You are here: / PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action based upon plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure by a specified date:

… [A] status conference order was entered … which … directed the plaintiff to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by December 20, 2017, and warned that “failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” The plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the status conference order. … [T]he Supreme Court, … sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. …

“‘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 plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive of the status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Stuart, 2022 NY Slip Op 05055, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Generally, appellate courts will reverse a “sua sponte” dismissal of a complaint.

 

/ ,

APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue would be considered even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute; (2) the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from plaintiff’s fall into a pit should not have been dismissed:

“As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so” … . Since the plaintiff appealed from an order superseding the prior order appealed from at a time before the prior appeal was deemed dismissed, we exercise that discretion here. …

… [T]he defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the risk of falling into a 16-foot pit on an excavation site is a type of elevation-related risk within the purview of protection of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the foreman, which were submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, contain conflicting testimony raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff received instructions not to stand within five feet of the pit. The defendants also did not establish, prima facie, that the installation of a protective device “would have been contrary to the objectives of the work” … . Thorpe v One Page Park, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05053, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate court exercised its discretion to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion to reargue, even though the appeal from the initial denial of summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from his fall into a pit should not have been dismissed.

 

/ ,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PETITION ALLEGING RESPONDENT DISINFECTANT-DISTRIBUTOR ENGAGED IN PRICE GOUGING AT THE OUTSET OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 396-R, IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney general’s (AG’s) petition alleging that the respondent distributor (Quality King Distributors, Inc) engaged in price gouging should not have been dismissed. The petition alleged Quality King raised the price of Lysol, a disinfectant, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in violation of General Business Law 396-r. The First Department rejected the argument the relevant statutory provisions were void for vagueness:

In the special proceeding underlying this appeal, petitioner Attorney General of the State of New York accused respondent Quality King Distributors, Inc. of engaging in price gouging in contravention of General Business Law § 396-r based on its sale of certain Lysol products in the first four months of 2020. … [W]e reverse Supreme Court’s order denying the AG’s petition and, in effect, dismissing the proceeding, and remand the matter for further proceedings. * * *

Employing the February 26, 2020 onset date, our review of the purchase and sale data discloses several instances in which the amount charged to a particular customer in a particular transaction represents, prima facie, a gross disparity between the price of the Lysol product and the price at which it was sold by Quality King in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal disruption of the market. …

Thus, the AG’s evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that Quality King sold the Lysol product at unconscionably excessive prices on at least several occasions. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Quality King Distribs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05010, First Dept 8-23-22

Practice Point: The petition sufficiently alleged the distributor of Lysol, a disinfectant, engaged in price-gouging in violation of General Business Law 396-r at the outset of the COVD-19 pandemic.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN CUSTODY ORDER; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND HELD A HEARING ON THE CHILD’S SAFETY; THE CHILD WAS IN NEW YORK DURING FATHER’S PARENTING TIME WHEN FATHER BROUGHT A NEGLECT/CUSTODY PETITION IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined, although Family Court properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition on the ground New York did not have jurisdiction over the Michigan custody order, Family Court should have ordered a hearing about the child’s safety pursuant to the court’s temporary emergency jurisdiction. The child was in New York during father’s parenting time at the time father filed the petition:

Under the UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act], a New York court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under certain limited circumstances … . Here, the parties agreed that, as Michigan is the home state of the child, none of these statutory factors apply. Nevertheless, Domestic Relations Law § 76-c provides that “New York courts have ‘temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child, a sibling or parent of the child'” … .

The AFC [attorney for the child] and the father contend that the allegations set forth in the petition were sufficient to warrant Family Court to conduct a hearing. We agree. Matter of Chester HH. v Angela GG., 2022 NY Slip Op 05002, Third Dept 8-18-22

Practice Point: Although New York did not have jurisdiction over a Michigan custody order and therefore properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition brought in New York when the child was in New York, Family Court should have exercised its temporary emergency jurisdiction and held a hearing on the child’s safety.

 

/

STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined sheetrock panels which were stored upright and fell over on plaintiff did not constitute an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do ‘not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Therefore, to recover under Labor Law § 240(1), the injured plaintiff “must have suffered an injury as ‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “Therefore, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, [defendant] established … the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Parrino v Rauert, 2022 NY Slip Op 04970, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here stored sheetrock panels which fell over on plaintiff did not constitute the kind of elevation/gravity-related incident that is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The facts are not explained. If the sheetrock should have been secured, it would seem Labor Law 240(1) would apply. Apparently defendant demonstrated there was no need to secure the sheetrock?

 

/ ,

THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued. The nonparty, Bijari, listed for sale the real property where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff sought information about the sale because the information could be relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied:

CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from nonparties to an action, provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . . . any other person, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required” … .. Under that statute, the party who served the subpoena has an initial minimal obligation to show that the nonparty was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that the disclosure is sought … . Once that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . …

For a protective order to be issued, the party seeking such an order must make a “factual showing of ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice'” … . “‘Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to issue appropriate protective orders to limit discovery. . . . [T]his discretion is to be exercised with the competing interests of the parties and the truth-finding goal of the discovery process in mind'” … . Here, Bijari failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order with regard to the subpoena…. . Nunez v Peikarian, 2022 NY Slip Op 04969, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action the plaintiff subpoenaed a nonparty who listed for sale the property where plaintiff was injured. The information plaintiff sought was relevant to whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) applied. The subpoena should not have been quashed and the related protective order should not have been issued.

 

/ ,

THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIM AGAINST THE POLICE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; THE APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim in this “excessive force” action against the police should have been granted. The county had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim and the county did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay. The absence of an adequate excuse was not determinative:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the County of Suffolk and the SCPD, alleging, inter alia, that he had sustained personal injuries due to the use of excessive force by the arresting officers. …

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court is required to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether 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, whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely serve a notice of claim, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense … . …

… [T]he respondents had timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim, since their employees participated in the acts giving rise to the claim and filed reports and prepared other documentation with respect to the subject incident from which it could be readily inferred that the respondents had committed a potentially actionable wrong … . Matter of Romero v County of Suffolk, 2022 NY Slip Op 04966, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the county had timely knowledge of the nature of petitioner’s excessive-force claim against the police and the county could not demonstrate any prejudice from petitioner’s late filing. The absence of an adequate excuse for failure to file on time was not determinative. Petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim should have been granted.

 

/ , , ,

AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the agreement signed by plaintiff in this medical malpractice action which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial was void and unenforceable:

The issue on this appeal is whether the defendants Benjamin M. Schwartz, M.D., and Island Gynecologic Oncology, PLLC (hereinafter together the defendants), may enforce a provision in an agreement that the defendant physician’s receptionist asked the injured plaintiff to sign among other routine medical releases prior to undergoing surgery. Pursuant to this provision, if a patient commenced a medical malpractice action against the defendant physician, each party’s counsel would have the right to depose the other parties’ expert witness(es) at least 120 days before trial. We hold that this provision is unenforceable as against public policy and, in any event, the defendants waived the right to enforce the provision. Furthermore, the entire agreement is unenforceable because the Supreme Court found certain other provisions to be unenforceable, the defendants do not challenge the court’s holding regarding those provisions on appeal, and those provisions are not severable from the remainder of the agreement, including the provision at issue on appeal. * * *

Requiring experts to be made available for deposition 120 days before trial also directly contradicts the provision in CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) that gives trial courts the discretion to “make whatever order may be just” in the event that a party retains an expert in an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to provide appropriate notice. This statutory provision reflects the important public policy of allowing courts to retain discretion in their role as gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert testimony … . For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, here, the public policy in favor of freedom of contract is overridden by these other important and countervailing public policy interests … . Mercado v Schwartz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04962, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: An agreement signed by a patient, who became a plaintiff in this medical malpractice action, which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial is void and unenforceable as against the policy underlying the expert disclosure provisions of the CPLR.

 

/

THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. The fact that there was only one handrail, which did not violate any statute or code provision, was not tied to the fall:

… [E]ven if a plaintiff’s fall is precipitated by a misstep, where the plaintiff testifies that he or she reached out to try to stop his or her fall, the absence of a handrail, if required by law, may raise an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of his or her injury” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall … . … [T]he building was not subject to the particular code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff … .. … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was an applicable statutory or code provision that required a second handrail on the staircase. The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant breached her common-law duty to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition by failing to install a second handrail … . Mancini v Nicoletta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. There was one handrail. There was no code provision or statute requiring a second handrail. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

 

/ ,

THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inspection pit into which plaintiff fell was open and obvious and therefore not actionable:

… “[T]here is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” ,,, , or “where the condition on the property is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the inspection pit was an open and obvious condition that was inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and was not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The speculative and conclusory affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the motion did not allege that there was a violation of any applicable statute or relevant industry standard, and it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Lebron v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04960, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The open and obvious condition, an inspection pit, into which plaintiff fell, was open and obvious and did not violate any statute or code provision. Therefore, plaintiff’s fall was not actionable.

 

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