You are here: / RESTORATION OF AN ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AFTER FAILURE TO FILE A...

Search Results

/

RESTORATION OF AN ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AFTER FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE IS AUTOMATIC IF NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED AND NO ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAS BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar after plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue should should have been granted. No 90-day notice had been served and no order of dismissal had been issued:

When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … . In the absence of those two circumstances, the court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue … .

Here, the so-ordered stipulation did not suffice as a predicate notice for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. The restoration of the action to the active calendar should have been automatic. Rosario v Cummins, 2023 NY Slip Op 06547, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline. Restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic if no 90-day notice has been served and no order of dismissal has been issued.

 

/ ,

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff did not demonstrate the process server exercised diligence because resorting to “nail and mail” service:

The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” … . “For the purpose of satisfying the ‘due diligence’ requirement of CPLR 308(4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . The process server averred that he made two attempts to personally serve the defendant at his home before affixing the summons and complaint to the door of the defendant’s home. There was no evidence that the process server made any genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment, which was known to the plaintiff. Niebling v Pioreck, 2023 NY Slip Op 06526, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: A process server’s failure to exercise due diligence  in trying to locate a defendant before resorting to “nail and mail” service, including making inquiries about defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment, will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST, SAW WHAT WAS THERE TO BE SEEN (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver saw what was there to be seen in this bicycle-vehicle accident. Plaintiff bicyclist alleged he was halfway across the road in a crosswalk when defendant made a sudden turn into his path:

“Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself into a dangerous position” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a), motorists must “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal” on the roadway and to “give warning by sounding the horn when necessary” … . A motorist also has a “common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses” … .

… T]he defendant … failed to establish … that his conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident. The defendant testified at his deposition that he slowly made his turn, and that he did not see the plaintiff prior to the impact. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he saw the defendant’s vehicle make a sudden right turn in front of him one second prior to the impact. Thus, the defendant’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses … . Khalil v Garcia-Olea, 2023 NY Slip Op 06517, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: A driver is expected to see what is there to be seen. Here it was alleged defendant driver made a turn into the path of plaintiff bicyclist. Defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY TOLD PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN THAT PLAINTIFF WAS BANNED FROM DEFENDANT’S PHARMACY FOR STEALING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had alleged a defamation cause of action and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant falsely accused him of stealing newspapers from a pharmacy:

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that in November 2020, he was a customer at a CVS store in Jericho, where the defendant Martin was employed as a pharmacist. The plaintiff further alleged that, on December 3, 2020, Martin informed his physician, inter alia, that the plaintiff was banned from the pharmacy for stealing newspapers on multiple occasions and that she had reported the plaintiff to the police. * * *

… [T]he complaint alleged that the statement that the plaintiff was banned from the pharmacy in question for stealing was made on December 3, 2020. The complaint also set forth the statement allegedly made and to whom the statement was made … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, “the words need not be set in quotation marks” to state a cause of action to recover damages for defamation … . Moreover, the allegation that the plaintiff “was stealing” “constitutes an allegation of a ‘serious crime’ so as to qualify as slander per se” … . Jesberger v CVS Health Solutions, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: The allegation that defendant told plaintiff’s physician that plaintiff was banned from defendant’s pharmacy for stealing sufficiently stated a cause of action for defamation.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY DEFENDANT SCHOOL DURING THE PANDEMIC CONSTITUTED A TRANSACTION IN NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LONG-ARM STATUTE; BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SHE WAS IN NEW YORK WHEN SHE TOOK THE ONLINE COURSES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant, an Illinois school, conducted a transaction in New York sufficient to confer long-arm jurisdiction. Because of the pandemic, the courses offered by the school were online. Plaintiff alleged a breach of contract by the school involving a grading issue. A major flaw in plaintiff’s case was that she did not allege she was in New York when she took the online courses:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in New York so as to subject them to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . While the plaintiff attests in her affidavit that since March 2020, she has not taken a class at the defendants’ Illinois location, that the only contact she had with the defendants since that date was either virtually or by telephone, and that none of the facts alleged in her complaint took place in person in Illinois, none of this demonstrates that the defendants were engaged in any activity in New York, let alone purposeful activity. Other than the plaintiff’s allegation that she is a New York resident, there is no other reference to New York in the complaint or in the plaintiff’s affidavit. Significantly, the plaintiff’s allegations are devoid of any indication that she was in New York during the time of the alleged communications with the defendants. Greenfader v Chicago Sch. of Professional Psychology, 2023 NY Slip Op 06513, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: It is not clear from the decision whether taking an online course in New York offered by a school in Illinois confers long-arm jurisdiction over the school. Granting the school’s motion to dismiss appears to be based upon the plaintiff’s failure to allege she was in New York when she took the online course.

 

/ ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling in a school pick-up soccer game. Plaintiff alleged he fell because of pebbles and wet grass on the playing field:

The infant plaintiff testified that he fell because of a combination of, among other things, pebbles on the field and wet and muddy grass. The infant plaintiff further testified that there were no puddles, and the grass was wet from the previous day’s rain and other students playing with water balloons on the field. However, neither the pebbles nor the wet grass described in this case presented a concealed or unreasonably increased risk beyond those inherent in the activity of outdoor soccer … , regardless of whether the wet grass was caused by rain or water balloons … . Furthermore, merely allowing children to play on a field with pebbles and wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision … .   To hold otherwise would effectively prohibit schools from utilizing outdoor playing fields … . C.P.G. v Uniondale Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 06512, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling because of pebbles and wet grass on the soccer playing field.

 

/ ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (LABOR LAW 241 AND 241(B) RATHER THAN 240(1)); SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAN BE GRANTED ON AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FOUR-INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to correct a typographical error should have been granted and noted that a motion for summary judgment can be granted on an unpleaded cause of action. The complaint alleged violation of Labor Law 241 and 241 (b) instead of Labor Law 240(1). The Second Department went on to find that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the accident was an “elevation-related” event–a cylinder had dropped four inches and injured plaintiff’s finger. The question of fact concerned whether the four-inch height differential was de minimis:

… [T]he proposed amendment corrected a typographical error, did not result in any prejudice or surprise to the defendants, and was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . 

We note that, despite the fact that the plaintiff had not yet properly pleaded a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action at the time that he made a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), “summary judgment may be awarded on an unpleaded cause of action if the proof supports such cause and if the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice” … . * * *

The plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, as he did not prove, as a matter of law, that he sustained the type of elevation-related injury that Labor Law § 240(1) was intended to protect against. Namely, where the cylinder fell only four inches but did so with such force as to crush the plaintiff’s finger, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the elevation differential between the plaintiff and the falling object was de minimis … . Castillo v Hawke Enters., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06505, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: The motion to amend the complaint to correct a typo should have been granted.

Practice Point: Where the facts support it, a summary judgment motion may be based on an unpleaded cause of action.

Practice Point: Here a cylinder dropped four inches, injuring plaintiff’s finger. There was a question of fact whether the elevation-differential was de minimis.

 

/ , , ,

A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that a canine sniff of a person to detect drugs is a search. The Fourth Department had reversed County Court and held that the canine sniff constituted a search. But the Fourth Department went on to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard to whether the search was justified and found that standard had been met by the facts. Because County Count had not ruled on the correct standard for a sniff-search (County Court held the sniff was not a search), the Fourth Department did not have the authority rule against the defendant on that issue. The matter was sent back to County Court for rulings on what the correct standard is and whether that standard was met by the events preceding the sniff-search in this case:

… [W]e conclude that the canine sniff of defendant’s person qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. * * *

The second question presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division could decide that a canine sniff search of a person requires reasonable suspicion and was justified in this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to resolve those issues because County Court did not decide them adversely to defendant (see LaFontaine, 92 NY2d at 473-474). * * *

County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search. The court did not decide the standard that would govern if the canine sniff did so qualify, much less whether that standard was met. Those questions present “separate” and “analytically distinct” issues from the threshold question of whether the sniff implicated constitutional protections or prohibitions … . The Appellate Division therefore erred in deciding those questions adversely to defendant…. . People v Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A canine sniff for drugs on a person is a search. The correct standard justifying such a search has not been determined.

Practice Point: If an issue has not been addressed by the lower court, the appellate court is powerless to rule adversely to the defendant on that issue. Here County Court had held that a canine sniff is not a search and therefore never ruled on the correct standard for such a search. The Appellate Division (which reversed County Court on whether the sniff is a search) could not decide what the correct standard for the search was and then rule that the standard had been met, because that ruling was adverse to the defendant. The matter was sent back to the County Court for a ruling.

 

/ ,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE, EVEN IF THE EVENT IS “GRAVITY-RELATED;” HERE AN ELEVATED TRAILER FELL ON PLAINTIFF (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that injury to a mechanic repairing a vehicle is not covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was repairing a trailer which had been lifted up five feet by a backhoe. The backhoe rolled backward and the trailer fell on the plaintiff, causing serious injuries:

Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to workers “employed” in the “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” … . The statute’s “central concern is the dangers that beset workers in the construction industry” (id. at 525). If an employee is engaged in an activity covered by section 240 (1), “contractors and owners” must “furnish or erect” enumerated safety devices “to give proper protection” to the employee. “Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under [section] 240 (1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies” … . To make this determination, a court must examine the “type of work the plaintiff was performing at the time of injury” … . * * *

Employing a holistic view of the statute, we conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged, ordinary vehicle repair, is not an activity covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Such work is analogous to that of a factory worker engaged in the normal manufacturing process. Plaintiff is a mechanic who was fixing the brakes on a trailer, a “[v]ehicle” as that term is defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 159. Expanding the statute’s scope to cover a mechanic engaged in ordinary vehicle repair would “extend the statute . . . far beyond the purposes it was designed to serve” … . Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06467, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 240(1) does not cover injuries to a mechanic who is repairing a vehicle. Here the elevated trailer plaintiff was repairing fell on him.

 

/ , ,

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the FOIL requests made to the Board of Parole of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) were properly denied. The documents were protected by attorney-client privilege:

… (DOCCS) properly withheld 11 documents prepared by counsel for the Board of Parole as privileged communications exempt from Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) disclosure. Counsel prepared the documents to train and advise Board of Parole commissioners on how to comply with their legal duties and obligations. The documents reflect counsel’s legal analysis of statutory, regulatory and decisional law and they therefore constitute attorney-client communications that were prepared “for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship,” specifically, to provide guidance on matters relevant to the Commissioners’ exercise of their discretionary authority … . Accordingly, DOCCS properly invoked the statutory FOIL exemption for privileged matters (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]; CPLR 4503 [a]). Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2023 NY Slip Op 06466, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A FOIL request for documents protected by attorney-client privilege is properly denied.

 

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