JUST RELEASED

CRIMINAL LAW



​Hearing Required for Motion for Resentencing

The Second Department explained the hearing requirement of Criminal Procedure Law 440.46 (re: a motion for resentencing) as follows:
 

           CPL 440.46(3), provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he provisions of section twenty three of chapter seven hundred thirty eight of the laws of two thousand four shall govern the proceedings on and determination of a motion brought pursuant to this section." Section 23 of chapter 738 of the Laws of 2004 states, in pertinent part: "The court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it. The court may also conduct a hearing, if necessary, to determine . . . any controverted issue of fact relevant to the issue of sentencing." The defendant's presence is not required where the court determines as a matter of law that a defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 …. However, here, the People conceded that the defendant met the statutory requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46, and the question before the court was whether substantial justice dictated that the motion should be denied. Thus, the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard .. . Since the defendant was not brought before the court, and there is no indication that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily relinquished that right …, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the defendant's motion, to be made after affording him an opportunity to appear before the court, and, if necessary, conducting a hearing … .  People v Allen, 2013 NY slip Op 02586, 2011-11680, Ind No 1087/98, 2nd Dept 4-17-13​

​

In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​

After a juror was discharged for misconduct, the People stated they did not want to go forward with the jury deliberations.  The defense, however, wanted to continue to verdict with the remaining 11 jurors.  The trial court ordered a mistrial.  The defendant brought an Article 78 proceeding seeking to prohibit a second trial on double jeopardy grounds.  The Second Department, after determining the four-month statute of limitations did not apply, granted the petition, finding the trial judge should not have ordered a mistrial over the defense objection:
 

           Here, the People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. While it is undisputed that juror number 11 was grossly unqualified to continue serving, the court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. The defendant specifically indicated his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 persons and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals …. Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict …. Moreover, as the improper information imparted to the jurors did not significantly prejudice the People, the court should have considered whether a specific curative instruction could have clarified what constituted "evidence" and whether such an instruction could have cured the impropriety …. Accordingly, there is an insufficient basis in the record for the declaration of a mistrial, and thus retrial is precluded. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2013 NY Slip Op 02584, 2013-00751, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13





Criteria for Downward Departure from SORA Presumptive Risk Level

The Second Department described the criteria for a downward departure from the SORA presumptive risk level as follows:
 

           A court has the discretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level in a proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) only after a defendant makes a twofold showing. First, a defendant must identify, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which "tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines" … . Second, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support the applicability of that mitigating factor … . In the absence of that twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … .  People v Arroyo, 2013 NY Slip Op 02553, 2010-10108, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

Trial Court’s Batson Ruling Re: Pretextual Reasons for Exclusion of White Jurors Upheld

In upholding the trial court’s ruling that the proffered reasons for the exclusion of certain white jurors were pretextual, the Second Department wrote:
 

           In Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79, 94-98), the United States Supreme Court formulated a three-step test to assess whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories …. In step one, the moving party must make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by "showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason" … . If the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the inquiry proceeds to step two, and the burden shifts to the adversary to provide a facially neutral explanation for the challenge. If the nonmoving party "offers facially neutral reasons supporting the challenge, the inference of discrimination is overcome" … . Once facially neutral reasons are provided, the inquiry proceeds to step three, and the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination, and " the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual'" …, including whether the reasons apply to the facts of the case, and whether the reasons were applied to only a particular class of jurors and not to others … . Here, the trial court's determination that the proffered reasons for challenging certain white jurors were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and is supported by the record… . People v Carrington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02587, 2006-09951, Ind No 369/05, 2nd Dept 4-17-13​

​

Court’s Explanation of Lien Law Presumption (Where Money Held In Trust by Contractor and Allegedly Misused Can Be Deemed Larceny) Was Determined to Impermissibly Switch the Burden of Proof to the Defendant​

In reversing a larceny conviction, the Second Department explained that allowing the jury to consider the Lien Law presumption (where use of funds held in trust for purposes other than those of the trust can constitute larceny) as mandatory, rather than permissive, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:
 

            Pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, a contractor who receives funds under a contract for the improvement of real property must hold the funds as a trustee, and if the contractor applies trust funds for any purpose other than the purposes of the trust and fails to pay a trust claim within 31 days of the time it is due, he or she may be guilty of larceny (see Lien Law §§ 70, 71, 79-a[1][b]…). The trial court instructed the jury, in accordance with Lien Law § 79-a(3), that "[f]ailure of the trustee to keep books and records required by this section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied . . . trust funds . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust." Like all statutory presumptions in New York, the presumption in Lien Law § 79-a(3) is permissive … . The trial court's failure to instruct the jury that the presumption "was permissive, or to emphasize that, despite the presumption, the same burden of proof remained with the People, was bound to result in misleading the . . . jurors into believing that the presumption is conclusive and binding upon them'" …. Such a mandatory presumption is unconstitutional, as it relieves the People of their burden of proving every element of the crime and undermines the jury's " responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the [People], to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt'" .. . People v Cioffi, 2013 NY Slip Op 02588, 2012-00966, 2013-03689, Ind No 11-00174, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

​

Motion for SORA Downward Departure Requires Hearing​

The Second Department reversed the motion court because a motion for a downward departure (SORA) pursuant to Correction Law 168-o(2) requires a hearing:
 

           By notice of motion dated September 21, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion without holding a hearing. Because the requisite procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o were not followed, we reverse.  As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant's motion, as it was required to do pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(4) …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant's motion. People v Runko, 2013 NY Slip Op 02555, 2012-07328, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

​

Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department affirmed the suppression of a chemical breath-test because the police did not inform the defendant her attorney had appeared in the case before the test was administered.  As Justice Leventhal described the “right to counsel” issue and holding:
 

           This case calls upon us to address a matter of first impression involving the right to counsel under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6), where the defendant consented to a chemical breath test to determine her blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC), but, prior to the commencement of the test, the police made no effort to inform the defendant that her attorney had appeared in the matter. … [W]e hold that where, as here, the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel's appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. Since the People failed to establish that notifying the defendant of her attorney's appearance would, in fact, have interfered with the timely administration of the chemical breath test, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of that test. People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02600, 2011-07259, Ind No 2510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

​

Sentences for Underlying Felony and Bail Jumping Must Be Consecutive Absent Mitigating Factors that Bear Directly on the Manner the Crime Was Committed


In finding the sentencing court used the wrong “mitigating” factors to determine whether the sentence for bail jumping could run concurrently with the sentence for the underlying felony, the Third Department wrote:
 

           Penal Law § 70.25 (2-c) restricts a court's sentencing discretion when a person who is convicted of bail jumping in the second  degree  also is convicted of the underlying felony in connection with which he or she had been released on bail. Specifically, if indeterminate sentences are imposed upon both the bail jumping charge and the underlying felony, the bail jumping sentence must run consecutively to the other sentence unless the court "finds mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" (Penal Law § 70.25 [2-c]…).  Here, County Court sought to justify concurrent sentences based upon "the severe penalties, fines, restrictions and state prison sentence [defendant was] earning by [his] antisocial behavior of drinking and driving and failing to come to court, and because [he had pleaded] guilty . . . and waived appeal in another county." However, these factors have no bearing upon the manner in which the crime was committed … and, therefore, do not support imposing concurrent sentences in this case.  People v Harrison, 105176, 3rd Dept 4-18-22







NEGLIGENCE



Condition of Fence Gate “Open and Obvious” Precluding Recovery



Plaintiff was injured when, sitting on the ground, he leaned back against a fence-gate which swung open causing him to fall.  The First Department determined the condition of the fence was “open and obvious” precluding recovery (there was a dissent).  The court wrote:

           Although property owners have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, and to warn of latent hazards of which they are aware …, they have no duty to protect or warn, and a court is not precluded from granting summary judgment, where the condition complained of was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous … . "In such circumstances, the condition which caused the accident cannot fairly be attributed to any negligent maintenance of the property" …Here, defendant … established prima facie that the unlocked gate that allegedly caused plaintiff to injure himself was open and obvious, and was not inherently dangerous. The color photographs in the record show that the gate was "plainly observable and did not pose any danger to someone making reasonable use of his or her senses" … .  Boyd v New York City Hous Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 02507, 9724, 310500/10, 2nd Dept 4-16-13





Jury Verdict Finding No Negligence Reversed on Appeal/Article 16 Defenses Re: Negligence of Non-Party Allowed

A mechanic working in the basement of a two-family house left a trap door, which was directly outside the side door of plaintiff’s apartment, open.  Plaintiff fell through the open trap door.  In setting aside the jury verdict finding the mechanic was not negligent, the Second Department wrote:

           A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . In exercising our authority to review the weight of the evidence …, we find that the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. "Negligence involves the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances" …. Applying this standard, we conclude that the jury's determination that the defendant was not negligent was not based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, since a reasonable person should have been aware that leaving the trapdoor open created an unsafe condition …. Accordingly, we reverse the amended judgment, reinstate the complaint, and remit the matter … for a new trial.

The Second Department also made the following findings, pursuant to CPLR article 16, about defenses based upon the liability of the non-party out-of-possession landlord:
 

           …[T]he Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to preclude the defendant from offering evidence as to the liability of a nonparty, the out-of-possession landlord, for the purpose of limiting the defendant's liability for noneconomic damages pursuant to CPLR article 16. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, a defendant is not required to plead that defense as an affirmative defense (see CPLR 1601[1]…).

           …[T]he Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's affirmative defense pursuant to CPLR article 16, as the defendant presented evidence demonstrating that a question of fact existed as to the negligence of the nonparty landlord (see CPLR 1603…).  Cooper v Burt’s Reliable, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02529, 2012-00098, Index No 6053/07, 2nd Dept 4-17-13





Question of Fact About Whether Emergency Doctrine Excused Police Officer’s Causing a Collision

In finding that a question of fact had been raised about whether a police office, when responding to an emergency call in her vehicle, had exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others (resulting in a collision), the Second Department wrote:

           Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation …. The emergency operation of a police vehicle includes “responding to [a] police call” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b). A radio call to an officer on patrol by a police dispatcher regarding a 911 complaint falls squarely within the plain meaning of “police call” …. When a police officer engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), such conduct may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acts in reckless disregard for the safety of others …. The “reckless disregard” standard requires proof that the officer intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow … . * * *…[T]he respondents submitted the deposition testimony of four witnesses, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether the siren and emergency lights on the police officer’s vehicle were activated and whether that vehicle slowed down prior to entering the intersection at which the collision occurred.  Miller v Suffolk County Police Dept, 2013 NY Slip Op 02549, 2012-03783, dInex No 5044/06, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

​

Adult Care Facility, in Which Residents Have a High Level of Autonomy, Can Not Be Held Liable for Assault by One Resident Upon Another

In finding that Lakeside, an adult care facility (ACF), was not liable for an assault by a resident, Fierro, upon the plaintiff (also a resident), the Second Department wrote:
           

           …[C]ourts have imposed a duty of care where "there exist special circumstances in which there is sufficient authority and ability to control the conduct of third persons that [courts] have identified a duty to do so. Thus, [courts] have imposed a duty to control the conduct of others where there is a special relationship: a relationship between defendant and [the] third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require [one] defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others" … .
 

           …Lakeside [presented evidence that its] residents were free to come and go as they pleased, and that in order to remove a resident from the facility, it would need to commence an eviction proceeding. Because it is an ACF, Lakeside's control over Fierro, "and consequent duty to prevent him from harming others, is more limited than in cases involving persons confined to mental institutions" …. Lakeside did not require the issuance of day passes, which would have been indicative of "a certain level of authority and control" over its residents …, who did not "relinquish general autonomy" … .  Malave v Lakeside Manor Homes for Adults, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02547, 2012-00696, Index No 100904/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13​

​

No Common Law Negligence Cause of Action to Recover for Injuries Caused by Dog, Even Where Dog Owner May Be Negligent

Where the plaintiff was injured when defendant’s dog collided with his bicycle, the First Department determined defendant’s (the dog owner’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted, despite allegations of negligence on the part of the defendant (there was a dissent):

           Plaintiff was injured when, while riding his bicycle, he collided with defendant's dog. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent because as plaintiff was riding nearby, defendant called for the dog, which was not wearing a leash, to come to her, resulting in the dog's running into plaintiff's path of travel.

  
           "New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal" …. Rather, when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner can be held liable if he knew, or should have known, of the animal's vicious propensities …. The term "vicious propensities" includes "the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation" …. Here, there is no evidence that defendant had knowledge that her dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic, and her motion for summary judgment should have been granted ….  Doerr v Goldsmith, 2013 NY Slip Op 02501, 9030, 103840/10, 1st Dept, 4-16-13

​

Question of Fact Raised About Whether School-Wrestler’s Risk of Injury Increased by Condition of Wrestling Mats

The Second Department ruled Supreme Court had properly denied the school’s motion for summary judgment because a question of fact had been raised about whether the way mats had been taped together increased the risk of injury to wrestlers:

           "Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity, "consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation"'" … . "The principle of primary assumption of risk extends to those risks associated with the construction of a playing field and any open and obvious condition thereon" … . "If the playing surface is as safe as it appears to be, and the condition in question is not concealed such that it unreasonably increases risk assumed by the players, the doctrine applies" … . However, "a board of education, its employees, agents and organized athletic councils must exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes voluntarily involved in extracurricular sports from unassumed, concealed or unreasonably increased risks" … . Philippou v Baldwin Union Free Sch Dist, 2012-02377, Index No 790/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13







REAL ESTATE



Tenancy by the Entirety Extinguished When Both Husband and Wife Convey their Interests to Same Grantee, Who then Conveys His Interest Back to the Husband and Wife



Both the appellant and her husband had separately transferred their interests in property to the same grantee, defendant Feliciano.  Feliciano then mortgaged the property and executed a deed transferring 99% of the property back to appellant and her husband. Feliciano was alleged to have defaulted.  The appellant moved for summary judgment in the foreclosure action contending the tenancy by the entirety, created when she and her husband first bought the property, was never terminated.  In affirming the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss, the Second Department wrote:

           …[W]here a tenancy by the entirety is created, "there is nothing in New York law that prevents one of the co-owners from mortgaging or making an effective conveyance of his or her own interest in the tenancy . . . subject to the continuing rights of the other" …. "[T]he interest acquired by a grantee or mortgagee of such a unilateral conveyance is not denominated a tenancy by the entirety, but rather is labeled a tenancy in common"; however, "the grantee's or mortgagee's rights in the property are essentially the same as those possessed by the grantor or mortgagor: a right to shared possession and ownership subject to the original cotenants' reciprocal rights of survivorship" … .  …[W]here, as here, the interests separately conveyed away by both spouses are unified in a single grantee, the tenancy by the entirety is extinguished by merger, since the sequence in which the grantors die will no longer affect the disposition of title …. "Separate conveyances by each tenant to the same grantee . . . terminate the tenancy by the entirety vesting the entire estate in that grantee" ….   Deutsche Bank Nation Trust Co v Feliciano, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 02531, 2012-00130, Index No 18752/08, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13





Resident in Hotel Under Contract to Provide Rooms to Homeless Persons Entitled to Rent Stabilization Protection



In finding that the respondent (Pitt) was a “permanent tenant” of a hotel which rented rooms to homeless persons under an agreement with the NYC Human Resources Administration (thereby entitling the respondent to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Code), the First Department explained the “exception to mootness” doctrine:”

           As a threshold matter, we find that this appeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Pitt voluntarily vacated the premises before the appeal was perfected. Although, as a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which have become moot by a change in circumstances, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists in situations that present the following: "(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues" … . This matter presents an issue of substantial public interest that is likely to recur and evade review. Specifically, this Court must address the question of what constitutes a legal tenancy under the Rent Stabilization Code, and what rights are vested in a person occupying premises under the contract between a landlord and a social service agency. This is an issue that affects a large number of New Yorkers who declare permanent tenancy in a SRO [single room occupancy facility]. Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine … . Branic Intl Realty Corp v Pitt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02522, 9453 & 57024/10, 363, 1st Dept, 4-16-13







APPEALS

​

“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff had moved to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death and the motion was denied.  There was a mistrial.  Before the second trial, plaintiff again moved to amend her complaint.  The motion was denied because the first denial was deemed the law of the case.  In determining the motion to amend should have been allowed, the Second Department noted that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to appellate courts:
 

           The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind appellate courts, and thus, this Court is not bound by the law of the case established by the prior determination …. Accordingly, this Court is free to consider that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint on the merits …. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that leave to amend the pleading should be permitted.
 

           Generally, leave to amend a pleading should be freely given when there is no significant prejudice or surprise to the opposing party and where the evidence submitted in support of the motion indicates that the proposed amendment may have merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). Here, in the aftermath of the court’s granting of a mistrial, Mercy [defendant] failed to allege, much less show, surprise or prejudice resulting from the plaintiff’s delay in asserting the wrongful death cause of action against it … . Moreover, the proposed amended complaint, which sufficiently alleged that Mercy’s negligence caused the decedent to suffer injuries and ultimately death, was neither “palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit” … .   Hothan v Mercy Med Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 02541, 2011-10562, Index No 14345/06, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

​

Exception to “Mootness Doctrine” Applied

In finding that the respondent (Pitt) was a “permanent tenant” of a hotel which rented rooms to homeless persons under an agreement with the NYC Human Resources Administration (thereby entitling the respondent to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Code), the First Department explained the “exception to mootness” doctrine:”
 

           As a threshold matter, we find that this appeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Pitt voluntarily vacated the premises before the appeal was perfected. Although, as a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which have become moot by a change in circumstances, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists in situations that present the following: "(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues" … . This matter presents an issue of substantial public interest that is likely to recur and evade review. Specifically, this Court must address the question of what constitutes a legal tenancy under the Rent Stabilization Code, and what rights are vested in a person occupying premises under the contract between a landlord and a social service agency. This is an issue that affects a large number of New Yorkers who declare permanent tenancy in a SRO [single room occupancy facility]. Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine … . Branic Intl Realty Corp v Pitt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02522, 9453 & 57024/10, 363, 1st Dept, 4-16-13





A Party Can Not Appeal from a Portion of an Order Where the Party Is Not Aggrieved by the Order

The Second Department noted that a party can not appeal from a portion of an order which does not grant relief the party did not request, even where the order includes reasoning with which the party does not agree:
 

           "A party is not aggrieved by an order which does not grant relief [he or she] did not request" … . "Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal'" … . Here, the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by so much of the order as, in denying the … defendants' motion for summary judgment and reaching a result which was not adverse to the plaintiffs, determined that a prior judgment did not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on the motion before it … . Since the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the portion of the order from which they appeal, their appeal must be dismissed.  Spielman v Mehraban, 2013 NY Slip Op 02565, 2011-10855, Index No 19056/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13









​