You are here: / THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The employer argued the defendant-employee was driving his own car and was not operating the car in the course of his employment. The evidence submitted by the employer was not “documentary evidence” which would support a motion to dismiss:

“A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “[T]o be considered ‘documentary,’ evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Davis v Henry, 2023 NY Slip Op 00076, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: “Documentary evidence” which will support a motion to dismiss include mortgages, deeds, contracts, etc., not affidavits, deposition testimony or letters.

 

/ , ,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this products liability case did not state causes of action for breach of warranty. Plaintiff tried the product, an elastic exercise band, which was on display at the store. He secured one end of the band with his foot. That end slipped out and hit him in the eye:

… To begin, plaintiff did not assert a claim in the SAC [second amended complaint] for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (see UCC 2-315). In any event, such a claim requires allegations that defendants had “reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods” are used and that plaintiff relied on defendants’ “skill or judgment to select or furnish [those] suitable goods” … . The SAC, however, did not allege any particular purpose of the exercise band other than its ordinary purpose for exercise, and there were no allegations that defendants knew or should have known about any particular purpose for which the goods were purchased, nor were there any allegations that plaintiff relied upon defendants’ skill or judgment in selecting those goods … .

Similarly, plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, which provides under that warranty that goods “are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used” (UCC 2-314[2][c]). To plead a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must allege that goods are defective such that they were not reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which they were used, that the defect in the goods was a substantial factor in causing the injury, and that the alleged defect existed at the time the goods left the manufacturer or entity in the line of distribution … . Fiuzzi v Paragon Sporting Goods Co. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00054, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: The complaint in this case did not state causes of action for breach of implied warrant of fitness for purpose of breach of warranty of merchantability, criteria explained.

 

/ , ,

MEDICAL (SURGICAL) RECORDS IN A NO-FAULT FILE RELATED TO A PRIOR INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing the damages judgment and ordering a new trial, determined medical records included the the no-fault file regarding a prior injury suffered by plaintiff should not have been admitted:

The court … should not have allowed into evidence the operative and pathology reports from the 2002 surgical procedure that were contained in the file of the no-fault insurance carrier. While the no-fault file was properly admitted as a business record under CPLR 4518(a), the reports therein were not created by the carrier and, thus, were inadmissible … . There was no evidence of a relationship between the carrier and the surgeon or the hospital where the procedure was performed so as to permit the reports to remain as part of the carrier’s file … . Basden v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00050, First Dept 1-10-22

Practice Pont: Although the no-fault file re: a prior accident in which plaintiff was injured was admissible, the surgical records included in the file were not. New trial on damages ordered.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for employment discrimination, failure to pay overtime, and failure to pay weekly:

… [P]laintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for employment discrimination under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws … . Plaintiff alleges that she is a member of a protected class; that she was qualified for the position by, among other things, having a decade of experience in leadership roles; and that she was subject to an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . Specifically, plaintiff, a Black woman, alleges that her supervisor … , irritated that she had telephoned Human Resources for advice, allegedly stated to her the night before her termination, “Why did you call HR? Blacks . . . I should have never hired her.”

… [W]e find that she has sufficiently stated a claim for unpaid overtime under the Labor Law by alleging that she worked more than 40 hours per week and that defendants never paid her for the overtime (CPLR 3013 …).

Plaintiff’s claim based on defendants’ failure to pay her weekly also is sufficiently pleaded, as she alleges that she was a nonexempt employee under Labor Law § 190, and that defendants were required to pay her each week as a manual worker under New York Labor Law § 191. Kirby v Carlo’s Bakery 42nd & 8th LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00059, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated causes of action for employment discrimination (a racist remark just prior to her termination), as well as failure to pay overtime and failure to pay weekly in violation of the Labor Law.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL COMING OUT OF THE SHOWER, INJURING HER GENITAL AND PELVIC AREAS; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION WHICH MIRRORED THE EXAM DONE BY PLAINTIFF’S OWN PHYSICIAN, INCLUDING A GYNECOLOGICAL EXAM AND A FULL PELVIC EXAM; SUPREME COURT HAD DENIED THE FULL PELVIC EXAM; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case was entitled to an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff which included both a gynecological exam and a full pelvic exam, conducted by a female doctor. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell coming out of a shower, injuring her genital and pelvic areas. Supreme Court had allowed the gynecological exam but not the pelvic exam:

… [W]hat we cannot overlook is that plaintiff, who is seeking substantial damages from defendants, has already gone through a comprehensive gynecological examination by her treating physician, without any medically reported adverse effects. The prior comprehensive gynecological exam clearly included a pelvic examination, as indicated by the treating physician’s own finding of pelvic- related injuries. Indeed, the treating physician categorized the proposed pelvic examination as a routine practice (i.e., “classic pelvic exam techniques”) … .

… [W]e find that plaintiff cannot raise her concerns as a bar to similar tests by the party she charges with responsibility for her current condition and injuries. Defendants do not have to rely upon previous pelvic examinations conducted by plaintiff’s treating physician … . Absent any support for the claim that the pelvic examination would be harmful, defendants are entitled to conduct their own pelvic examination for the purpose of refutation or confirmation of plaintiff’s alleged serious and permanent injuries, and their correlation to plaintiff’s current symptoms.

… [A]pplying basic principles of CPLR discovery to require a plaintiff, who puts her gynecological condition at issue, to submit to an IME in the form of a gynecological examination that includes a routine pelvic examination, is … consistent with our role as judges to be fair and balanced even in the most difficult cases. A plaintiff who has voluntarily submitted to a routine pelvic examination by her own treating physician without adverse effects should be required to undergo a similar examination that is material and necessary to defend against her claims that she sustained serious gynecological injuries. Pettinato v EQR-Rivertower, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00068, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell coming out of the shower injuring her genital and pelvic areas. Defendants requested an independent medical examination (IME) which mirrored the exam done by plaintiff’s physician. The motion court allowed a gynecological exam but denied the full pelvic exam. Because plaintiff’s physician had conducted a full pelvic exam to determine the injuries, defendants were entitled to conduct their own full pelvic exam.

 

/ , ,

THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the city in this intersection traffic accident case was not entitled to governmental function immunity or qualified immunity. Plaintiff motorcyclist alleged the city, during roadway construction, had removed roadway markings and signs creating confusion for drivers and contributing to the accident:

The City is not entitled to governmental function immunity, as it was engaged in the proprietary function of maintaining the roadways at the time of the accident … . Nor is the City entitled to qualified immunity, given the absence of any evidence in the record that a study of the risks involved had been conducted … . Floricic v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: In this intersection traffic accident case there was a question of fact whether the city’s removal of traffic markings and signs during construction was a proximate cause of the accident. Roadwork is a proprietary function so the city was not entitled to governmental function immunity. There was no study of roadway design so the city was not entitled to qualified immunity.

 

/ , ,

NONPUBLIC RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES NEED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW EQUITY OR TRANSFER ASSETS IN EXCESS OF 3% OF THE FACILITIES’ REVENUE; CORPORATE OWNERS NEED NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION; FACILITIES OWNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES (I.E., LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES) MUST INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in two full-fledged opinions by Justice Lynch, determined that nonpublic residential health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in the calculation of equity withdrawals. Public Health Law 2808 (5) prohibits the withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of the facility’s total revenue without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Health. If the residential health care facility is owned by a corporation, federal and state income taxes are not included in the 3% calculation:

Public Health Law § 2808 (5) (c) responds to the Legislature’s concern that a facility’s improvident withdrawal of substantial assets would compromise the facility’s operation and “occasion irreparable harm within an especially fragile and dependent resident population” … . Given this context, “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes”  are necessarily those that concern a facility’s own financial obligations and expenses … . … . Petitioners do not dispute that, for a pass-through entity, income tax liability is borne by the owner, not the facility. Thus, given the regulatory scheme, income tax payments by such an entity would necessarily be equity withdrawals or asset transfers satisfying the obligation of the owner, not the facility … . In other words, even though such withdrawals are for tax payments, they are not “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes” … . Matter of Brightonian Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: Unlike nonpublic health care facilities owned by corporations, nonpublic health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in their calculation of withdrawals from equity. Withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of revenue requires the permission of the Commissioner of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2802 (5).

 

/ ,

​ THE MAJORITY HELD THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE, FINDING THE CONDUCT WAS NOT “PUBLIC;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CONDUCT WAS “PUBLIC” IN THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN OUTSIDE A DAYCARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the evidence did not establish a family offense (disorderly conduct): The majority and the dissenter disagreed on whether the conduct was “public” in nature:

“[C]ritical to a charge of disorderly conduct is a finding that [the mother’s] disruptive statements and behavior were of a public rather than an individual dimension . . ., which requires proof of an intent to threaten public safety, peace or order” … . “[A] person may be guilty of disorderly conduct only when the situation extends beyond the exchange between the individual disputants to a point where it becomes a potential or immediate public problem” … .

From the dissent:

[The] disruptive behavior outside a daycare program in the direct presence of other adults and children took on a public dimension that was no doubt alarming to the grandmother, the child and the bystanders. Whether intentional or not, such conduct satisfies the reckless component for the charge. On this record, the charge of disorderly conduct within the petition was established by a preponderance of the evidence and should have been sustained (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1], [3] …). Matter of Linda UU. v Dana VV., 2023 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: In order for conduct to amount to disorderly conduct it must have a “public” as opposed to an “individual” dimension. This case shows the distinction can be difficult to discern.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHEN MAINTAINING DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PLAINTIFF’S ASBESTOS-INJURIES; AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENDANT TO ARGUE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE CAUSATION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether plaintiff (Howard) was exposed to asbestos in his maintenance of defendant’s pumps on Navy submarines: Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that its products did not contribute to plaintiff’s asbestos-injuries:

“In order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant[] bore the initial burden of demonstrating that [its] respective products ‘could not have contributed to the causation’ of [Howard]’s asbestos-related injuries” … . Defendant could not prevail on its motion for summary judgment by “merely pointing to gaps in . . . plaintiff[s’] proof” … . In other words, “[defendant] could not simply argue that plaintiff[s] could not affirmatively prove causation, but rather it had to affirmatively prove, as a matter of law, that there was no causation” … .

… According to Howard [plaintiff], his duties aboard these various vessels required, among other things, that he directly supervise maintenance on defendant’s pumps, which included asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation. Howard stated that he would work in the immediate vicinity of the pumps when the gaskets were removed and scraped from the pumps, and when packing and insulation on the pumps was removed and replaced. Howard v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 2023 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: In a toxic tort case, in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, defendant must demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant’s products did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant will not win a summary judgment motion in this context by arguing plaintiff could not prove causation.

 

/ , , ,

NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the defendant JUUL, the manufacture of electronic cigarettes, and two corporate officers involved JUUL’s marketing campaign in New York. The complaint alleged “causes of action pursuant to General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for deceptive acts and practices and for false advertising, respectively; pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), for repeated and persistent fraud and illegal conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC § 45); and, for public nuisance.”:

… [T]he People submitted internal emails and reports demonstrating … that defendants traveled to New York City for investment meetings … ; that defendants personally attended JUUL’s launch party in New York City …, JUUL also sought to arrange in-person meetings between defendants and both “New York targets” and broadcast media organizations; and, that defendants and JUUL considered the New York City launch to have been a success.

… [D]efendants were involved in marketing strategy, which included … months of events in New York; identifying New York as the target of JUUL’s northeastern U.S. marketing efforts, at and after launch; advertising on billboards in Times Square; hosting in-store product samplings at New York vape shops and social events; and escalating marketing efforts in the New York City metropolitan area post-launch. After New York proved to be a substantial market for JUUL’s product, defendants went so far as to describe the efforts as “NYC takeover” and to declare that New York City users should be “the focus of [JUUL’s] branding/marketing.”

This evidence establishes that defendants conducted sufficient in-person activities within New York State related to the People’s claims against them in this action, and sufficiently supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: Here New York demonstrated it had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and two corporate officers involved in marketing the cigarettes in New York. The complaint alleged deceptive business practices, fraud and public nuisance.

 

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