You are here: / Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is...

Search Results

/ ,

Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)

In finding Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria, noting it is most important that the municipality have timely knowledge of the actual facts underlying the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits” … . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . Matter of Barrett v Village of Wappingers Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 06138, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred

The Second Department determined defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by not making a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Although defendant’s subsequent motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the parties laid bare their proof. Therefore Supreme Court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, seeking to dismiss the complaint as time-barred:

Initially, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by failing to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Rather, a statute of limitations defense may be asserted after joinder of issue in a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . Although the defendant’s motion was made pursuant to 3211(a)(5), the parties clearly charted a summary judgment course by submitting extensive documentary evidence and factual affidavits laying bare their proof … . Thus, the defendant’s motion is properly treated as a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred … . Meredith v Siben & Siben, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06120, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted to defendant hospital. The suit against the hospital was based upon the actions of a non-employee physician chosen by the plaintiff.  The Second Department succinctly explained the theories under which a hospital may be liable for the actions of a non-employee physician (none of which applied here):

Generally speaking, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . Moreover, so long as the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital have merely carried out that private attending physician’s orders, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries … . These rules will not, however, shield a hospital from liability in three situations. The first is when the private physician’s orders “so greatly deviate from normal medical practice that [the hospital’s employees] should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Put another way, a hospital may be held liable when the staff follows orders despite knowing “that the doctor’s orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders” … . Second, a hospital may be held liable when its employees have committed independent acts of negligence … . Third, a hospital may be held liable for the negligence of a private, nonemployee physician on a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . Doria v Benisch, 2015 NY Slip Op 06109, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

The Second Department explained there is no requirement that a statute of limitations defense be raised solely in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.  The defense may be asserted in the answer, and subsequently raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial. Although defendant’s post-answer motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 instead of 3212, the procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001:

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant who wishes to raise a defense based on the statute of limitations to do so by way of a motion to dismiss. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of [the] statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). CPLR 3211(e) provides that the defendant may make the motion to dismiss before its answer is required to be served, or may include the defense in its answer and seek relief later. When the defendant does neither, the defense is waived.

“At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) . . . . Any objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraph[ ] five . . . of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading” (CPLR 3211[e]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, a defendant who wishes to assert the statute of limitations as a defense is not limited to asserting it by way of a pre-answer motion. The defendant may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined … .

Here, the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, but raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer. Then, after the note of issue was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Although the defendant denominated its motion as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, rather than as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001, upon proper notice to the parties … . Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06130, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ , ,

Court of Claims Must Determine the Interests of All Parties Named by the Attorney General as Potentially Entitled to Payment for a Taking by the State—Therefore a Claimant Must Join all the Parties Named by the Attorney General

The Second Department explained the procedure under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) for determining how to apportion payment for a taking when there is a dispute about which parties are entitled to payment. Under the EDPL and the Court of Claims Act, the Court of Claims must determine the interests of all parties named by the Attorney General as having a possible claim. Therefore a claimant must join all the named parties in any action seeking payment:

EDPL 304(E)(1) … provides that when the Attorney General determines that there is a conflict with regard to the person or persons legally entitled to receive payment for the value of property acquired by the State through the power of eminent domain, he or she shall request the Comptroller to deposit the funds in an interest-bearing account “to be distributed as ordered by the Court of Claims on application of any person claiming an interest in the amount” (EDPL 304[E][1]). The statute further provides that the procedure to be employed in connection with such an application “shall be the same as provided in [Court of Claims Act § 23],” and that “[n]o judgment of distribution shall be made unless the court shall first obtain personal jurisdiction over all persons certified by the Attorney General as having or claiming to have an interest in the fund” (EDPL 304[E][1]).

The claimant argues, in effect, that Mazur Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter MBI), an entity that the Attorney General has determined has a possible interest in the subject proceeds, does not in fact have any such interest and that, therefore, the claimant was under no obligation to join MBI as a party to this claim. In advancing this argument, however, the claimant essentially asked the Court of Claims to assume the very fact that is the ultimate fact that must be proven, namely, that MBI has no interest in the money deposited by the Comptroller. Without jurisdiction over MBI, it would have been improper for the Court of Claims to grant the relief requested by the claimant in connection with this claim. Indeed, as the claimant appears to have recognized, its remedy, under these circumstances, lies in a special distribution proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304 … . Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06119, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority’s motion to vacate a judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff, Nash, was injured in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment after trial. The Port Authority did not appeal the judgment, but sought to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), based upon the results of an appeal in an unrelated “companion” case (Ruiz), which held the Port Authority immune from such suits. Supreme Court granted the motion and the First Department reversed, explaining that the Port Authority’s failure to appeal could not be “remedied” using Supreme Court’s discretionary “CPLR 5015” powers:

The Port Authority made a strategic decision not to appeal either the liability or the damages determination in Nash, but to prosecute the Ruiz case instead. The Port Authority thereafter abandoned any claim that it was not liable to Nash, and represented to the Court of Appeals that a reversal in Ruiz would not affect cases like Nash’s that had been finally determined. Having failed to seek leave to appeal from Nash’s affirmed final judgment, the Port Authority ought not to profit from its misrepresentations to the detriment of Nash, whose judgment was indisputably final.

As Professor Siegel noted in the Practice Commentaries accompanying CPLR 5513, “[t]he time in which to appeal or to move for leave to appeal if leave is necessary is one of the most rigid in all of procedure. Its passing without the proper step being taken forfeits the appeal and puts an end to the matter . . .” (David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513:1).

While a court under CPLR 5015(a) might possess some limited jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment — for example, where the court purporting to enter judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction — that discretion must be sparingly exercised lest final judgments be subject to never-ending attack, undermining the sanctity and finality of judgments. As Justice Graffeo noted in her partial dissent, “We generally do not reward litigants for failing to assert arguments in a timely fashion — with few exceptions, claims not promptly advanced are deemed waived or forfeited and this proposition applies to the right to seek reversal of a judgment on the ground that it is erroneous on the facts or law (i.e., the type of argument made on direct appeal) . . . Simply stated, when a party allows its appellate rights to lapse, it forfeits the right to challenge any issue it could have raised on direct appeal” (22 NY3d at 227). The Port Authority’s motion to vacate the Nash judgment was predicated on an issue that had been litigated in Nash and would have been reviewable on appeal. The Port Authority ought not to be permitted a second bite at the apple at the expense of the elderly plaintiff, who suffered traumatic brain injuries over 20 years ago, and will now never see a penny of her $5.2 million final judgment. Nash v Port Auth of NY & NJ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06095, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

/ , ,

“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), the First Department explained the applicability of the “special facts doctrine” to the related fraud allegations. There was a defense verdict. The issue was raised on appeal by the plaintiffs because the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the special facts doctrine, an error the First Department deemed harmless. The court offered a clear description of the doctrine:

… [P]laintiffs claimed that defendants had a duty to disclose certain documents concerning alleged adverse contract information. The “special facts” doctrine holds that “absent a fiduciary relationship between parties, there is nonetheless a duty to disclose when one party’s superior knowledge of essential facts renders a transaction without disclosure inherently unfair” … . As a threshold matter, the doctrine requires satisfaction of a two-prong test: that the material fact was information peculiarly within the knowledge of one party and that the information was not such that could have been discovered by the other party through the exercise of ordinary intelligence … . Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06091, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

/ ,

Escaped Calf Furnished the Condition or Occasion for Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Presence in the Road When She Was Struck, But Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Being in the Road

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. A calf escaped from defendant farm. Plaintiff’s decedent stopped her car and got out to aid the calf.  Both plaintiff’s decedent and the calf were struck by a car when they were in the road, although there was no evidence decedent stopped her car because the calf blocked the road. The Fourth Department held that the escape of the calf did not “cause” the decedent to be in the road. Rather the escape of the calf furnished the condition or occasion for decedent to be in the road:

Although “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal . . . is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” …, “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … . Here, in support of its motion, Drumm Farm established that any negligence on its part in allowing the calf to escape merely “created the opportunity for plaintiff to be standing [in the roadway], [but] it did not cause [her] to stand” there … . “In short, the [alleged] negligence of [Drumm Farm] merely furnished the occasion for an unrelated act to cause injuries not ordinarily anticipated” … . Importantly, plaintiff does not contend, and did not submit any evidence that would establish, that the calf’s presence in the road blocked decedent’s ability to travel in the southbound lane or otherwise forced decedent to stop her vehicle. Thus, Drumm Farm established as a matter of law that its “alleged negligent act, at most, caused the [calf to wander] out of the field, which was not the immediate cause of the accident” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Hain v Jamison, 2015 NY Slip Op 06074, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/

Demand for Jury Trial Should Not Have Been Struck Despite Request for a “Declaration” in the Complaint—Crux of the Case Was a Request for Monetary Relief

The Fourth Department determined that plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial should not have been struck. Defendants attempted to recoup alleged overpayments made to plaintiffs for ambulance services by reducing payments for ongoing services. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging defendant’s right to recoup the alleged overpayments. As part of their complaint, the plaintiffs sought “a declaration that [defendant] is not entitled to offset or recoup any funds from [p]laintiffs.” The Fourth Department held that, despite the request for a “declaration,” the crux of the lawsuit was for monetary relief and the demand for a jury trial was therefore appropriate:

… [T]he court erred in granting defendant’s motion to strike their demand for a jury trial, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The question whether plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial turns on whether “the underlying claims set forth in the complaint are legal rather than equitable in nature” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiffs’ request for “a declaration that [defendant] is not entitled to offset or recoup any funds from [p]laintiffs” is incidental to their request for monetary relief. “[V]iewed in its entirety, the primary character of the case is legal” … , and “the complaint contains demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only’ “… . Canandaigua Emergency Squad, Inc. v Rochester Area Health Maintenance Org., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06056, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Strictly Comply with the Procedure Mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Required Annulment of the Town’s Negative Declaration Re: the Construction of a Casino and Resort

The Fourth Department, with two concurring and one dissenting justice, determined that the town’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with respect to the construction of a casino and resort should have been annulled because the town did not strictly comply with mandated procedure. Specifically the negative declaration did not include a “reasoned elaboration” as required by the relevant regulation. A document prepared by the town’s counsel explaining the reasons for the negative declaration was never approved or adopted by the town board and therefore did not meet the statutory/regulatory “reasoned elaboration” requirement:

It is well settled that SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms mandate strict compliance, and anything less will result in annulment of the lead agency’s determination of significance … . “[L]iteral rather than substantial compliance with SEQRA is required” … . Here, 6 NYCRR 617.7 (b) (4) requires that, in making the determination of significance, the lead agency—in this case the Town Board—must “set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation.” We conclude that the intent of the regulation is to focus and facilitate judicial review and, of no lesser importance, to provide affected landowners and residents with a clear, written explanation of the lead agency’s reasoning at the time the negative declaration is made. We reject respondents’ contention that we should search the entire record to discern the Town Board’s reasoning as of June 12, 2014 in making the determination to issue the negative declaration. “A record evincing an extensive legislative process . . . is neither a substitute for strict compliance with SEQRA’s [written] reasoned elaboration requirement nor sufficient to prevent annulment” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant the petition, thereby annulling the negative declaration and vacating the site plan approval and all related resolutions. Matter of Dawley v Whitetail 414, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06082 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

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