You are here: / COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE,...

Search Results

/ ,

COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action should have been dismissed as a nullity. The defendant in this car-accident action had died before the complaint was filed. Therefore the complaint was a nullity. The defect could not be remedied by amending the complaint to name the decedent’s estate:

In this action to recover damages for alleged injuries arising from a vehicular accident, the plaintiff did not commence this action against the operator of the offending vehicle until several months after the operator died. Since “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person” … , the action was a nullity from its inception, and the plaintiff was instead required to commence an action against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s attempt to amend the caption of the void complaint to designate the decedent’s estate as the defendant was invalid … . The plaintiff never properly commenced an action against the decedent’s personal representative, and the time within which to do so had expired prior to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Krysa v Estate of Qyra, 2016 NY Slip Op 00940, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for change of venue should have been granted. The court noted that the sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation:

 

“[T]o prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper, and also that the defendant’s choice of venue is proper” … . The venue of an action is proper in the county in which any of the parties resided at the time of commencement (see CPLR 503[a]…). “[T]he sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation, despite its maintenance of an office or facility in another county” … . Matoszko v Kielmanowicz, 2016 NY Slip Op 00942, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CORPORATION LAW (RESIDENCE OF DOMESTIC CORPORATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES IS COUNTY DESIGNATED ON CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION)/VENUE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VENUE (RESIDENCE OF DOMESTIC CORPORATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES IS COUNTY DESIGNATED ON CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION)

/ ,

APPLICATION FOR LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS; PURPOSE OF NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim alleging injury in a slip and fall accident caused by a badly broken sidewalk in front of property owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner’s attorney had assumed the city, not the NYCHA, owned the abutting property. After noting that an error in identifying the correct public corporation was not a reasonable excuse, and further noting the NYCHA did not have notice of the accident by other means, the First Department explained the purpose of the notice requirement and why late notice was appropriate in this case:

 

After petitioner’s counsel realized that respondent NYCHA, not the City of New York, owned the property abutting the badly broken sidewalk where petitioner’s accident occurred, petitioner sought an extension of time to file a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). That statute confers upon the court “the discretion to determine whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim within certain parameters” … . The factors to be considered by the court include: whether the failure to identify the proper party was an “excusable error,” whether the public corporation received “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or “a reasonable time thereafter,” and whether the delay “substantially prejudiced” the public corporation’s ability to defend the claim on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The notice of claim requirement “is not intended to operate as a device to frustrate the rights of individuals with legitimate claims,” but to protect the public corporation from “unfounded claims” and ensure that it has an adequate opportunity “to explore the merits of the claim while information is still readily available” … .

While the error of petitioner’s counsel concerning the identity of the responsible public corporation does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving notice … , “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application” … . Although NYCHA did not receive actual notice of the accident until the petition was served, it did not contest petitioner’s assertion that the condition of the badly broken sidewalk remains unchanged since the time of the accident and that there were no witnesses to the accident, so that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the eight-month delay in providing notice (… General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). NYCHA’s conclusory claim that the “passage of time may affect the availability or memories of potential witnesses is insufficient to establish prejudice” … . In light of the policies underlying General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes … . Matter of Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00909, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LATE NOTICE ALLOWE DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LATE NOTICE ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)

/

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a personal injury (car accident) action was properly granted. The majority concluded the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the injury was caused by the accident. Defendants’ experts opined the injury was caused by a pre-existing degenerative condition. The dissent felt that plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact about causation because tearing of the relevant tissue was detected, a condition not mentioned by the defendants’ experts:

 

The dissent, taking the position that an issue of fact exists as to whether the accident caused plaintiff’s shoulder injury, does not deal with the aforementioned opinions of Dr. Lang and Dr. Lyons in plaintiff’s own medical records. It appears to be the dissent’s view that the support in plaintiff’s medical records for the shoulder injury having a degenerative origin are of no moment because plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Louis C. Rose, in his affirmation prepared for this litigation, offered a “diagnosis [that] . . . contrasts significantly with the one proffered by defendants’ experts.” However, the dissent offers no support for its view that there is a “factual disagreement” between the defense experts and plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Rose) on the diagnosis of the shoulder injury, as opposed to its etiology. Specifically, the dissent simply assumes that the defense experts’ diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the AC joint and chronic impingement syndrome were inconsistent with the presence of tears to the labrum and rotator cuff, which was Dr. Rose’s diagnosis. Nothing in the record supports the assumption that the conditions diagnosed by the defense experts do not result in tears to the labrum and rotator cuff. Franklin v Gareyua, 2016 NY Slip Op 00886, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)

/

SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS EXCEEDING FOUR YEARS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT.

The First Department determined that sentencing a youthful offender to consecutive sentences which exceeded four years was inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment:

 

By adjudicating defendant a youthful offender and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 4 years, to run consecutively to a sentence of one to three years on another YO adjudication, the court effectively imposed an aggregate term in excess of four years for two YO adjudications. The imposition of consecutive terms with an aggregate term of more than the normal YO maximum of four years “is inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment and it is unrealistic to conclude that one eligible for such treatment requires prolonged confinement to achieve the objectives of the legislation” … . People v Christopher P., 2016 NY Slip Op 00904, 1st Dept 2-9-11

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/SENTENCING (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)

/

APPEAL OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND CONSTRUCTION HAD CONTINUED TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE WITHOUT CAUSING UNDUE HARM.

In an action seeking to enjoin the construction of a high-rise tower, the First Department dismissed the appeal because the plaintiffs did not apply for an injunction pending appeal and the construction had progressed to the point it could not be undone without undue hardship:

 

Plaintiffs failed to apply for an injunction pending appeal — on the contrary, they moved for an enlargement of time within which to perfect the appeal — and construction is now “so far advanced that it could not be undone without undue hardship” (Matter of Weeks Woodlands Assn., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 95 AD3d 747, 753 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 919 [2012]). Plaintiffs’ contention that Weeks Woodlands does not apply because the tower being built by defendants … is not substantially complete is without merit. Weeks Woodlands specifically says that “construction need not be virtually completed to render the dispute moot” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ claim that they are not seeking to enjoin the construction project, their amended complaint sought to enjoin defendant Art Students League of New York (ASL)’s conveyance of air rights or to set it aside. The practical effect of such an injunction or setting aside would be to force [defendant] Extell to demolish the construction it has accomplished to date and start over again from scratch, which would cost more than $200 million. Caraballo v Art Students League of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 00883, 1st Dept 2-9-11

 

APPEALS (FAILURE TO APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE, APPEAL DISMISSED)/INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (FAILURE TO APPLY ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE)

/ , ,

DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord should not have been granted summary judgment in this lead-paint-injury action.  [The case presents another example of a defendant’s failure to affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in summary-judgment-motion papers.] Defendant failed to demonstrate, inter alia, the absence of a hazardous condition and her lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition. On the issue of constructive notice, the court wrote:

In Chapman, the Court of Appeals [92 NY2d 9] addressed constructive notice, writing that “a triable issue of fact [on notice] is raised when [the evidence] shows that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (id. at 15). Here, it is undisputed that defendant retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs; that she knew that the residence was constructed before lead-based paint was banned; and that she knew that young children lived in the apartment. Rodrigues v Lesser, 2016 NY Slip Op 00836, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

/ ,

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS CAUSES OF ACTION NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED.

In finding the pleading insufficient for malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action, the Fourth Department explained the flaws:

Where, as here, the underlying action is civil in nature, the party alleging a claim for malicious prosecution must allege a special injury … . In the instant case, defendant “fail[ed] to plead that the civil proceeding involved wrongful interference with [his] person or property” … . Instead, defendant alleged damages amounting to “the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending a lawsuit,” which is insufficient to constitute a special injury for a claim of malicious prosecution … .

To the extent that defendant contends that the second counterclaim is for abuse of process and not malicious prosecution, we conclude that it must still be dismissed as well. “Insofar as the only process issued [here] was a summons, the process necessary to obtain jurisdiction and begin the lawsuit, there was no unlawful interference with [defendant’s] person or property because the institution of a civil action by summons and complaint is not legally considered process capable of being abused” … . Defendant alleges that plaintiff acted maliciously in bringing the action, but “[a] malicious motive alone . . . does not give rise to a cause of action for abuse of process” … . Reszka v Collins, 2016 NY Slip Op 00807, 4th Dept 2-5-16

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (WHERE UNDERLYING ACTION IS CIVIL, SPECIAL INJURY MUST BE PLED)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (MALICIOUS  MOTIVE ALONE DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

/

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK ANNULMENT OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIROMMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA); PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE “ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY.”

In an action seeking to annul a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Fourth Department determined the petitioners did not allege an environmental injury, and therefore did not have standing to bring the petition. The petition concerned the construction of an Erie Community College building on the Amherst campus. Apparently, the underlying basis for the petition was the fact that that the new construction was not in the City of Buffalo, but rather was in a suburb. The court explained that the “injuries” described by the petitioners, such as difficulty in commuting to the new location, were not the type of “environmental injury” contemplated by SEQRA:

 

Despite the responsibility of every citizen to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the environment, there is a limit on those who may raise environmental challenges to governmental actions … . Those seeking to raise SEQRA challenges must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

Here, petitioners failed to establish that they have suffered an environmental injury. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, each petitioner submitted an affidavit discussing how he had been allegedly harmed. Petitioner Wilfred Turner stated that, as a student at ECC, he would be harmed by the proposed construction because he did not own a motor vehicle, and it would be both expensive and inconvenient for him and other similarly situated students to use public transportation to attend classes at the Amherst Campus. Petitioner Joel Giambra, the former County Executive of Erie County, stated that, if the proposed facility were constructed on the Amherst Campus instead of within the City of Buffalo, “[he] would be harmed in that all of the work [he had] done and all of the procedures [he had] fought for would be shown to have been useless.” Finally, petitioner Joseph Golombek, Jr., a City Council member for the City of Buffalo (City), stated that he would be harmed because of the “unfavorable decision on the placement of the facility” inasmuch as his “constituents [would] certainly judge [him] according to how well he accomplished [his] tasks,” such as safeguarding the City from “adverse economic decisions” and “promot[ing] the expansion of business and economic opportunity within the City.” None of those alleged injuries constitutes an environmental injury under SEQRA … . Matter of Turner v County of Erie, 2016 NY Slip Op 00806, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ANNUL NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA)/STANDING (SEQRA, PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (PETITIONERS DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ANNUL NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA)

/ ,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED.

in finding suppression of defendant’s statements was properly denied, the Fourth Department explained that an illegal arrest will not require the suppression of statements if the statements were “sufficiently attenuated” from the arrest:

 

… [E]ven assuming that defendant was illegally arrested, “defendant’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality” … . “[A] confession that is made after an arrest without probable cause is not subject to suppression if the People adequately demonstrate that the inculpatory admission was attenuated’ from the improper detention; in other words, it was acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality’ ” … . In determining whether there has been attenuation, courts must consider “the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Here, defendant was not interrogated until almost 2½ hours after his arrest … . He was given Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation, which is an “important” attenuation factor … . Before defendant was interrogated, a codefendant implicated defendant in at least one of the crimes, which constituted a significant intervening event and provided the police with probable cause … . People v Buchanan, 2016 NY Slip Op 00800, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/EVIDENCE (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED)

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