You are here: / Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted

Search Results

/ , ,

Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted leave to file a late notice of claim in an action stemming from an assault by students against plaintiff (also a student). Plaintiff had been confronted and threatened by two students. Plaintiff’s mother informed the school and asked for a meeting with the two students’ parents. Nothing was done by the school. One week later, the plaintiff was beaten by the two students. Plaintiff sought to file a notice of claim a month after the 90-day deadline. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) permits a court, in its discretion, to extend the time to serve a notice of claim … . “Whether the public corporation acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter is seen as a factor which should be accorded great weight in determining whether or not to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . The court must also consider other relevant circumstances, including: (1) whether the claimant was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the petitioner’s infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim; (2) whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the delay; and (3) whether the public corporation was prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…).

Timely notice of the facts underlying the claim must be acquired within the 90-day period “or a reasonable time thereafter”… . Here the [defendants]received the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim approximately one month after the expiration of the 90-day period. Thus, the [defendants] acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period … .

Because the [defendants] acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim, the petitioners met their initial burden of showing a lack of prejudice … . The [defendants’] conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the petitioners’ one-month delay in serving the notice of claim, were insufficient to rebut the petitioners’ showing … . Matter of Regan v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06826, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/

Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because the Rejection Was Not Accompanied by an Adequate Description of the Defect—Supreme Court Properly Ignored Defect Because there Was No Prejudice to Plaintiffs

The Second Department affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to enter a judgment on the ground defendant failed to appear in the action. The plaintiffs had rejected defendant’s answer because the verification was defective. The Second Department noted (1) the rejection of the answer was not effective because the rejection was not accompanied by an explanation of the nature of the alleged defect and (2), because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice, Supreme Court properly ignored the defect:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3022, when a pleading is required to be verified, the recipient of an unverified or defectively verified pleading may treat it as a nullity provided that the recipient with due diligence returns the [pleading] with notification of the reason(s) for deeming the verification defective” … . Here, at the outset, the plaintiffs’ rejection of the defendant’s answer was ineffective, as it failed to specify the reasons or objections with sufficient specificity … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court properly found, the plaintiffs suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the complained-of defect was properly “ignored” by the Supreme Court … . Gaffey v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 06779, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/

Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law

The Second Department determined plaintiff was defendant’s special employee and recovery from defendant was therefore barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked for a staffing agency and was assigned to work for defendant. After plaintiff was injured working for defendant, he was paid Workers’ Compensation benefits by the staffing agency. Because of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, plaintiff could not recover from the defendant, his special employer:

” In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment'” (…see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6]). For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer, a general employer and a special employer … . “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

A special employee is “one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another” … . In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a court should consider factors such as the right to control the employee’s work, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, and the right to discharge … . “A significant and weighty factor . . . is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that this action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Evidence submitted in support of the motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work, and that the defendant was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Wilson v A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06808, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/

“Due Diligence” Demonstrated—“Nail and Mail” Service Appropriate

In a foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank demonstrated “due diligence” in attempting personal service on the homeowner, such that the “nail and mail” service was appropriate:

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence (see CPLR 308[4]…). The term “due diligence,” which is not defined by statute, has been interpreted and applied on a case-by-case basis … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has stated that “in determining the question of whether due diligence has been exercised, no rigid rule could properly be prescribed” … . As a general matter, the “due diligence” requirement may be met with “a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant’s residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times” … .

Here, the affidavit of the process server demonstrated that three visits were made to the homeowner’s residence on three different occasions and at different times, when the homeowner could reasonably have been expected to be found at that location … . The process server also described in detail his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an employment address for the homeowner … . Contrary to the homeowner’s contention, under these circumstances, the due diligence requirement was satisfied… . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Besemer, 2015 NY Slip Op 06806, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/

Several Similar Thefts from the Same Store Constituted a Single, Continuing Crime

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant, who stole items from a store on a series of separate occasions, had committed a continuing crime and therefore was properly prosecuted for stealing merchandise worth more than $1000.00:

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the defendant took similar expensive electronic merchandise from the same store on each occasion, under virtually the same circumstances, and with the assistance of the driver of the minivan. Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, we find that this evidence sufficiently established that the defendant stole merchandise “with a single [ongoing] intent, carried out in successive stages” (People v Rossi, 5 NY2d at 401), and that this was not merely a series of distinct petty thefts (see People v Daghita, 301 NY 223, 225 [affirming the defendant’s conviction of a single continuing grand larceny where he stole a “considerable quantity of merchandise over a period of time” from the same store and “used a large portion of it to furnish his home and to outfit his family”]; see also People v Henderson, 163 AD2d 888; cf. People v Seymour, 77 AD3d 976, 980 [insufficient proof that two thefts from the same store constituted a common scheme or plan, where the defendant stole one television during the first incident, a variety of merchandise during the second incident, and each theft was perpetrated in a different manner, since “there was no evidence of the defendant’s intent to commit fraud or of his intent to engage in a plan of continuous fraud”]). People v Malcolm, 2015 NY Slip Op 06829, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/ ,

Law of Plaintiff’s Residence Applied to Action Alleging Injury from Use of Plaintiff’s Image and Voice (Video Clip) on a Television Show

The Second Department determined New York law, not California law, applied to plaintiff’s complaint alleging injury stemming from the use of a video clip, in which plaintiff appeared, on a television show. The plaintiff resided in New York, and the video clip was edited in California. The complaint alleged violation of California law. The Second Department explained why New York law applied and further determined that the video clip did not violate New York’s Civil Rights Law (sections 50 and 51) because the clip was not used for advertising:

New York uses an interest analysis, under which “the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in resolving the particular issue” is given controlling effect … . Pursuant to the interest analysis, “[a] distinction [is made] between laws that regulate primary conduct (such as standards of care) and those that allocate losses after the tort occurs” … . If the conflicting laws regulate conduct, the law of the place of the tort “almost invariably obtains” because “that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders” … . “[W]here the plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in different states, the applicable law in an action where civil remedies are sought for tortious conduct is that of the situs of the injury” … .

Applying these principles, the law of New York, where the alleged injury or damage occurred, applies. Although the alleged tortious conduct, the editing of the video clip, occurred in California, the plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred in New York, where he is domiciled and resides. Moreover, New York is the state with the greater interest in protecting the plaintiff, its citizen and resident. Sondik v Kimmel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06803, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/ ,

The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis

The Second Department determined the trial court erred when it denied defense counsel’s request to withdraw a peremptory challenge to a juror. However, the error was deemed harmless because of the nature of the evidence against the defendant. On appeal the Second Department primarily addressed whether the harmless error analysis applied to the withdrawal of a peremptory challenge:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s improper denial of his request to withdraw his peremptory challenge is not subject to harmless error analysis, since the error deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury in whose selection he had a voice … . We disagree. While peremptory challenges “are a mainstay in a litigant’s strategic arsenal,” they are “not a trial tool of constitutional magnitude” … . The right to exercise peremptory challenges “is protected by the Criminal Procedure Law, which provides that each party must be allowed’ an equal number of peremptory challenges and that a court must exclude’ any juror challenged” … . Therefore, “the unjustified denial of a peremptory challenge violates CPL 270.25(2) and requires reversal without regard to harmless error” … . However, there is no statutory right to withdraw a peremptory challenge. Further, the instant case does not involve a situation in which the People attempted to peremptorily challenge a juror who had been accepted by the defense in violation of CPL 270.15(2), inasmuch as the People did not object to the defendant’s request to withdraw the peremptory challenge … . Moreover, the defendant was not prejudiced by the loss of the peremptory challenge since, at the conclusion of jury selection, defense counsel had exercised only 9 of his 15 peremptory challenges … . Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the error was harmless. People v Marshall, 2015 NY Slip Op 06830, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/

Failure to Provide Reason for Denial of Youthful Offender Status Required Remittal

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court because Supreme Court did not place on the record its reasons for denying youthful offender status to the defendant, and there was no indication that Supreme Court considered whether to afford defendant youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires that the sentencing court actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … . Here, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]here is no youthful offender adjudication” when it imposed sentence in accordance with the defendant’s plea agreement. However, the court did not place on the record any reason for not adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it actually independently considered youthful offender treatment instead of denying such treatment because it was not part of the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence, and remit the matter … for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v T.E., 2015 NY Slip Op 06827, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/ ,

Controverted Custody-Related Issues Cannot Be Decided Based Upon “In Chambers” Conferences, A Full Hearing Is Required

The Second Department determined a new trial on all custody issues was necessary because Supreme Court refused to allow testimony on certain controverted allegations (parental alienation and use of corporal punishment). Supreme Court erroneously relied upon extensive “in camera” discussions which, Supreme Court determined, had revealed the issues to be “sporadic and inconsequential.”  The Second Department noted that all controverted custody issues should be decided only after the issues are addressed in a hearing:

” ‘[A]s a general rule, it is error to make an order respecting custody based upon controverted allegations without the benefit of a full hearing’ … . Here, the Supreme Court, after holding ‘extensive’ in camera discussions with counsel on the issues of excessive corporal punishment and parental alienation, refused to allow testimony on these controverted issues, stating that they were ‘sporadic and inconsequential.’ Instead, the Supreme Court directed that only ‘positive’ aspects of the parties’ parenting be presented on the record. This was error, since the court cannot base a significant portion of its decision on off-the-record conferences …”. Minjin Lee v Jianchuang Xu, 2015 NY Slip Op 06784, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

/ , ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing. ‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

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