You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DEFENDANT DEFAULTED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING HE SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DENY THE ABUSE IN THE DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a new trial on damages, determined defendant, who had defaulted in this Child Victims Act case alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by the defendant, should not have been allowed to deny the abuse in the damages trial:

…Supreme Court erred in permitting the defendant to testify that the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse were untrue and that he had never sexually abused the plaintiff. The testimony violated the court’s pretrial order expressly prohibiting such testimony. Moreover, a defaulting defendant “admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages” … . “Accordingly, at a trial to determine the amount of a plaintiff’s real damages, the defendant will not be allowed to introduce evidence tending to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action” … . The defendant’s testimony denying the basic allegation of liability prejudiced a substantial right of the plaintiff, as that issue had been decided in her favor, and possibly affected the jury’s verdict on the issue of damages. Accordingly, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the issue of damages … . Reilly v Grieco, 2025 NY Slip Op 05711, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here defendant defaulted in this Child Victims Act case but was allowed to deny the abuse in the damages trial. That was error requiring an new trial on damages.

 

, ,

ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TWO, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE $10,000,000 PUNITIVE-DAMAGES JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the $10,000,000 judgment for punitive damages in this Labor Law 220, 240(1) and 241(6) action, noted that New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Summary judgment was granted against two defendants. but was denied with respect to Berger, the owner of the other two defendants. The jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based on Berger’s conduct and did so:

The plaintiff and his wife …, with leave of court, served an amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The defendants answered the amended complaint, and the matter proceeded to a trial limited to the issue of damages. After both parties rested, the jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based upon conduct of Berger. The jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife punitive damages in the sum of $10,000,000, and the Supreme Court entered a judgment … in favor of the plaintiff and his wife and against the defendants … in the principal sum of $10,000,000 for punitive damages. The defendants appeal from that portion of the judgment.

“New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Instead, ‘[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action'” … . Here, the Supreme Court erroneously instructed the jury that the issue of Berger’s liability had already been determined against him, and the jury was not asked to consider Berger’s liability under the Labor Law or otherwise. Because Berger was never determined to be liable with respect to any substantive cause of action, no punitive damages could be awarded based upon his alleged conduct … . Petrosian v B & A Warehousing, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs were awarded a $10,000,000 punitive-damages judgment against a defendant who was not determined to have been liable. New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. The punitive-damages judgment was therefore reversed.

 

, , , ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this Child Victims Act case against the school district for negligent hiring, retention and supervision did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a custodian. Therefore the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the defendants’ evidence included testimony given by the plaintiff during his deposition that he was abused on dozens of occasions over three to four years, that there were several other students who were similarly abused, and that other custodians employed by the District were present in the school building after hours and on weekends and saw the plaintiff alone with the custodian in the building. Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the District lacked constructive notice of the custodian’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . PC-14 Doe v Lawrence Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a question of fact is raised about a school-defendant’s constructive notice of sexual abuse of a student by a school employee.

 

, ,

AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to foreclose and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [S]ince the witness on the issue of standing proffered by the plaintiff at the trial testified, among other things, that the purported allonges that were with the original note were not stapled to the note, and further testified that he did not know when the allonges were executed or attached to the note, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing as the holder of the original note at the time of the commencement of the action. * * *

… [P]laintiff’s witness on the issue of notice did not have knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which, according to the plaintiff, sent the requisite 30-day and 90-day notices … . Moreover, the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite certified and first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the default notices were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their notice address. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and failed to show that the default notices were sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Onewest Bank FSB v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 05692, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: If a foreclosure action goes to trial and standing is contested, the bank must prove it has standing to foreclose. In addition, the bank must prove compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Here the failure of proof on those issues resulted in dismissal of the complaint.​

 

, ,

IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the deadline for the foreclosure sale mandated by RPAPL 1351 was properly extended due to the COVID pandemic, but the accumulation of interest during the delay should have been tolled:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale to the extent of extending the time to conduct the sale to 90 days from the date of the order … . The plaintiff demonstrated that “the delay [wa]s largely attributable to, among other things, . . . the COVID-19 pandemic” … . Further, the defendant failed to establish that the delay caused him any prejudice … .

“A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, “[i]n an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . “Further, a tolling and cancellation of interest may also be warranted where there is an unexplained delay in prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … . “[A] plaintiff should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from an unexplained delay in the prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross-motion to toll the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan … . The plaintiff asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted its ability to proceed with the sale of the property … . However, the pandemic-related stays on foreclosure sales did not go into effect until after the expiration of the 90-day deadline to conduct the sale of the property … , and the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its failure to conduct the sale within that 90-day period … . Under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant’s cross-motion to the extent of tolling the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan after February 17, 2020 … . M&T Bank v Givens, 2025 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure is an equitable proceeding triggering the exercise of discretion by the the judge. Here the extension of the deadline for the foreclosure sale due to the COVID pandemic was a proper exercise of discretion, but the denial of the motion to toll the accrual of interest during the delay was an abuse of discretion.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not strictly comply with the provisions of RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint after trial:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . When this action was commenced in 2015, RPAPL 1304(1) required that the notice sent to borrowers contain the following language: “As of . . . , your home loan is . . . days in default. Under New York State Law, we are required to send you this notice to inform you that you are at risk of losing your home. You can cure this default by making the payment of . . . dollars by . . .” … .

Here, at the nonjury trial, the plaintiff submitted the notice sent to the defendant, which omitted the cure date as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Christiana Trust v Larmond, 2025 NY Slip Op 05664, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure presented as evidence at trial did not comply with RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

 

PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint as time-barred, determined plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in identifying the party initially sued as “John Doe Trucking Company” prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations:

Pursuant to CPLR 1024, “[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his [or her] name and identity as is known.” “However, a plaintiff cannot rely on CPLR 1024 unless he or she ‘exercise[s] due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, [is] unable to do so'” … . “Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the ‘Jane Doe’s’ [or ‘John Doe’s’] name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party” … . Additionally, the “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” party must “be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she [or he] is the intended defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to ascertain Werner’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Further, the description in the amended complaint was insufficient to fairly apprise Werner that it was the intended defendant … . Abrego v Tile World Import Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05661, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Failure to exercise due diligence in identifying a party initially sued as a “John Doe” before the expiration of the statute of limitations will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county did not have immunity in this Child Victims Act lawsuit alleging negligent foster-care placement of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by her foster father in the late 70’s:

“The governmental function immunity defense provides immunity for the exercise of discretionary authority during the performance of a governmental function” … . “[T]he governmental function immunity defense cannot attach unless the municipal defendant establishes that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” … .

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant acts of the County’s employees relating to the alleged negligent supervision of the plaintiff’s foster care placement were discretionary and thus entitled to immunity … . … [E]ven if the acts at issue could potentially be considered discretionary, the County failed to demonstrate that the alleged discretion was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated … .

… Contrary to the County’s contention, it “was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care” … . M.W. v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Use this decision as a starting point for research into how governmental function immunity and immunity under the Social Services Law apply to a county foster-care placement. Here the court determined neither type of immunity applied in this Child Victims Act lawsuit.

 

, ,

IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined that the respondent town did not explain its failure to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals identified in response to the petitioner’s FOIL request and did not explain the reasons for redactions made in the records which were provided:

… Supreme Court erred in dismissing so much of the petition/complaint as sought, in effect, to compel the production of all responsive records or, in the alternative, to certify that the respondent does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search. The respondent does not dispute that it failed to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals that were identified in response to the petitioner’s request. The respondent did not claim a specific exemption to disclosure in denying the petitioner’s request for those determinations. Accordingly, the respondent was required to either produce those records or certify that it does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] …).

Supreme Court also erred by determining that the respondent’s redactions were permissible to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). In an administrative appeal of an agency’s denial of access to records, the agency is required to “fully explain in writing . . . the reasons for further denial” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a]). “[J]udicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency and the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, the respondent failed to respond to the petitioner’s administrative appeal, and failed to otherwise reference Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) as a justification for the redactions. To provide the respondent the benefit of justifications it did not advance in the first instance “contravenes Court of Appeals precedent ‘as well as the spirit and purpose of FOIL'” … . Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead, 2025 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Under FOIL (Public Officers Law) identified records must be produced unless an exemption is demonstrated to apply or the respondent certifies that the records could not be found after a diligent search. In addition, the reasons for any redactions in produced records must be explained. Here Supreme Court should not have dismissed aspects of the FOIL petition in the absence of these required responses by the town.

 

, ,

THE CONFLICTING EXPERT REPORTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CAUSED SERIOUS INJURY DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S PREEXISTING CONDITIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, determined Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on the question whether plaintiff’s decedent, Kenneth Moore, suffered “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) in a traffic accident. The conflicting expert evidence raised questions of fact about whether the accident exacerbated preexisting conditions, including arthritis

… [A] preexisting condition does not foreclose a finding that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the subject accident … . Where a defendant meets its prima facie burden in establishing that the preexisting condition is the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence addressing causation … .

To meet his burden, the plaintiff must address the evidence of preexisting conditions “and explain why [his] current reported symptoms [are] not related to the preexisting conditions” or how the accident aggravated his underlying degenerative conditions … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s evidence, including conflicting expert reports; testimony as to Moore’s increased pain and diminished physical capabilities; and medical records showing a new course of treatment, new diagnoses, and aggravated injuries, raised issues of fact as to whether Moore’s worsened physical condition was causally related to the accident … . Moore v Maley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05304, First Dept 10-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an an explanation of how to deal with a plaintiff’s preexisting conditions when assessing whether plaintiff has suffered “serious injury” in a traffic accident within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

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