply to routine maintenance. Replacing a utility pole struck by a vehicle is not routine maintenance.

Practice Point: Where there is a question of fact about the cause of dangerous condition and whether defendant has supervisory control over the worksite, summary judgment in favor of defendant on a Labor Law 200 cause of action is precluded.

 

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