You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE COUNTY CHARTER, WHICH PURPORTED TO ELIMINATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE-NOTICE THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO A BICYCLIST BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN A COUNTY ROAD, DID NOT SUPERSEDE THE HIGHWAY LAW; TO STATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COUNTY MUST DEMONSTRATE BOTH A LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE AND A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, determined the county charter, which allowed the county to “opt out” of the constructive-notice provisions in the Highway Law, did not supersede the Highway Law. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole on a county road. Supreme Court denied the county’s summary judgment motion which argued the county charter eliminated the constructive-notice theory of liability. The Second Department affirmed the denial and further held that the county was required to show both a lack of written notice and a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition to warrant summary judgment:

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident, we are asked to determine whether the defendant, County of Suffolk, may enact legislation pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law that supersedes a New York State law. Specifically, the County contends that, through the enactment of Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2), it may supersede the provision of Highway Law § 139(2) that allows for an action to be maintained against a county, regardless of prior written notice, where the county had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(5). We hold that Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2)(iii) contradicts Highway Law § 139(2) and, thus, the County may not, as it contends, “exercise [its] right to opt out” of the requirements of said statute. The County also contends that, in effect, even if constructive notice could be a theory of recovery in the instant action, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing in the first instance that the County had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. In other words, the County contends that its burden on this motion for summary judgment was only to show that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition before the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the County had constructive notice of the condition. We hold, consistent with our precedent, that, when moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in cases invoking Highway Law § 139(2), the County must establish, prima facie, that it lacked both prior written notice and constructive notice of the alleged defective condition before the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard or with regard to whether another exception applies. Romas v County of Suffolk, 2026 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: A county charter provision which contradicts the New York State Highway Law does not supersede the provisions of the Highway Law.

 

, , ,

IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant NYC Department of Education (DOE) was not entitled to summary judgment in this negligent supervision action alleging a long pattern of abuse of plaintiff-student, J.A., by other students. Notably, the Second Department, as a matter of first impression, held that the 90-day time-limit for filing a Notice of Claim was tolled by the “continuing wrong” doctrine:

This Court holds that the notice of claim was timely because the continuing wrong doctrine applies … . As a general rule, the continuing wrong doctrine may be “employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of the limitations period to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . The continuing wrong doctrine allows a later accrual date of a cause of action “where the harm sustained by the complaining party is not exclusively traced to the day when the original wrong was committed” … . “The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuous effects and a series of independent wrongs” … .

This Court has not previously addressed the question of whether the period within which a notice of claim may be filed is tolled where there is a continuous pattern of harassment and/or unlawful conduct in a school setting and allegedly negligent supervision of a student by school administrators charged with a duty to properly supervise their students. J.A. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02084, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Here in this negligent-supervision action it was alleged plaintiff-student was subjected to a pattern of abuse by other students for a period of months. In a matter of first impression, the Second Department held that incidents which occurred more than 90-days before the Notice of Claim was filed were not time-barred pursuant to the “continuing wrong” doctrine.

 

, , , ,

A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint should not have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not present any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss, as opposed to a motion for summary judgment:

Supreme Court improperly granted the motion of [defendants] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s earlier directive “to provide an affidavit from a physician attesting [to] the merits of her claims.” The burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). A plaintiff need not make an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint in order to defeat such a motion and will not be penalized for failure to do so … . Here, where the motion was not converted into one for summary judgment, the plaintiff had no obligation to provide an affidavit from an expert to support the allegations in the amended complaint in order to defeat the [defendants’] motion … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent … . Wilber v Borgen, 2026 NY Slip Op 02001, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: A plaintiff need not submit any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss the complaint. Here the judge should not have granted the motion on the ground the plaintiff did not comply with the court’s directive to submit an affidavit from a physician.

 

, ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “UNDUE INFLUENCE” OBJECTION TO PROBATE OF A WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, noted that summary judgment is rarely appropriate where a party’s undue influence on the decedent is alleged as an objection to probate of a will:

… Surrogate’s Court should not have granted that branch of the petitioners’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the objection based on undue influence on the part of Theodos. “To invalidate an instrument on the ground of undue influence, there must be evidence that the influence exerted amounted to a moral coercion that restrained independent action and destroyed free agency or that, by importunity that could not be resisted, constrained a person to do that which was against his or her free will and desire, but which he or she was unable to refuse or too weak to resist” … . “In general, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “An inference of undue influence, requiring the beneficiary to explain the circumstances of the bequest, arises when a beneficiary under a will was in a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the testator and was involved in the drafting of the will” … . “The adequacy of the explanation presents a question of fact for the jury” … . The existence of a confidential relationship is also “ordinarily . . . a question of fact” … .

Here, the record reflects that Theodos was assisting in the management of the decedent’s finances in the years leading up to the execution of the will and that certain provisions of the will were communicated to the decedent’s attorney through Theodos. In addition, Theodos was named as one of the executors of the will and was also named as a beneficiary, receiving a bequest of $20,000. As such, an inference of undue influence arises … , and there remain triable issues of fact in that regard … . Matter of Gennarelli, 2026 NY Slip Op 01962, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the burden of proof for an “undue influence” objection to probate and why summary judgment is usually inappropriate in this context.​

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DELAYED SIX YEARS BEFORE RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AND FOUR YEARS BEFORE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE DEBT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED FOR THOSE PERIODS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that interest on the mortgage debt in this foreclosure action should have been tolled because plaintiff failed to explain a six-year delay in restoring the action to the active calendar and its four-year-delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s application to toll the accrual of interest on the note from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022. “‘A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … .. “‘Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require'” … . “‘In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party'” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to explain its six-year delay in moving to restore the action to the active calendar, and further failed to explain its four-year delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference after the action was restored to the active calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, since the defendant was prejudiced by these unexplained delays, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the note should have been tolled from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022 … . Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v McFarlane, 2026 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Foreclosure actions are equitable in nature. Here undue delays by the plaintiff warranted tolling the accrual of interest for more than ten years.

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the hospital’s motion to strike allegations of lack of informed consent should have been granted. That cause of action was not identified in the complaint. Therefore plaintiffs could not use their bill of particulars to assert it:

We agree with the Hospital defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking, in effect, to strike the allegations of lack of informed consent from plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars to the Hospital defendants, and we modify the order accordingly. “[A] bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized . . . A bill of particulars may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . For those purposes, “[l]ack of informed consent is a distinct theory of medical malpractice liability rooted in a specific professional duty to reasonably inform and obtain consent from the patient,” and claims for traditional medical malpractice and lack of informed consent ” ‘comprise[ ] different elements’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he complaint is based solely on [traditional] medical malpractice and does not contain a separate cause of action for lack of informed consent” … and that a review of the allegations in the complaint does not support the conclusion that the distinct theory of lack of informed consent was ” ‘sufficiently pleaded to avoid surprise and prejudice to [the Hospital] defendants’ ” … . Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ complaint does not presently plead a cause of action for lack of informed consent, the allegations in plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars relating to lack of informed consent must be stricken … . Heather J. v Rochester Regional Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 01880, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Here the complaint did not allege a cause of action for lack of informed consent. Therefore references to lack of informed consent in the bill of particulars can be stricken.​

 

, ,

ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the action should have been granted. The court, sua sponte, dismissed the case because of defective service. However, a dismissal on this ground requires a motion by a party. The dissenters argued the order at issue is not appealable and would have dismissed the appeal:

… CPLR 306-b specifies that “[i]f service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” (emphasis added). In consideration of this express language, other Departments of the Appellate Division have recognized that a court cannot dismiss a complaint on its own initiative for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the failure to effect proper service of process … . As the July 2023 order dismissed the underlying action for lack of personal jurisdiction sua sponte, the court erred in doing so absent a motion by one of the parties. On account of that error, the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s instant request that it exercise its discretionary power to vacate that order in the interest of substantial justice … . Plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate the July 2023 order dismissing the action should therefore be granted and the complaint reinstated. Briggs v Fresenius, 2026 NY Slip Op 01827, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, dismiss an action because of defective service. A party must move to dismiss on that ground.

 

, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE NOTE WAS PHYSICALLY DELIVERED TO THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT PLAINTIFF POSSESSED THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff mortgage company to demonstrate it had standing to foreclose was insufficient:

“A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note” … . “The plaintiff meets this burden with proof of either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note endorsed in blank or specially to it prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action” … .

Here, an affidavit of Teresa Swayze, an assistant vice president of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced. Swayze averred that the note was physically delivered to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action and attached to her affidavit a copy of the note with an allonge endorsed in blank. However, Swayze failed to submit the business record on which she relied for her assertion that the note was physically delivered to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action … . Moreover, Swayze’s affidavit did not demonstrate that she had personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Ayoola, 2026 NY Slip Op 01772, Second Dept 3-25-26

 

, ,

THE DAY CARE PROVIDER TESTIFIED HER BACK WAS TURNED WHEN INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE SLIDE; THE DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cay-care-center defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the negligent-supervision cause of action should not have been granted. The complaint alleged infant plaintiff fell off a slide:

Day care providers are under a duty to adequately supervise the children in their charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to a lack of adequate supervision … . “In general, the duty of a day care/preschool provider is to supervise the children in its care with the same degree of care as a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise in comparable circumstances” … . Generally, whether supervision was adequate and whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of a child’s injury are questions of fact … .

Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they provided adequate supervision to the plaintiff or that a lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants submitted, among other things, an expert affidavit from a child supervision expert and a transcript of the deposition testimony of the care provider present at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. The care provider testified that she was trained to always keep the children in her sight while they are in the gym. Moreover, the defendants’ expert emphasized that a teacher’s position should allow the teacher to clearly see the entire play area and the children. However, despite the care provider’s admitted familiarity with these practices, she testified that she was occupied tying another child’s shoe with her back turned when the plaintiff was on the playset with her brother and that she did not see the plaintiff until the plaintiff was on the ground. The defendants thereby failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to negligent supervision … . D.O. v Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01797, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: A day-care provider is obligated to keep the play area and the children in sight at all times. Here the day-care provider had turned her back when infant plaintiff fell off the slide. That raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant on the negligent-supervision cause of action.

 

NEW YORK IS A “PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM” JURISDICTION; HERE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined counterclaims in the current proceeding should not have been dismissed because they could have been raised in a prior proceeding: New York is a “permissive counterclaim” state:

New York is a permissive counterclaim jurisdiction under CPLR 3011 and 3019, where, generally, a defendant has no obligation to assert counterclaims and can wait to assert them in separate litigation … . However, while “[o]ur permissive counterclaim rule may save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action,” the rule “does not . . . permit a party to remain silent in the first action and then bring a second one on the basis of a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

Here, [the party’s] failure to assert the remaining causes of action as counterclaims in the prior action did not preclude him from asserting them in this action because, if [he] were successful on those causes of action, this would not impair the rights that were or could be established in the prior action with respect to him … . Berry v Batash, 2026 NY Slip Op 01755, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when counterclaims which could have been raised in a prior proceedings should or should not be dismissed.

 

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