You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

THE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk-level determination, held that the record did not establish that defendant waived his right to be present at the risk-level hearing:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . “Before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[6]). Here, defense counsel expressly stated that the defendant was not waiving his right to be present after he failed to appear for the SORA hearing, and there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was made aware of the consequences of failing to appear for the SORA hearing or that his absence … was deliberate.

Since the record fails to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n(3). People v Blount, 2025 NY Slip Op 05972, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what must be placed on the record to explain a defendant’s absence from a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding.

 

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because the report was based upon business records which were not produced. In addition defendant’s default was based upon records for which no foundation was laid:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the record has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “However, computations based on the review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … .

Here, the referee’s report was improperly premised upon unproduced business records.

… [P]laintiff’s submissions reflected that Chase was not the loan servicer at the time of the default, which allegedly occurred in 2008. Since Chase’s employee, Brunton, did not state that the records of any other relevant entity, such as a prior loan servicer or the plaintiff, were provided to Chase and incorporated into Chase’s own records, that Chase routinely relied upon such records in its business, or that he had personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures of any other relevant entity, Brunton failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of any records reflecting the defendant’s alleged default in 2008 … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Hassanin, 2025 NY Slip Op 05935, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to confirm a referee’s report in a foreclosure action, as well as the necessary foundation for business records created by a prior loan servicer.

 

, ,

THE PROCESS SERVER KNEW WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AND WORKED AND MADE SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT HOME; WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT WORK, THE PROCESS SERVER RESORTED TO “NAIL AND MAIL;” THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT DEMONTRATE “DUE DILIGENCE;” THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the process server did not demonstrate due diligence in attempting to serve defendant, therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction:

“Service of process upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with the statutory methods of service set forth in CPLR 308” … . “Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence” … . “The term due diligence is not defined by statute, and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis” … . To satisfy the “due diligence” requirement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment … . “The failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void” … .

… [T]he process server’s prior attempts at service did not demonstrate due diligence. Two out of three of the process server’s prior attempts at personal delivery at the defendant’s residence occurred during weekday hours when it could reasonably have been expected that the defendant was either working or in transit to or from work. The prior attempts were made on Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 6:15 p.m.; on Saturday, April 19, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.; and on Monday, April 21, 2008, at 8:20 a.m. The Saturday attempt occurred at a time when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home. The process server averred that a neighbor confirmed that the defendant resided at that address, but gave a negative reply when asked if the neighbor was aware of the defendant’s normal routine and place of business. Attached to the affidavit of service were the results of a “people at work” search, which revealed a company address for the defendant. Yet the process server made no inquiries about the defendant at that address before resorting to affix and mail service. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeFilippo, 2025 NY Slip Op 05933, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “due diligence” in attempting to serve a defendant. Here several failed attempts at defendant’s residence was not enough. The process server did not attempt to serve defendant at work before resorting to “nail and mail.”​

 

, ,

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to “pierce the corporate veil” should not have been granted: The allegations in the proposed amended complaint were “conclusory” rather than fact-based:

“‘Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, “pierce the corporate veil,” whenever necessary “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity”‘” … . “‘Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury'” … . The mere contention that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory assertions that a corporation acted as the owners’ “alter ego,” without more, will not suffice to support the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has ‘abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form’ include whether there was a ‘failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use'” … . Moreover, even under the liberal standards of CPLR 3025(b), the proposed amended complaint must still sufficiently allege the material elements of the cause of action asserted … .

Here, the proposed amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations that the Berkovics [the principals of defendant corporation] breached a settlement agreement, thereby acting in bad faith and in furtherance of their own interests, and that the Berkovics exercised complete domination over the defendant in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. The proposed amended complaint fails to assert that the Berkovics acted other than in their alleged capacity as the principals of the defendant or that they failed to respect the separate legal existence of the defendant. Thus, the proposed cause of action seeking to pierce the corporate veil was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit as it was speculative and conclusory … . Anderson v ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05931, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight in the the nature of the allegations required to “pierce to corporate” veil. The allegations must be fact-based. Conclusory or speculative allegations will not suffice.

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the robbery-related convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the police did not have a lawful basis for removing a wallet from defendant’s pocket and examining its contents. There was no evidence that the lawful frisk of the defendant indicated the presence of a weapon. The wallet, which had been stolen from the victim, should have been suppressed. Because the robber was wearing a mask, finding the wallet on defendant’s person tended to identify defendant as the robber. The error in failing to suppress the wallet, therefore, was not harmless:

… [E]ven assuming that the officers were justified in performing a protective frisk … , there was no justification for searching the defendant’s pants pocket, reaching into it, and removing the wallet. In the course of conducting a protective pat-down based upon reasonable suspicion, “[o]nce an officer has concluded that no weapon is present, the search is over and there is no authority for further intrusion” … . There was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that, during his frisk of the defendant, Nelson [the police officer] felt anything in the defendant’s pocket that seemed to be a weapon or that could have posed a danger to the officers at the scene. Indeed, Nelson did not testify at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for removing the wallet from the defendant’s pocket … , and that act violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … . The officers committed an additional constitutional violation when, after retrieving the wallet from the defendant’s pocket, they opened it and conducted a warrantless search of its contents … . Since the officers lacked the factual predicate necessary to search the defendant’s pocket and the wallet’s contents, the People failed to satisfy their burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, and thus the wallet and its contents, seized as a result of that search, should have been suppressed … . People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 05823, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: If a street frisk does not indicate the presence of a weapon, the seizure and examination of a wallet found in defendant’s pocket has no lawful basis.

 

, , , ,

THE CLASS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND MONETARY RELIEF BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS THE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WAS IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTING IN A SHIFT OF THE TAX BURDEN FROM THE WEALTHIER PREDOMINANTLY WHITE COMMUNITIES TO THE LOWER INCOME PREDOMINANTLY NONWHITE COMMUNITIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined the class of property owners in Nassau County had standing to  seek declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief stemming from the “irrational, discriminatory and unconstitutional” real property tax system:

… [T]he plaintiffs allege that the County’s tax assessment policies and procedures, i.e., its freeze on reassessments from January 2010 until January 2018 and its use of a grievance procedure which was voluntary and yielded unscientific results unrelated to property values, shifted the property tax burden from wealthier, predominantly white communities in the County to lower income, predominantly nonwhite communities. The plaintiffs allege that from 2010 through 2016, property taxes on 61% of the County’s residential and commercial properties increased by only $466, or 5%, on average, whereas the average increase for the other 39% of County properties was six times that amount: $2,748, or 35.7%. They allege that most properties in predominantly nonwhite communities comprised that 39%, which amounted to an aggregate shift in the property tax burden onto the plaintiffs and those similarly situated in a sum in excess of $1.7 billion. * * *

… [T]he allegations in the complaint, if true, … establish standing, including that the plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact … . The plaintiffs “allege[d] that publicly-criticized systemic inequities have resulted in [more expensive] properties increasingly shouldering less of a tax burden than properties worth far less” … and alleged that they were “being treated differently from other, similarly-situated property owners, and that no rational basis exists for this allegedly disparate treatment” … . Hall v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05796, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations made by the plaintiff class demonstrated an injury-in-fact stemming from the county’s property tax system, i.e., a shift in the tax burden from the wealthier predominantly white communities to the lower income predominantly nonwhite communities. Therefore the class demonstrated standing to bring the lawsuit.

 

A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT EXCEED IN AMOUNT OR DIFFER IN THE KIND OF RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment must be vacated because the judgment awarded relief which was not requested in the complaint:

“A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from that demanded in the complaint” … . Moreover, “‘at an inquest, the court may not permit amendments of the pleadings which would broaden the scope of the inquest and increase the amount of damages provable by the plaintiff'” … . Here, the complaint only sought damages … in the principal sum of $20,357. Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remitted … for entry of an amended judgment limiting the award … to the amount originally demanded in the complaint. Deutsch v Levy, 2025 NY Slip Op 05790, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief requested in the complaint.​

 

,

APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. Appellant was slowing down approaching plaintiff’s car in front, which was stopped, when appellant was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff:

“A ‘defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “‘Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision'” … . The operator of the middle vehicle in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was stopped or safely slowing down to a stop behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle … .

Here, the appellant submitted evidence that demonstrated that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the respondents’ vehicle while his foot was on the brake and he was in the process of slowing down. Since the appellant was in the process of safely slowing down to a stop behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was at a stop, when his vehicle was struck from behind, he established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Sherman v Edwards, 2025 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: When a driver is in the process of braking approaching a stopped vehicle and is struck from behind and pushed into the stopped vehicle, the driver is not negligent.

 

, ,

THE ADMINSTRATOR’S SIX-YEAR DELAYING IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTFF, COUPLED WITH THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s six-year delay in substituting the estate for the deceased in this personal injury case, warranted dismissal of the complaint:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made” … . CPLR 1021 provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … and requires that such substitution “be made within a reasonable time” …. If substitution is not made within a reasonable time, “the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made” (CPLR 1021). “[T]he determination of whether the timing is reasonable requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit” … .

Here, the administrator’s protracted delay of almost six years in obtaining limited letters of administration so as to be substituted in this action, for which he provided no explanation in his initial motion papers and only an unsubstantiated, partial explanation in his reply attorney affirmation, demonstrated a lack of diligence. Furthermore, in this 16-year-old personal injury action, in which the deposition of the bus driver was never obtained, the administrator failed to rebut the defendants’ showing of prejudice arising both from the passage of time and the unavailability of the bus driver. Finally, the administrator did not submit in support of his motion the complaint, a bill of particulars, deposition transcripts, or any proof at all as to the potential merit of the cause of action. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the administrator’s motion and, in effect, denying the defendants’ application to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely seek substitution ..Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 05718, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here an administrator’s six-year delay in seeking substitution for the deceased plaintiff, coupled with prejudice to the defendant, warranted dismissal of the personal injury complaint.

 

APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. Appellant was slowing down approach plaintiff’s car in front, which was stopped, when appellant was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff. Appellant was entitled to summary judgment:

“A ‘defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “‘Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision'” … . The operator of the middle vehicle in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was stopped or safely slowing down to a stop behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle … .

Here, the appellant submitted evidence that demonstrated that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the respondents’ vehicle while his foot was on the brake and he was in the process of slowing down. Since the appellant was in the process of safely slowing down to a stop behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was at a stop, when his vehicle was struck from behind, he established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Sherman v Edwards, 2025 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: When a driver is in the process of braking approaching a stopped vehicle and is struck from behind and pushed into the stopped vehicle, the driver is not negligent.

 

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