,

AN ORDER ADDRESSING WHETHER DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY ARE PRIVILEGED IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) an order concerning whether documents sought in discovery were privileged, noted that the order was appealable as of right:

During discovery, a dispute arose over allegedly privileged documents that plaintiff withheld or redacted. In its privilege logs, plaintiff asserted that many of the documents were protected from disclosure on three grounds, i.e., that they were material prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]), attorney work product (see CPLR 3101 [c]), or protected by the attorney-client privilege (see CPLR 4503 [1]). Plaintiff asserted that a few documents were not discoverable on the sole basis that they were materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Campany and the Travelers defendants separately moved, inter alia, to compel plaintiff’s disclosure of various documents or, in the alternative, for an in camera review of the documents. Plaintiff moved for, among other things, a protective order, contending that all communications involving attorneys or litigation experts on and after October 24, 2016 were presumptively privileged because the Travelers defendants and plaintiff contemplated litigation at that time. Supreme Court denied the Travelers defendants’ motion, denied in part Campany’s motion, and granted plaintiff’s motion by, as relevant here, ordering that all documents of plaintiff created on and after October 24, 2016 were not discoverable because they were material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Campany and the Travelers defendants appeal.

Initially, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the order is not appealable. CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v) provides that, with limited exceptions, which are not applicable here, an appeal may be taken to this Court as of right from an order where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it “affects a substantial right.” An order granting a protective order and precluding discovery of numerous documents affects a substantial right of Campany and the Travelers defendants, and the order is thus appealable as of right … . John Mezzalingua Assoc., LLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 09157, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, A NONCITIZEN, WAS TOLD DURING HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE DEPORTATION-ELIGIBLE B MISDEMEANOR; WHILE THE LEAVE APPLICATION WAS PENDING THE LAW WAS CHANGED TO AFFORD A PERSON IN DEFENDANT’S POSITION THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE MAJORITY UPHELD THE GUILTY PLEA; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PLEA SHOULD NOT STAND (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the accusatory instrument accusing defendant of criminal contempt was sufficient and defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary. During the plea colloquy defendant, an noncitizen, was told he did not have the right to a jury trial on the deportation-eligible B misdemeanor. While defendant’s leave application to the Court of Appeals was pending, the court decided People v Suazo, 32 NY3d 491, affording persons in defendant’s position the right to a jury trial. The dissent argued the guilty plea should be vacated:

From the dissent:

In accordance with the law at the time of defendant Sixtus Udeke’s plea allocution, the trial court told defendant, a noncitizen, that he had no right to a trial by jury for a deportation-eligible Class B misdemeanor. While defendant’s leave application to this Court was pending, we issued a new rule in People v Suazo (32 NY3d 491 [2018]), recognizing precisely the right defendant was told he did not have during the plea colloquy: that noncitizens like defendant have the right to a trial by jury for crimes carrying the potential penalty of deportation. That rule applies retroactively to defendant’s appeal, and it leads to the conclusion that his guilty plea is invalid because he could not have knowingly and intelligently waived a right the court said he did not have. Therefore, I dissent from the majority decision that the guilty plea should stand. People v Udeke, 2019 NY Slip Op 09057, CtApp 12-19-19

 

,

AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL OR A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 44O (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because the issues could have been raised in a direct appeal or in a CPL 440 motion to vacate the conviction:

With regard to petitioner’s claim that, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.35, his one-year jail sentences merged with and should have been ordered to run concurrently with his indeterminate sentence, “[h]abeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” … . Petitioner’s contentions regarding his sentences, including their legality and whether they merged under Penal Law § 70.35, could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 … . As we perceive no basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application. People ex rel. McCray v Favro, 2019 NY Slip Op 09065, Third Dept 12-19-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENTS WERE DOCKETED, THE DEBTOR’S NAME WAS MISSPELLED RENDERING THE LIEN INVALID; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER AN ISSUE OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT BE AVOIDED IF IT HAD BEEN RAISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment creditor, Fischer, was not entitled to priority over the respondent wife, Mayrav, who had been awarded real property owned with her husband, Julius, in divorce proceedings. Although Fisher’s judgments were docketed, Julius’s surname was spelled incorrectly, rendering the lien invalid. Although this issue had not been raised below, the appellate court can address it because it is a question of law which could not have been avoided if it had been raised:

“CPLR 5203(a) gives priority to a judgment creditor over subsequent transferees with regard to the debtor’s real property in a county where the judgment has been docketed with the clerk of that county” ( … see CPLR 5203[a]). Pursuant to CPLR 5018(c), a judgment is docketed when the clerk makes an entry “under the surname of the judgment debtor . . . consist[ing] of . . . the name and last known address of [the] judgment debtor” … . “A judgment is not docketed against any particular property, but solely against a name” … . ” Once docketed, a judgment becomes a lien on the real property of the debtor in that county'” … .

… [I]t is undisputed that when the judgments were docketed, Julius’s surname was spelled incorrectly. Because the judgments were not docketed under the correct surname, no valid lien against Julius’s interest in the subject property was created … . Therefore, Fischer was not entitled to a determination that his interest in the subject property was superior to that of Mayrav, whose interest “vest[ed] upon the judgment of divorce” … . Although Mayrav failed to argue in the Supreme Court that Fischer did not have a valid lien on the subject property in light of the undisputed fact that Julius’s surname was misspelled, that issue can be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture … . Accordingly, that branch of the petition which sought a determination that Fischer’s interest in the subject property was superior to that of Mayrav should have been denied. Matter of Fischer v Chabbott, 2019 NY Slip Op 09002, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

THE INSURANCE LAW REQUIRED SUBMITTING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS TO ARBITRATION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANYTIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the Insurance Law required that the matter involving a coverage dispute between two insurance carriers (Repwest and Hereford) be submitted to arbitration. Therefore Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction:

The defendants … were passengers in the livery vehicle and no-fault benefits were paid on their behalf by Hereford. Repwest alleged that there is no coverage for the subject incident because it was not an accident, but rather the result of an intentional act/fraudulent scheme. Thereafter, Hereford interposed an answer to the complaint and asserted a counterclaim against Repwest, among others, for loss transfer pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105(a) … .

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105(b), “[t]he sole remedy of any insurer or compensation provider to recover on a claim arising pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, shall be the submission of the controversy to mandatory arbitration pursuant to procedures promulgated or approved by the superintendent” … . Contrary to Hereford’s contention, since its counterclaim is for loss transfer pursuant to section 5105(a), the counterclaim is subject to mandatory arbitration and the Supreme Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim … .

Although Repwest did not seek dismissal of the counterclaim in the Supreme Court, “a court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be [raised] at any stage of the action, and the court may, ex mero motu [on its own motion], at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … . Repwest Ins. Co. v Hanif, 2019 NY Slip Op 09047, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed the appeal of County Court’s SORA risk assessment because County Court did not issue an appealable order:

Following a hearing, County Court rejected defendant’s challenge to certain assessed points, adjudicated him as a risk level three sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender. Defendant appeals.

An appealable order must be in writing (see CPLR 2219 [a] …), and must contain language that identifies the document as “either a judgment or order of the court”… . Consistent with these mandates, the Sex Offender Registration Act … requires that County Court must “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based”… . That written order must then be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Here, County Court issued a written decision which was subsequently entered and filed. However, the decision contains no language indicating that it is an order or judgment, and it does not appear that a written order was entered and filed … . Moreover, the risk assessment instrument does not contain “so ordered” language so that it may constitute an appealable order … . Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before this Court and must be dismissed … . People v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 08743, Third Dept 12-5-19

 

,

LAW FIRM SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A MANDATORY MEDIATION SESSION TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sanctioned a law firm $750 for failure to appear at a mandatory mediation session to resolve an appeal:

Pursuant to a Notice of Reference of the Mandatory Civil Appeals Mediation Program, the petitioner-appellant’s counsel, the petitioner-appellant, counsel for the respondent-respondent Charles Schwartz, and the respondent-respondent Charles Schwartz were directed to appear for a mandatory mediation session. The petitioner-appellant’s counsel, Law Offices of Seidner & Associates, P.C., failed to insure that the petitioner-appellant appear for the regularly scheduled mandatory mediation session, without good cause, and there is no indication that the attorney who appeared for the petitioner-appellant possessed the authority to settle the matter. In this regard, we consider that the lead counsel for the petitioner-appellant sought, and was granted, an adjournment of the mediation session so that he could personally attend and yet inexplicably sent a different attorney in his stead on the adjourned date. Although parties are not compelled to resolve their appeals by settlement, parties and their counsel are required to attend mediation sessions and may not arrogate unto themselves the authority to dispense with a mediation session or to render such sessions nugatory by refusing to appear and participate in them. Matter of Schwartz (Schwartz), 2019 NY Slip Op 08565, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF OVER $34,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS IN THIS DIVORCE CASE; HOWEVER A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO APPORTION THE FEES BETWEEN THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the attorney for the child in this divorce proceeding properly made a motion seeking attorney’s fees for the appeal of the matter to the Second Department and the Court of Appeals and was properly awarded attorney’s fees of over $34,000. However, the Second Department held that a hearing was necessary to determine how the fee should be apportioned between the parents:

In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the Supreme Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children to the defendant, without a hearing, under the adequate relevant information standard. This Court affirmed the order … , and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. The attorney for the children (hereinafter the AFC) opposed the plaintiff’s appeal, but proposed a new standard for the need for evidentiary hearings in custody cases. The Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s order, rejecting the adequate relevant information standard, and determined that an evidentiary hearing was required in this particular case … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the difference in opinion between this Court (see Matter of Plovnick v Klinger, 10 AD3d 84) and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (see Redder v Redder, 17 AD3d 10), as to whether attorneys for children may be compensated directly by the children’s parents, rather than by the State, does not give rise to a constitutional claim under the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. …

… [T]he plaintiff’s motion to modify the parties’ apportionment of responsibility for the AFC’s fees should not have been decided without an evidentiary hearing. We take no position on whether the equal split between the parties was appropriate, but because the affidavits submitted by the parties provided sharply conflicting reports on the parties’ finances … and there was “no evidence in the record that the financial circumstances of the parties [had] ever been considered” … . Lee v Rogers, 2019 NY Slip Op 08559, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROCEED ON A THEORY NOT RAISED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that plaintiff-student could not proceed based upon a theory not included in the notice of claim. Plaintiff, who alleged she was sexually assaulted at a BOCES facility, did not allege in her notice of claim that the school district (North Shore), which did not have custody of her when she was assaulted, was also liable because it had formulated an Individualized Education Program for her. The court noted that the issue, although raised for the first time on appeal, could be considered because it was a question of law that could not have been avoided by the lower court:

“A plaintiff seeking to recover in tort against a municipality must serve a notice of claim to enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merits of the claim” … . “A notice of claim must set forth, inter alia, the nature of the claim, and the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose” … . “[A] mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith in the notice of claim required to be served by [General Municipal Law § 50-e], not pertaining to the manner or time of service thereof, may be corrected, supplied or disregarded, as the case may be, in the discretion of the court, provided it shall appear that the other party was not prejudiced thereby” (General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]). Under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), “[a] notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability” … .

We agree with North Shore that the plaintiff may not proceed under the theory that North Shore negligently failed to formulate an appropriate IEP for her, as the plaintiff did not include this theory in her notice of claim. Although North Shore did not raise this argument before the Supreme Court, we may consider it because “it presents an issue of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided had it been raised at the proper juncture” … . In her notice of claim, the only theory of liability that the plaintiff asserted was negligent supervision. In opposition to North Shore’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff contended for the first time that North Shore had negligently failed to formulate an appropriate IEP for her. This was not a technical change, but was an impermissible substantive change to the theory of liability … . I. T. K. v Nassau Boces Educ. Found., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08557, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER STORE CUSTOMER; THE DEFENDANT STORE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS’ USE OF SHOPPING CARTS; ISSUE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked to the floor by a shopping cart pushed by another customer in the defendant’s store. Apparently the customer had piled items high in the cart and couldn’t see ahead of it. The court noted that, although defendant raised the “no duty to monitor customers” issue for the first time on appeal, it could be considered because it raises an issue of law than could not have been avoided by the court below:

The defendant contends that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it because it did not have a duty to control the conduct of the customer who struck Novak with the shopping cart. Although the defendant has raised this contention for the first time on appeal, “we may consider it . . . because the existence of a duty presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture”… .

“Store owners are charged with the duty of keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of their customers” … . “[T]his duty may extend to controlling the conduct of third persons who frequent or use the property, at least under some circumstances” … . “This duty is, however, not limitless” … . “[A]n owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … .

Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent in failing to monitor its customers’ use of the U-boat shopping carts and, more specifically, in failing to require customers to refrain from loading the carts over a certain height. However, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect her from the other customer’s negligent use of the U-boat shopping cart because it did not have control over that customer’s actions … . Aupperlee v Restaurant Depot, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08548, Second Dept 11-27-19