You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action was not entitled to interest for the ten years between the judgment of foreclosure and the sale of the property:

… [T]he plaintiff explained that his delay in proceeding with the sale of the subject property was based upon his opinion that it was not worthwhile to pursue a foreclosure sale due to market conditions and his belief that there was “no significant equity in the property” beyond the amount of the first mortgage on the property, which had priority over that held by the plaintiff. While the plaintiff’s failure to conduct the sale based on a potential financial benefit to him was not wrongful conduct, per se, his inaction was the sole cause of the accrual of more than 10 years of postjudgment interest, which is roughly equivalent to the principal amount awarded in the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the first instance (see CPLR 5004). Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable to charge Romano [defendant] with such accrued interest … . Krupnick v Romano, 2023 NY Slip Op 05398, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff did not sell the property until ten years after the judgment of foreclosure due to market conditions. Although the delay was not wrongful, the defendant should not be required to the pay the interest on the judgment accrued during the ten-year delay.

 

, , , ,

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING THE COUNTY TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES CONSTITUTED UNAUTHORIZED TAXES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged that certain fees (tax map verification fees) charged by the county’s Real Property Tax Service Agency constituted taxes which were not legislatively authorized:

… [T]he tax map verification fees were not expressly authorized by the State Legislature through the 2019 revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021. A tax is exacted from a citizen to “defray the general costs of government unrelated to any particular benefit received by that citizen” … . “The State Constitution vests the taxing power in the state legislature and authorizes the legislature to delegate that power to local governments” ( … see NY Const, art XVI, § 1). “‘[T]he delegation of any part of [the] power [of taxation] to a subdivision of the State must be made in express terms,’ and the delegation of any form of taxation authority ‘cannot be inferred'” … .. “The legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute. In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation” … .

Here, while the revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021 reference the County’s authority to collect tax map verification fees … , the revisions do not provide an express delegation of taxing authority, nor do they provide for a review mechanism, as is constitutionally required … . Cella v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 05387, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Fees imposed by a county which are not justified by the related expenses may constitute unauthorized taxes.

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S ASSERTION THAT THE FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PROXIMATELY CAUSED DECEDENT’S PREMATURE DEATH WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit raised a question of fact whether defendants’ failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease proximately caused decedent’s premature death:

… Supreme Court properly determined that the affirmation of the defendants’ expert established, prima facie, that the treatment provided by the defendants was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s alleged injuries … . However, … the affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert, wherein the expert opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the defendants’ departures from accepted standards of medical care proximately caused the decedent to die prematurely … , as a result of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to causation … . Persuad v Hassan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05279, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged defendants’ failure to diagnose decedent’s atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact on causation by asserting the failure to diagnose the disease proximately caused decedent’s premature death.

 

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the COVID-19 toll specific to CPL 30.30 and 190.80 applied and the People, therefore, did not violate the speedy trial statute:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided that “[s]ection 30.30 and [s]ection 190.80 of the criminal procedure law are suspended to the extent necessary to toll any time periods contained therein for the period during which the criminal action is proceeding on the basis of a felony complaint through arraignment on the indictment or on a superior court information and thereafter shall not be tolled” (9 NYCRR 8.202.87). Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-8.202.106).

Upon renewal, the County Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the determination of the court, Executive Order No. 202.87, while in effect, constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … . People v Marino, 2023 NY Slip Op 05273, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the time between the filing of the felony complaint and arraignment on the indictment was excluded from the speedy trial clock pursuant to COVID-19 pandemic Executive Orders.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case should have been granted. Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent should not have been considered:

… [P]laintiff, who was wearing a bright green safety vest, was standing at or near the sideview mirror of the cab while the cab was stopped at a tollbooth when the cab pulled forward and came into contact with the plaintiff’s foot or ankle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the Supreme Court made a determination that, based on the evidence presented, a jury could determine whether the plaintiff was “vigilant” under the circumstances, that is immaterial to the plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in this case. “To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff does not bear the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence” … .

… [P]laintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence on the issue of the defendants’ liability, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212[f] …). Vasquez v Vullis Corp, 2023 NY Slip Op 05286, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was struck by defendant’s car. At the summary judgment stage, whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent is not relevant. Defendant driver was expected to see what should have been seen.

 

,

A COMPLAINT THAT IS NEVER SERVED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN “ACTION;” HERE A PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED; THEREFORE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS ANOTHER IDENTICAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed because it was identical to a prior action. The first complaint was never served so there was no prior action:

CPLR 3211(a)(4) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against [them] on the ground that . . . there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” However, a complaint must have been served in that other action, otherwise it is not “another action,” or a “prior action pending” … within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(4) … . Here, it is undisputed that the complaint in the prior action was not served. Quinones v Z & B Trucking, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05282, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: A complaint which is never served does not constitute an “action.” The subsequent identical complaint should not have been be dismissed on the ground there was a prior identical action.

 

, ,

THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN OF DECEDENT’S PERSON AND PROPERTY; THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CPLR 408 IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the executor of decedent’s estate (Oppedisano) was entitled to a hearing and discovery with respect to the fess and disbursements awarded to the guardian of decedent’s person and property:

… [T]here are disputed issues of fact as to the accuracy and completeness of the guardian’s final account, and whether the guardian failed to adequately investigate the alleged misappropriation of the decedent’s assets and should be denied fees and/or surcharged for breaching his fiduciary duties. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in denying Oppedisano’s objections to the guardian’s final account without conducting a hearing … .

Pursuant to CPLR 408, leave of court generally is required for disclosure in a special proceeding … . Insofar as discovery tends to prolong a case, and therefore is inconsistent with the summary nature of a special proceeding, such disclosure is granted only where it is demonstrated that there is need for such relief … . When leave of court is granted, disclosure takes place in accordance with CPLR 3101(a), which generally provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” … . The Court of Appeals has interpreted the phrase “material and necessary” liberally as requiring, upon request, disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . * * *

Oppedisano demonstrated that the requested disclosure was material and necessary to establishing his objections that the guardian’s final account was inaccurate and/or incomplete and that the guardian breached his fiduciary duties and should be denied fees and/or surcharged, and there was no contravening demonstration that the proposed discovery would be prejudicial or unduly burdensome, would violate confidentiality, or would unduly delay the case. Matter of Giuliana M. (DeCarolis), 2023 NY Slip Op 05262, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the executor was entitled to a hearing on his objections to the fees and disbursements awarded decedent’s guardian and was entitled to discovery pursuant to CPLR 408. In a special proceeding discovery is by leave of court.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Gamez’s) counsel should not have been disqualified pursuant to the advocate-witness rule:

“[T]he disqualification of an attorney is a matter which rests within the sound discretion of the court. A party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his or her own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted, and the movant bears the burden on the motion” … . A party moving to disqualify counsel on the ground that he or she may be called as a witness must demonstrate that (1) the testimony of the opposing party’s counsel is necessary to his or her case, and (2) such testimony would be prejudicial to the opposing party … . “Testimony may be relevant and even highly useful but still not strictly necessary. A finding of necessity takes into account such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence” … . Here, Lopez [defendant] failed to demonstrate that any anticipated testimony by Gamez’s counsel would be necessary to Lopez’s case and that such testimony would be prejudicial to Gamez … . Gamez v Lopez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05250, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: The criteria for the disqualification of counsel pursuant to the advocate-witness rule were not met here. The testimony of the opposing party’s counsel must be necessary to the moving party’s case, and the testimony must be prejudicial to the opposing party.

 

,

A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the driver and owner of an UBER vehicle should not have been dismissed. The driver stopped two feet from the curb and plaintiff tripped trying to get into the vehicle. A NYC regulation requires vehicles-for-hire to be within 12 inches of the curb:

“To hold a defendant liable in common-law negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) that the breach constituted a proximate cause of the injury” …   “Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact, liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

“A common carrier owes a duty to a passenger to provide a reasonably safe place to board and disembark its vehicle” … . 34 RCNY 4-11(c) requires taxis and for-hire vehicles to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up or discharging passengers. Porcasi v Oji, 2023 NY Slip Op 05281, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the NYC regulation requiring for-hire vehicle to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up a passenger created a duty on the part of the driver which was breached when the driver stopped two-feet from the curb. The defendant driver did not demonstrate the breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall and did not demonstrate the driver’s action merely furnished a condition for the fall. Therefore there are questions of fact for the jury.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT START PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not seek a default judgment within one year and did not offer a reasonable excuse for the delay. Therefore there was no need for the court to consider whether plaintiff had a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should have been dismissed:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . …

… [T]his matter was released from the settlement conference part in December 2011, and that the plaintiff failed to take steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment by moving for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference until March 2013, “which was too late for the plaintiff to ‘manifest an intent not to abandon the case'” … . … [Plaintiff] offered only vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated assertions which were insufficient to excuse the plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment … .

Since [plaintiff] failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s delay, this Court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Kimmerling, 2023 NY Slip Op 05246, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). if the plaintiff does not start proceedings to enter a default judgment within a year and does not offer an adequate excuse for the delay, the complaint must be dismissed. There is no need for the court to consider whether plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action.

 

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