Courts and Law Brooklyn Heights

Latest decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department

April 26, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor
The Appellate Division, Second Department, located in Brooklyn Heights, is an intermediate appellate court in New York State that reviews decisions from lower courts in its jurisdiction to ensure they are legally correct and fair. Brooklyn Eagle file photo by Robert Abruzzese
The Appellate Division, Second Department, located in Brooklyn Heights, is an intermediate appellate court in New York State that reviews decisions from lower courts in its jurisdiction to ensure they are legally correct and fair. Brooklyn Eagle file photo by Robert Abruzzese
Share this:

No prior notice, no case: Brooklyn Appellate Division affirms dismissal of injury claim

The Appellate Division, Second Department has upheld the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit brought by Zacheria Elsaid against the City of New York and related municipal departments. The case, initially heard by Justice Gina Abadi of the Supreme Court, Kings County, involved Elsaid, who alleged he sustained injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by a road defect at 18th Avenue and 50th Street in Brooklyn.

Elsaid’s claim was that the City of New York, along with the New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, failed to maintain the roadway adequately. However, the crux of the legal issue revolved around the requirement of prior written notice of the defect, a prerequisite for such claims under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c). The city defendants successfully demonstrated that no such notice had been received.

The Appellate panel, comprising Justices Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Joseph J. Maltese, Deborah A. Dowling and Helen Voutsinas, concurred with the lower court’s finding, emphasizing the lack of evidence provided by Elsaid to counter the city’s records indicating no prior report of the roadway issue.

Subscribe to our newsletters

 

Licensing laws prevail: Appellate Court denies contractor’s claim in Trump Village case

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has overturned a decision by the Supreme Court of Kings County in a breach of contract lawsuit involving Electrical Contracting Solutions Corp. and Trump Village Section 4, Inc. The case, presided over by Justice Lawrence Knipel, initially concluded with a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Electrical Contracting Solutions Corp., awarding damages totaling $458,584.84 for electrical work performed at a property damaged during Superstorm Sandy.

The legal issue at the core of this dispute centered on the plaintiff’s licensing status to perform electrical work under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-3017, which requires a valid master electrician’s license. Although the plaintiff’s vice president possessed such a license, the company itself did not, and it utilized permits under a different company’s name, leading to questions about the legality of its operations.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, with Justices Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Lara Genovesi, Lillian Wan and Janice Taylor presiding, modified the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the lack of proper licensing barred Electrical Contracting Solutions from recovering damages under both breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. The decision effectively dismissed the complaint entirely.

 

Appellate Division supports court’s denial of default judgment in contract dispute

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court decision denying a default judgment in a contract lawsuit involving Craig Eaton and other plaintiffs against Andrew Lavoott Bluestone. The original decision was made by Justice Debra Silber, who ruled that Bluestone had adequately responded to the lawsuit, thus not defaulting on his legal obligations despite the plaintiffs’ claims.

The legal dispute originated in January 2021, when the plaintiffs sought a summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, a move contested by Bluestone on the grounds of defective service. After a series of legal back-and-forth regarding proper procedures and Bluestone’s responses, the Supreme Court ruled in December 2021 that Bluestone was entitled to more time to answer due to his earlier legal motions.

The key legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the CPLR 3211(f), which extends a defendant’s time to answer a complaint until 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order determining the pre-answer motion to dismiss. As a result, the appellate panel concluded that Bluestone had not defaulted in answering or appearing, upholding the lower court’s decision and denying the plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment.


Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Leave a Comment