You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Rarely a Basis for Summary Judgment/Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Control of the Instrumentality Causing Injury Precluded Summary Judgment.

A homeowner was sued by a utility employee who was injured when a staircase leading to the homeowner’s basement collapsed.  At the deposition the homeowner testified the house was new when he bought it and he had made no alterations to the stairway.  The plaintiff was granted summary judgment pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  The Second Department reversed because it could not be ruled out that the builder of the home, and not the defendant, was negligent.  It was not demonstrated, therefore, that the accident was caused by an instrumentality in the exclusive control of the defendant.  The Court wrote:

The plaintiff’s reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must establish the following in order for the doctrine to apply: “(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Only in the rarest cases will a plaintiff be awarded summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in the course of a trial by relying upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … .  Bunting v Haynes, 2013 NY Slip Op 01521, 2012-01717, Index No 25382/10, Second Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Doctrine of Equitable Mootness for Bankruptcy Ruling ​

In this contract action, the issue at the heart of the case before the Second Department was the preclusive effect of a bankruptcy court ruling and the doctrine of “equitable mootness” which prohibits disturbing a bankruptcy plan already implemented.  The easiest way to convey the nature of the legal issues in the case is to quote the relevant discussions in the Second Department’s decision:

In light of authority holding that a court should apply the rules of res judicata followed in the jurisdiction that rendered the earlier decision …, we apply federal res judicata law in determining whether the doctrine of res judicata bars this action … .

Under federal res judicata law, subsequent litigation is prohibited if a prior court ruling ” was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action” … . This rule applies with full force to matters decided by the bankruptcy courts, including those concerning Chapter 11 reorganization … . Moreover, in the bankruptcy context, the court must also consider whether an independent judgment in a separate proceeding would ” impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or effectiveness'” of the reorganization plan … .

The plaintiffs contend that there was no final judgment on the merits because the appeal from the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order was dismissed on the ground of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness is invoked to avoid disturbing a reorganization plan once implemented …. When a plan has been substantially consummated, an appeal should be dismissed unless several requirements, the most important of which is that the appellant sought a stay of confirmation, are satisfied … .

Here, the District Court dismissed the appeal from the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order because the Kmart reorganization plan had been implemented and RM 18 had failed to seek a stay of the confirmation. Once the appeal was dismissed as moot, the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order became final …. Since there was no vacatur of the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order, it has preclusive effect … . …[T]he plaintiffs may not maintain the present litigation, which challenges [the] final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction … .  RM 18 Corp. v Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 2013 NY Slip Op 01541, 2011-o9112, Index No 15992/10, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

 

, ,

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

Proof that the defendant threatened the complainant with a taser or stun gun was legally insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of burglary in the first degree and menacing in the second degree.  Although the Second Department determined it was harmless error, the Court also noted that it was error to shackle the defendant and put black bunting around the defense table, without also putting black bunting around the prosecution table. The jury, in that circumstance, may have inferred the bunting was designed to hide shackles.  “The federal constitution ‘forbids the use of visible shackles … unless that use is justified by an essential state interest … specific to the defendant on trial’ …”.  County Court, in this instance, failed to articulate on the record an adequate justification individualized to the defendant for the shackling … .  People v Morillo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01572, 2010-11438, Ind No 2052/09, 2nd Dept. 5-13-13

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precludes Appeal of Statutory Speedy Trial Violation But Not Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation

By pleading guilty a defendant forfeits appellate review of a claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 was violated. However, a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim survives both a guilty plea and a waiver of the right to appeal. People v Franco, 2013 NY Slip Op 01570, 2009-10119, Ind No 10795/07, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Court Participation in Testimony Read-Back Is Error

Although the Second Department concluded it was harmless error, the Court noted that the trial court erred when it participated in reading back certain trial testimony to the jury.  The Court wrote:  “We take this opportunity to emphasize that ‘[w]hen, during a read-back of testimony, a trial judge assumes the role of a witness or inquiring counsel, he or she may unwittingly and erroneously convey to [the] jury that the court is aligned with the party or counsel whose role the court has assumed in the read-back’…”.  People v Facey, 2012 NY Slip Op 01568, 2012-11829, Ind No 9839/08, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Interpretation of Unambiguous Language; Doctrine of Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterious; Criteria for Declaratory Judgment 

In a contract action, the Second Department laid out the black letter law on the interpretation of unambiguous language, the doctrine of “exclusio unius est exclusio alterious,” and the criteria for a declaratory judgment.  The controversy concerned the amount of a bonus which was determined, according to the terms of the contract, by whether the plaintiff resigned or was fired, a disputed issue:

The defendant acknowledges that if the language of a written contract is free of ambiguity, the court must determine its meaning as a matter of law based upon the writing alone, without resort to extrinsic evidence …. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the language of paragraph 4.2 clearly limits bonus compensation to a share of distributions based upon either the sale of all of RDL’s assets, or some of RDL’s assets. Pursuant to the doctrine of “exclusio unius est exclusio alterious,” which means that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other …, the references to the sale of assets implies that bonus compensation does not apply to distributions based upon something other than the sale of assets. If the parties had intended for bonus compensation to be based upon all distributions, these references to the sale of assets would have been unnecessary.  * * * The courts may issue declaratory judgments declaring the rights of the parties only where there is a justiciable controversy …. There is no justiciable controversy warranting declaratory relief if the controversy is over a future event “beyond the control of the parties and may never occur” … . However, in the instant case, the future event is in the control of RDL …, and is likely to occur … . Therefore, the question of whether the defendant was discharged without cause or resigned constitutes a justiciable controversy, which must be resolved by the Supreme Court after a trial.  Realtime Data, LLC v Melone, 2013 NY Slip Op 01540, 2011-11936, Index No 50021/10, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

No Need to Demonstrate Detrimental Reliance to Recover for Misconduct by Notary Public 

The Second Department determined that “detrimental reliance” does not need to be demonstrated to recover for misconduct by a notary public under Executive Law section 135 where the plaintiff does not allege fraud as the theory of recovery.  The plaintiff in this case alleged the notary’s misconduct resulted in the recording of a forged deed which caused the subrogors to sustain damages.  In reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the notarial-misconduct cause of action, the Second Department wrote:

Executive Law § 135 provides, in relevant part, that “[f]or any misconduct by a notary public in the performance of any of his powers such notary public shall be liable to the parties injured for all damages sustained by them.” Thus, the plain language of the statute does not require a showing of detrimental reliance … . Rather, a plaintiff seeking to recover under that section need only show that the notary engaged in notarial misconduct and that such misconduct was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury … .  Chicago Title Insurance Co. v LaPierre, 2013 NY Slip Op 01523, 2012-05101, Index No 15384/08, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

, , ,

Procedure for Extending Real Property Lien Based on Money Judgment

The procedure for extending a real property lien which is based on a New York money judgment was explained by the Second Department:

Although a New York money judgment is enforceable for 20 years (see CPLR 211[b]), a real property lien resulting from the judgment is viable for only 10 years (see CPLR 5203[a]). For this reason, the Legislature enacted CPLR 5014 to give a judgment creditor an opportunity to extend the life of the lien by commencing an action for a renewal judgment … . “Pursuant to CPLR 5014(1), an action upon a money judgment may be maintained between the original parties where ten years have elapsed since the judgment was originally docketed” … . “An action may be commenced under subdivision one of this section during the year prior to the expiration of ten years since the first docketing of the judgment” (CPLR 5014). The plaintiff here established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law awarding her a renewal judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014(1) by demonstrating the existence of the prior judgment, that the defendant was the judgment debtor, that the judgment was docketed at least nine years prior to the commencement of this action, and that the judgment remains partially or completely unsatisfied …. . Rose v Gulizia, 2013 NY Slip Op 01542, 2011-08302, Index No 40635/15, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Supreme Court Has the Power to Appoint a Temporary Representative to Substitute for a Defendant in a Personal Injury Action

One of the defendants in a personal injury action died.  The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 1015 to have Supreme Court appoint a temporary representative of the estate, and to have the temporary representative substituted for the deceased defendant. The defendants opposed the motion arguing that Surrogate’s Court was the appropriate forum for the appointment of a temporary administrator. In finding that Supreme Court could make the appointment, the Second Department wrote:

“In most instances the personal representative of the decedent’s estate should be substituted in the action” …. However, in the event no such representative exists, an appropriate appointment should be made and that individual should be substituted in place of the decedent … . “In determining who shall be substituted for the decedent, conflict of interest questions may be raised” … .

The Second Department, however, determined that the person Supreme Court appointed, the attorney for the insurance company defending the action, had a conflict of interest because the insurance company had disclaimed coverage for the subject accident.  The matter was remitted for the appointment of a different temporary administrator.  Dieye v Royal Blue Services, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 01527, 2012-03428, Index No 3392/09, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

, ,

“Aid of the Court No Longer Required” in Neglect Proceeding

The grandmother and mother of a seven-month-old were found to have neglected the child by briefly leaving the child unattended in the kitchen sink with the water running when the hot water “spiked” causing burns.  The mother and grandmother moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to Family Court Act 1051 (c) on the ground aid of the court was not required.  The Second Department noted that the facts were sufficient to sustain the petition, but determined the petition should be dismissed because the aid of the court was not required.  Following the incident the mother completed all the programs required by children’s services, the grandmother attended parenting classes with the mother voluntarily, the child was returned to the mother 18 months before the hearing, home visits confirmed the child was not left unattended and was bathed properly, and the hot water “spikes” had been eliminated. The Second Department wrote:  “The foregoing demonstrates that the incident on which the petition was based was an isolated one, that the mother and grandmother have been rehabilitated, and that the child is no longer at risk of being neglected …”.  Matter of Kayden H., 2013 NY Slip Op 01549, 2011-09702, 2011-09704, Docket No N-22472-09, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

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