You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

A COURT MUST ACCEPT AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE; BUT THE TERMINATION OF THE TEACHER, WHO HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD, FOR INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRAINING A FEMALE STUDENT, SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence must be accepted, but termination of the teacher based on the evidence was not warranted. It was alleged the petitioner-teacher inappropriately restrained a female student who was trying to get past him:

“Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate (see Education Law § 3020-a), the determination of the arbitrator is subject to ‘closer judicial scrutiny’ under CPLR 7511(b) than it would otherwise receive” … . “An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” … .

Here, there was a rational basis and evidentiary support for the finding that the petitioner committed the conduct with which he was charged by inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him. Although a video of the incident, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, could be interpreted in more than one way, this Court must “accept the arbitrator’s credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” … .

However, in light of the petitioner’s otherwise unblemished record of approximately 19 years as a teacher with the respondent, the penalty of termination of employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness … . Matter of O’Brien v Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03011, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: In this arbitration pursuant to the Education Law, the court was required to accept the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence. But termination of the teacher for inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him shocked one’s sense of fairness.

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPANSION OF A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE FELL WITHIN THE NONCONFORMING USE; THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF A MARINA WAS ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the marina and shellfishiing operation were preexisting nonconforming uses, there was a question whether the expansion of the marina fell within the nonconforming use. The zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) determination allowing the expansion was annulled and the matter was remitted to the ZBA:

“While nonconforming uses are generally permitted to continue, they may not be enlarged as a matter of right” … . Although a mere increase in the volume in one’s business may not constitute a change in use, “a distinction is to be drawn where there has been a purposeful expansion of the nature of [the] operation” … . “The protection of vested rights in a nonconforming structure, existing or in process of erection at the time of the imposition of zoning restrictions, does not extend to subsequent new construction” … .

Here, the Reeves’ [the marina owners’] failure to obtain site plan approval for the reconstruction of the docks and bulkhead, for which permits were initially issued in 2003, casts doubt on whether any of the new structures built after 2003 fall within the Reeves’ nonconforming use for the marina and commercial shellfishing operation … and calls into question the Building Department’s unexplained finding that the dock and bulkhead reconstruction work “did not constitute an expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use in 2003″—which was not specifically addressed in the ZBA’s … determination. Matter of Andes v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Riverhead, 2023 NY Slip Op 03009, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: An expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use, here a marina and shellfishing operation, may not fall within the nonconforming use. The building department’s finding that new construction did not expand the preexisting nonconforming use was not addressed in the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) determination. The determination was annulled and the matter was sent back to the ZBA.

 

,

THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition on a sidewalk which resulted in a piece of concrete falling on plaintiff in the subway station below. Although the city can escape liability if it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect, the city did not claim a lack of notice. Because the city issued permits for tree pits above the subway, there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition (as opposed to having written notice of it):

Generally, assuming that the alleged dangerous condition falls within the scope of Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2), under the framework set forth in Smith v City of New York [210 AD3d 53] , the City would have the initial burden to show that it lacked prior written notice. Here, however, the City does not argue on appeal that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect. Therefore, we do not address this issue. Because the burden did not shift to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to the prior written notice defense … , we consider instead whether the City made a prima facie showing that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, it did not cause or create the alleged dangerous condition.

Here, the City failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it … . As the Supreme Court noted, the City annexed to its motion papers street opening permits for “tree pits” along Metropolitan Avenue between Union Avenue and Lorimer Street … . Neither in its initial moving papers nor in its reply papers … did the City submit evidence that the construction company’s preparation of tree pits above the subway station did not cause or create the defective condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s accident. Morejon v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 03007, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Permit. Here the city did not claim it didn’t have written notice of a sidewalk defect which allegedly caused a piece of concrete to fall on plaintiff in the subway station below. Because the city issued tree pit permits for the sidewalk, there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; BUT DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in this intersection traffic accident case, but defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that [defendant] Giunta entered the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to the plaintiff’s vehicle, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a] …). … [P]laintiff testified … that his vehicle had been traveling for about six blocks before approaching the subject intersection; that he was operating his vehicle at or below the speed limit of 25 miles per hour as he approached the intersection; that he saw the defendants’ vehicle “speeding” while moving from left to right; and that he had only one second to react before the impact … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

… Giunta averred that he stopped at the stop sign and proceeded at 10 miles per hour through the intersection. Giunta further averred that after the front of his vehicle had passed through the intersection, the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the right rear quarter panel of his vehicle with such “tremendous force” that it caused his vehicle to spin around and roll over on its roof and then back onto its wheels. Under these circumstances, the defendants raised triable issues of fact, including whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care in approaching the intersection and whether the plaintiff could have avoided the collision … . Ki Hong Park v Giunta, 2023 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not a bar to summary judgment in a traffic accident case. But defendant can still raise a comparative-negligence affirmative defense which can survive plaintiff’s successful summary judgment motion.

 

THERE WERE TWO STEPS LEADING TO A LANDING AT DEFENDANT’S FRONT DOOR; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail where two steps led to an elevated landing at defendant’s front door was a proximate cause of her fall. Plaintiff alleged there was nothing to grab onto as she fell. Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint on the ground plaintiff did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . The defendant’s submissions in support of her motion included, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed the existence of a triable issue of fact. In particular, the plaintiff testified, among other things, that she “was looking for something to grab onto” as she fell but found nothing. “Even if the plaintiff’s fall was precipitated by a misstep,” her testimony that she looked for something to grab onto to stop her fall presented “an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of her injury” … . Since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Jean-Charles v Carey, 2023 NY Slip Op 03003, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged there was nothing to grab onto as she fell from a landing at defendant’s front door, which raised a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of her fall. There were only two steps leading to the landing.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to an in camera review her assailant’s (Downing’s) medical records to discovery of any non-privileged references to his aggressive behavior. Plaintiff was a nurse assigned to work in defendant’s hospital when she was assaulted by defendant patient:

Information relating to the nature of medical treatment and the diagnoses made, including “information communicated by the patient while the physician attends the patient in a professional capacity, as well as information obtained from observation of the patient’s appearance and symptoms,” is privileged (…see CPLR 4504; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1] …). However, “[t]he physician-patient privilege generally does not extend to information obtained outside the realms of medical diagnosis and treatment” … .

Here, the plaintiff seeks information as to any prior aggressive or violent acts by Downing. Information of a nonmedical nature regarding prior aggressive or violent acts is not privileged … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an in camera review of the subject hospital records, to determine which records contain nonprivileged information that is subject to disclosure, and thereafter disclosure of such records … . Gooden v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02867, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here a nurse injured by a hospital patient was entitled to any non-privileged information about the patient’s aggressive behavior in the patient’s medical records. An in camera review of the records was ordered.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury was covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was moving a heavy compressor on a plank over a trench when the plank broke:

… [T]he injured plaintiff and his coworkers were attempting to transport a compressor, which weighed approximately 300 pounds, from a sidewalk to the street. To reach the street, the compressor had to cross a trench approximately two feet deep, which the workers had covered with a ramp made of plywood. As the workers moved the compressor across the ramp, the ramp broke, causing the compressor to fall into the trench and the handle of the compressor to strike the injured plaintiff’s foot. * * *

… [P]laintiffs submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by Madison’s [defendant’s] failure to provide appropriate safety devices to protect against gravity-related hazards posed by maneuvering the compressor over the trench … . The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s accident was the result of an elevation differential within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1). Although the compressor only fell a short distance, given the weight of the compressor and the amount of force it was capable of generating, the height differential was not de minimis … . Thus, the injured plaintiff suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the compressor … . Gonzalez v Madison Sixty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02866, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here a plank over a two-foot-deep trench broke under the weight of a heavy compressor, injuring plaintiff’s foot. The accident was a covered elevation-related event under Labor law 240(1).

 

, ,

THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES TO MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FATHER WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE OF ANY FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT; THE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED; THE RELEVANT REGULATORY AND STATUTORY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have awarded counsel fees to mother. Mother brought an action for modification of a custody order on the ground father had lied about the method of transportation he used to go to Alabama with the child. Apparently father told mother they were going to drive, when in fact they flew. Mother was awarded $25,000 in counsel fees:

… Supreme Court permitted the mother to make a written application for counsel fees, [but] the court did not state whether the application should be made under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1….[T]he court did not … make a finding that the father’s conduct was “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. … [T]o the extent the court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the father did not receive sufficient notice of the alleged frivolous conduct, and, therefore, was not given “a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … .

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court improperly based its determination to grant the application, in part, on the father’s act of lying to the mother about flying to Alabama with the parties’ child, since this conduct occurred outside of the proceeding before the court … . * * *

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(b), the court did not adequately consider the disparate financial circumstances of the parties … . LeBoeuf v Greene, 2023 NY Slip Op 02870, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here the award of counsel fees was not appropriate under “frivolous conduct” or “financial circumstances” criteria. The relevant regulatory and statutory requirements for a counsel-fees award are explained in some depth.

 

,

FATHER, AS THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT PROVIDING MOST OF THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHILDREN, WAS ENTITLED TO DECLARE THE CHILDREN DEPENDENTS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined father, as the noncustodial parent contributing most of the financial support for the children, was entitled to declare the children dependents for income-tax purposes:

Where, as here, the noncustodial parent is contributing the majority of the financial support of the parties’ children, “the court may determine that the noncustodial parent is entitled to declare the children as dependents on his or her income tax returns” … . Accordingly, under the circumstances here, the plaintiff is entitled to declare all of the parties’ unemancipated children as his dependents for income tax purposes … . Miller v Miller, 2023 NY Slip Op 02872, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here father, as the noncustodial parent providing most of the financial support for the children, was entitled to declare the children dependents for income tax purposes.

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE-ORDER COVID TOLLS APPLY TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE, RENDERING THE INDICTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the speedy-trial statute was tolled by the COVID executive orders, rendering the prosecution of defendant timely:

Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a felony, the People are required to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30[1][a] …). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided “Section 30.30 and Section 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” … . Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-202.106).

Contrary to the determination of the County Court, while it was in effect, Executive Order No. 202.87 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 Fuentes, 2023 NY Slip Op 02892, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: The COVID tolls imposed by Executive Order apply to the speedy trial statute, rendering the indictment in this case timely.

 

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