You are here: / Appellate Division, Acting as Second Appellate Court, Used Wrong Standard...

Search Results

/ ,

Appellate Division, Acting as Second Appellate Court, Used Wrong Standard of Review

The Court of Appeals reversed the appellate division in a holdover tenant proceeding because the appellate division, acting as the second appellate court, use the wrong standard of review:

We agree with the dissenting opinion that the Appellate Division applied the incorrect standard of review to the Appellate Term order.  In primary residence cases, where the Appellate Division acts as the second appellate court, “the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” … .The Appellate Division did not apply this standard of review to this case, instead substituting its own view of the trial evidence.  Accordingly, the case needs to be remitted to that court to apply the appropriate standard of review… . 409-411 Sixth Street, LLC v Mogi, 250, CtApp 10-10-13

 

/

Lab Conducting Blood Tests for Drugs Owed Duty of Care to Plaintiff Whose Blood Was Tested

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over two dissenting opinions, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had stated a negligence cause of action against a laboratory (Kroll) which issued a test-result positive for the presence of drugs and initiated a violation of probation proceeding against the plaintiff.  In concluding the laboratory owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Judge Lippman wrote:

Although the existence of a contractual relationship by itself generally is not a source of tort liability to third parties, we have recognized that there are certain circumstances where a duty of care is assumed to certain individuals outside the contract … .  As relevant here, such a duty may arise “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm” … .  This principle recognizes that the duty to avoid harm to others is distinct from the contractual duty of performance.  Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, Kroll did not exercise reasonable care in the testing of plaintiff’s biological sample when it failed to adhere to professionally accepted testing standards and, consequently, released a report finding that plaintiff had tested positive for THC.  The alleged harm to plaintiff was not remote or attenuated. Indeed, it was his own biological specimen that was the sole subject of this testing and he was directly harmed by the positive test result causing the extension of his probation and the necessity of having to defend himself in the attendant court proceedings.

Additionally, there are strong policy-based considerations that counsel in favor of finding that Kroll owed a duty to plaintiff under these circumstances.  Without question, the release of a false positive report will have profound, potentially life-altering, consequences for a test subject.  In particular, here, plaintiff faced the loss of freedom associated with serving an extended period of probation.  The laboratory is also in the best position to prevent false positive results. Under the circumstances, we find that Kroll had a duty to the test subject to perform his drug test in keeping with relevant professional standards and that the existence of its contract with the County does not immunize defendant laboratory.  Landon v Kroll Laboratory Specialists Inc, 142, CtApp 10-10-13

 

/ , ,

Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a “registered voter’s” [Nichol’s] motion to intervene in an action to determine the constitutionality of a local law concerning term limits for public offices.  The court explained:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). Additionally, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … .

Here, contrary to Nichols’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to intervene in the action as a defendant. Although Nichols, who describes himself as a “registered voter in the County of Suffolk and an active supporter of [his] constitutional right to pass and enforce term limit legislation,” may indeed be interested in defending the local law in question, he failed to demonstrate that he has a “real and substantial interest” in the action … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court appropriately noted, he failed to show that any interest he did have would not be adequately represented by the defendant … . Accordingly, the court properly denied Nichols’s motion for leave to intervene. Spota v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06558, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/

Similar Pending Lawsuit Properly Dismissed—Two Lawsuits Sought Declaratory Judgment Re: Duty to Defend and Indemnify

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action for a declaratory judgment re: an insurance company’s duty to defend and indemnify because of its similarity to another pending action:

Where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same, a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) on the ground that there is another action pending … . “The critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs” … . Under the circumstances of this case, upon the record that existed at the time the Supreme Court issued the order appealed from, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) … . Scottsdale Ins Co v Indemnity Ins Corp RRG, 2013 NY Slip Op 06557, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff did not allege the city had notice of the defect and sought to amend the complaint to add the allegation.  The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend:

… [T]he Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the City’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. Instead, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion and permitted him to amend the pleadings and the notice of claim to add an allegation that the City received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect where, as here, the amendment would not prejudice or surprise the City (see CPLR 3025; General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]…).  Perez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06553, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/ ,

Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 2001, to allow the filing and serving of a summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff had timely attempted to file the summons and complaint using a new electronic filing system in Westchester County. It turned out that plaintiff’s counsel had mistakenly used a “practice” filing system designed to familiarize users with electronic filing and the summons and complaint was never actually filed in time.  The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to be allowed to cure the mistake under CPLR 2001 should have been granted after explaining that, in this case, CPLR 2001 should be to correct an error without concern for whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the correction:

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s e-filing error cannot be corrected, as doing so would prejudice the defendant by depriving her of a viable statute of limitations defense. However, we conclude that under a proper reading of CPLR 2001, the issue of prejudice to the defendant need not be reached.

More specifically, we believe that many reported cases in New York reflect a misreading of the language of CPLR 2001. Judicial discretion and the absence of prejudice are not requirements that must be applied in a combined fashion. Rather, a close reading of the statute reveals that CPLR 2001 recognizes two separate forms of potential relief to address mistakes, omissions, defects, or irregularities in the filing of papers. The statute distinguishes between the “correction” of mistakes and the “disregarding” of mistakes, and each invokes a different test. Courts may “correct[ ]” mistakes “upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 2001). The statute then says, set off by an “or,” that mistakes may be “disregarded” if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . Thus, a “correction” of a mistake appears to be subject to a broader degree of judicial discretion without necessary regard to prejudice, whereas a complete “disregarding” of a mistake must not prejudice an opposing party. … The distinction between simply correcting a mistake and overlooking a mistake makes sense, as a party seeking to wholly disregard a filing mistake may understandably be expected to bear a higher burden than a party seeking a mere correction.

A secondary inquiry, therefore, is whether the plaintiff’s request for a nunc pro tunc recognition of his filing in the NYSCEF “practice” system amounts to a mere correction that may be permitted upon terms that may be just, or whether it constitutes a full-scale disregard of the filing error that, in order to be permitted, requires a showing that the defendant will not be prejudiced by the disregard.

… [Here] [t]he “filing” was performed in a mistaken manner and method, which courts are permitted to correct on terms that may be just … . Therefore, the plaintiff was under no burden to demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the defendant. In contrast, excusing a clearly untimely filing would constitute the disregarding of an error, which could not be permitted because it would be prejudicial to a defendant to deprive it of a legitimate statute of limitations defense. Grskovic v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 06545, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/ ,

Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed

The Second Department concluded the trial court should have allowed the cross-examination of a witness about a physical characteristic of the defendant the witness had not mentioned to the police:

“[A] witness may not be impeached simply by showing that he [or she] omitted to state a fact, or to state it more fully at a prior time” … . However, impeachment by omission is permissible when the witness omits a critical fact … . “An omission of fact at a prior time is insufficient for impeachment purposes unless it is shown that at th[at] prior time the witness’ attention was called to the matter and that he [or she] was specifically asked about the facts embraced in the question propounded at trial'” … . ” [C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony'” … . Here, given the eyewitness’s testimony which demonstrated that the defendant’s “squinting,” “partly closed” left eye was a significant factor in his identifying the defendant as the assailant, the trial court erred in precluding the defendant from cross-examining the eyewitness about his omission of this observation of the assailant’s appearance when he described the assailant to the police… . People v Greene, 2013 NY Slip Op 06589, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/

Defendant’s 440.46 Motion for Resentencing Should Not Have Been Denied

In finding defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 should have been granted, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing (see L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46[3]…). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion–the defendant’s criminal history and parole violations–are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The instant offense and many of the defendant’s prior offenses consisted of low-level drug crimes, and none of the defendant’s recent convictions involved violence or weapons …. The defendant had no disciplinary infractions in prison, and had several positive accomplishments … . While the defendant’s parole violations were a relevant consideration …, they were only one factor to consider, and did not mandate denial of the defendant’s motion …. Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted” … . People v Green, 2013 NY Slip Op 06588, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/

Imposition of Enhanced Sentence for Defendant’s Tardiness Disallowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed an enhanced sentence on the ground defendant was late appearing for his sentencing:

The transcript of the plea proceeding does not indicate that the defendant was given any instructions as to what time he was to appear for sentencing; rather, he was told that he must “com[e] to court on the sentence date.” Under these circumstances, the imposition of an enhanced sentence, without affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty, was error… . People v Blades, 2013 NY Slip Op 06584, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

/ , ,

Concept of an Equitable Mortgage Explained, Affirmative Defenses Left Out of Original Answer (Waived) Can Be Included in Amended Answer

The Second Department explained the concept of an “equitable mortgage” and noted that affirmative defenses waived pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) can be included in an answer amended by leave of court:

New York law allows the imposition of an equitable lien if there is an express or implied agreement that there shall be a lien on specific property … . “While [a] court will impose an equitable mortgage where the facts surrounding a transaction evidence that the parties intended that a specific piece of property is to be held or transferred to secure an obligation, it is necessary that an intention to create such a charge clearly appear from the language and the attendant circumstances” … .
Here, the defendant initially did not raise in his answer a defense based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of standing or a capacity to sue, or the statute of limitations. Hence, those affirmative defenses were waived at that point (see CPLR 3211[e]). However, defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay and is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). ” Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… .  Deutsche Bank Trust Co Ams v Cox, 2013 NY slip Op 06543, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

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