You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Construction Manager Not Liable Unless Delegated Authority of General Manager

In finding the action against a construction manager should have been dismissed because the construction manager had not been delegated the responsibilities of a general contractor, the Second Department wrote:

“Although a construction manager is generally not considered a contractor responsible for the safety of the workers at a construction site . . . it may nonetheless become responsible if it has been delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor, or if it functions as an agent of the owner of the premises” . ” A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured”… . The defendant … made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through the admission of construction documents and agreements and the deposition testimony of the parties, that it had not been delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor, and did not have supervisory control and authority over the work being done … . McLaren v Turner Constr Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 02726, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

,

Best Interests of Child Allowed Mother’s Relocation

In reversing Family Court’s determination the best interests of the child did not permit the mother’s relocation, the Second Department wrote:

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea …, we find that the mother established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children’s best interests would be served by permitting the relocation … .

The mother demonstrated that she could not meet the family’s living expenses in New York and that the father did not make regular child support payments …. She also demonstrated that, if permitted to relocate, she would accept an offer of employment in her field of experience, and would receive financial assistance, including housing and a car, from extended family members … . The desires of the children, while properly considered, are not determinative … . Matter of Tracy A G v Undine J, 2013 NY Slip Op 02751, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

,

Mother Not Given Sufficient Opportunity to Substantiate Her Income

In finding Family Court did not have a sufficient basis to determine the mother failed to substantiate her income in a child support proceeding, the Second Department wrote:

The Support Magistrate improperly awarded child support based on the needs of the child rather than the mother’s income, upon concluding that the mother failed to substantiate her income (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][k]). The record reflects that, prior to the hearing at which the Support Magistrate issued the order, the mother had appeared before the Support Magistrate only twice and, on both occasions, the appearances were very brief. … Moreover, the Support Magistrate failed to advise the mother that her failure to fill out the financial disclosure affidavit would result in an award of support based on the child’s needs, instead of the mother’s income … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted … for a new hearing on the petition and a new determination thereafter as to the mother’s support obligation.  Matter of Anderson v Pappalardo, 2013 NY Slip Op 02745, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

, ,

Restitution Can Not Be Ordered When Not Addressed in Plea Agreement

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, determined the sentencing court should not have imposed restitution because restitution was not addressed in the plea agreement.  The matter was remitted for re-sentencing without restitution. People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 02770, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

,

Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode of Proceedings” Error Requiring Reversal

In reversing a conviction because the trial court committed a “mode of proceedings” error (not requiring preservation) by not following the procedure mandated in Criminal Procedure Law 310.30 (re: notes sent out by the jury during deliberations), the Second Department explained:

“Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge,’ it should be read into the record in the presence of counsel,’ and that, [a]fter the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses'” … . These requirements were not satisfied here.People v Fenton, 2013 NY Slip Op 02761, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

Criteria for Evaluating County Bidding Process Explained

Rockland County sought bids for public bus transportation. The respondent, Brega Transportation Corporation [hereinafter “Brega”], protested the county’s bid specifications as exclusionary and discriminatory and Supreme Court agreed.  The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that Rockland County’s Invitation to Bid for Transit Operations and Maintenance [hereinafter “RFB”] violated Municipal Law 103.    After explaining the criteria for evaluation of a bidding process, the Second Department wrote:

Where bid specifications are “not facially anticompetitive,” courts apply “ordinary rational basis review” …. A “’spectral appearance of impropriety’ is insufficient proof to disturb a [municipality’s] determination under the competitive bidding statutes” … . Instead, a party challenging a procurement “has the burden to demonstrate actual’ impropriety, unfair dealing or some other violation of statutory requirements”… .  Here, the Supreme Court improperly shifted the burden of proof from Brega to the county. Since Brega made only conclusory assertions and failed to demonstrate that the county’s bid specifications were irrational or exclusionary, the court erred in invalidating the RFB on that basis… .  Brega Transp Corp v Brennan, 2013 NY Slip Op 02707, 2012-03188, Index No 498/12, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

 

Material Misrepresentation Rendered Insurance Policy Void Ab Initio

In determining that a material misrepresentation (i.e., no roofing work would be done) allowed the rescission of an insurance policy, rendering the policy void ab initio, the Second Department wrote:

“To establish the right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must show that its insured made a material misrepresentation of fact when he or she secured the policy” … . “A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented” (…see Insurance Law § 3105[b]…). ” To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application'” … . ” [M]aterial misrepresentations . . . if proven, would void the . . . insurance policy ab initio'” … .  Meah v A Aleem Constr, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02727, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

 

Person May Have More that One Residence for Insurance Purposes

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether the respondent was an “insured” within the meaning of an automobile insurance policy. Noting that a person can have more than one residence for insurance purposes, the Second Department wrote:

The endorsement defines an insured as, inter alia, any relative of the named insured while a resident of the same household as the named insured. While “[a] person can have more than one residence for insurance coverage purposes, residency in this context generally entails something more than mere temporary or physical presence, and requires some degree of permanence and intention to remain … . The petitioner submitted sufficient evidence with regard to the residence addresses of the respondent to raise a genuine issue regarding whether the respondent was a resident of her brother’s household at the time of the subject accident … .   Matter of A Cent Ins Co v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 02744, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

 

Store Not Required to Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain

In affirming the dismissal of a personal injury complaint the Second Department noted that defendant store-owners were “not required to cover all of [their] floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … . Valentin v Shoprite of Chester, 2013 NY Slip Op 02739, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

SLIP AND FALL

,

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Allowed

The Second Department reversed the trial court’s deeming a late notice of claim as timely served nunc pro tunc.  The claim was against the New York Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) which is not the same as the City of New York for purposes of a notice of claim.  The Second Department wrote:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion. First, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the HHC had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days after it arose or “within a reasonable time thereafter” (General Municipal Law s 50-e[5]). The fact that a police accident report was prepared by the New York City Police Department did not constitute notice to the HHC of the essential facts constituting the claim … .  * * *Moreover, the plaintiff’s mistake as to the identity of the public corporation against which her claim should be asserted was not excusable. … Finally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her delay did not prejudice the HHC in its defense on the merits. The plaintiff did not serve a notice of claim upon the HHC until eight months after the 90-day period expired and then did not move for two more months to have that late notice of claim deemed timely … .  Platt v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 02733, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

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