You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT IN RESPONDING TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse for plaintiffs’ default in responding to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case:

… [P]laintiffs proffered a reasonable excuse of law office failure for the brief delay in serving their opposition papers to defendant’s motion (see CPLR 2005…). Although plaintiffs’ counsel admittedly failed to properly calendar the motion opposition date, counsel did attempt to seek defendant’s consent for an adjournment prior to the return date of the motion, which plaintiffs’ counsel apparently believed to be the due date for the opposition to defendant’s motion. Further, plaintiffs’ counsel submitted opposition papers on the return date, albeit after business hours, upon the mistaken belief that the motion was to be taken on submission. There is no evidence of a willful default and the negligible delay cannot be said to have prejudiced defendant … . April I.O. v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 02741, Fourth Dept 5-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a rare instance of law office failure serving as an adequate excuse for a default in responding to a motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF DONALD J TRUMP AGAINST MARY L TRUMP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY RELEVANT TO HER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s discovery requests were relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense and should have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for breach of the confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement agreement. In her answer, defendant asserted the affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement. Specifically, she alleged that she relied upon the valuation of certain assets set forth in the parties’ 2001 settlement agreement, and that those valuations were false. Defendant’s motion to compel seeks discovery of materials related to the valuations provided in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the discovery sought by defendant, which relates to an affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement that plaintiff has not otherwise challenged in this action, is improper … .

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. CPLR 3101(a) directs “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” and is to be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . These principles entitle defendant to the requested discovery material to establish her affirmative defense … . Trump v Trump, 2026 NY Slip Op 02735, First Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here in this breach of contract action, defendant was entitled to discovery relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense.

 

, , , , ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this wrongful termination and retaliation action was entitled to discovery of so-called RL6 reports addressing unsafe working conditions. Defendant hospital claimed the documents were privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq. [hereinafter PSQIA]):

Plaintiff was employed as a nursing assistant and technician within defendant’s secure unit for patients with behavioral health and psychiatric conditions. He commenced this action for wrongful termination and retaliation under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, claiming that defendant unlawfully fired him after he reported unsafe workplace practices and conditions. During discovery, plaintiff demanded copies of his statements to defendant, including his June 2022 report of safety concerns submitted to defendant’s electronic reporting system. Plaintiff also requested the parties’ communications about the secure unit and defendant’s responses to prior related complaints or concerns. * * *

“[A] party does not obtain the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) merely because the information sought could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding[.] . . . The exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained” … . In short, the administrator’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden under Education Law § 6527 (3) … . Moreover, defendant conceded, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the RL6 reports were not submitted to a quality assurance or peer review committee. …

Assuming, without deciding, the doubtful proposition that PSQIA applies to this state law claim, defendant failed to demonstrate that the RL6 reports at issue constitute privileged patient safety work product. Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the scope of the Education Law privilege protecting hospital quality-review proceedings. Here the privilege did not extend to employee reports about unsafe working conditions.

 

, , , ,

UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …

Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):

… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.

 

, ,

AN ATTORNEY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY AN AGENT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS; HERE DEFENDANTS’ FORMER ATTORNEY WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS’ BEHALF; PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBTAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ former attorney did not have authority to accept service on defendants’ behalf. Personal jurisdiction over defendants was therefore never attained:

​”Service of process must be made in strict compliance with statutory methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person pursuant to CPLR 308″ … . CPLR 308(3) permits service upon an individual to be made “by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service of the person to be served designated under rule 318” … . “An attorney is not automatically considered the agent of his client for the purposes of the service of process” … . “[A]n attorney who agrees to accept service on behalf of individual defendants does not automatically become an agent for the acceptance of process, in the absence of proof that his clients actually knew of that representation” … . Here, the plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the defendant’s former attorney, who lacked authority to accept service on behalf of the defendant. Thus, personal jurisdiction over the defendant was never obtained. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Klamm, 2026 NY Slip Op 02661, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: An attorney is not automatically an agent of his client for service of process. Here defendants’ former counsel was not authorized to accept service on their behalf.

 

THE DEFENDANTS’ PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER DETERMINING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a pre-answer motion to dismiss extends the time to amend the complaint as a matter of right:

The plaintiffs correctly contend that the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiffs required leave of court to amend the complaint. “Pursuant to CPLR 3211(f), service by the defendant[s] of the pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint extended the [defendants’] time to answer the complaint until 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order determining the motion, and therefore extended the time in which the [plaintiffs] could amend the complaint as of right” … . Karp v Madison Realty Capital, L.P., 2026 NY Slip Op 02637, Second Dept 4-29-26

 

,

AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR APPEAL, DEFENDANT, PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, PURSUANT TO CPLR 2221, MOVED TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS UNTIMELY; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant in this foreclosure action used the proper procedure for attempting to apply the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively. The foreclosure action had already proceeded to judgment and the time for appeal had expired. The only way to effectuate the FAPA at that point is a motion to renew (CPLR 2221) made before the sale of the property. Defendant’s CPLR 2221 motion should not have been denied as untimely:

The court granted plaintiff a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 2221 to vacate the judgment based on FAPA.

The court should not have determined that the motion was untimely. Generally, a CPLR 2221 motion based upon a change in the law must be made prior to the entry of a final judgment or before the time to appeal has fully expired … . However, following the Court of Appeals’ decision in Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank ( —NY3d—, 2025 NY Slip Op 06536 [2025]), this Court held that “the only way to effectuate the retroactive application of FAPA after a judgment has been entered and the time to appeal has expired, is by filing a motion to renew before the sale is conducted” … . Defendant followed this precise process.

Accordingly, this matter is remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the parties’ arguments concerning whether retroactive application of FAPA would violate the Takings and Due Process Clauses … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Adam P10tch, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02596, First Dept 4-28-26

Practice Point: After the judgment of foreclosure and the expiration of the time for appeal, but before the sale of the property, a defendant can still make a motion to vacate the judgment based on the FAPA (CPLR 2221).

 

,

THE RESPONDENT CORRECTION OFFICER PARTICIPATED IN A GANG ASSAULT ON AN INMATE WHICH RESULTED IN THE INMATE’S DEATH; THE CORRECTION OFFICER WAS ACQUITTED OF CRIMINAL CHARGES; THE NY STATE POLICE BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING SEEKING AN “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) WHICH PROHIBITS RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT GRANTED IT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have issued an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) which preclude the respondent correction officer from possessing firearms. The respondent was involved in a gang assault on an inmate which caused the inmates death. The respondent had been acquitted of the related criminal charges:

… [T]he burden was on petitioner [the New York State Police] under the circumstances here to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent posed “a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 [a] [2]; see CPLR 6343 [2]). Petitioner met that burden by establishing that respondent actively participated in the assault of a restrained incarcerated individual by grabbing the victim by the chest and holding him down while other officers kicked the victim in the abdomen and groin (see CPLR 6342 [2] [a]). Indeed, that conduct is particularly egregious in this case because “DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise ‘[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment’ in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary” ( … 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]), inasmuch as “[c]orrection officers are tasked with the formidable and critical responsibility of protecting the safety of inmates and coworkers while maintaining order in correctional facilities” (id. at 385). Respondent adduced no evidence to the contrary at the hearing. * * *

We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the application, grant the application insofar as it seeks the issuance of a final ERPO, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 6343 (3). Matter of New York State Police v Galliher, 2026 NY Slip Op 02510, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: The “Extreme Risk Protection Act” (CPLR 6343) provides a mechanism to prohibit the possession of firearms. Here a correction officer participated in a gang assault on an inmate which resulted in the inmate’s death. The correction officer was acquitted of criminal charges and could therefore possess firearms. The NY State Police brought this proceeding for a “final extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) prohibiting the correction officer from possessing firearms.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY A PATIENT TO THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING AND A STATEMENT OF CHARGES INDICATING HIS EMT LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED; PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A DECLARATION HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS; SUPREME COURT AGREED BUT THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mcshan, rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, or, alternatively pursuant to Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution. Plaintiff is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) who responded to a call that a man (the patient) had fallen and could not get up. According to a witness, plaintiff thought the patient was faking, ridiculed him and offered only minimal assistance. The patient submitted a complaint to the defendant (the Department of Health). The defendant served plaintiff with a notice of hearing and statement of charges indicating plaintiff may be subject fines and revocation of the EMT license. Plaintiff then sued defendant seeking a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial:

The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value of the controversy exceeds $20 (see US Const, 7th Amend). Longstanding precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the Seventh Amendment “applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same” … . * * *

The NY Constitution provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art I, § 2). * * *

… [P]laintiff asserts that defendant, in essence, seeks to punish him for tortious conduct through the imposition of a civil penalty, which traditionally entailed a jury trial … . What plaintiff fails to directly confront, however, is that the nature of this proceeding is predicated on a violation of the statutory scheme that regulates plaintiff’s professional license and that the remedies sought are tethered thereto. … Specifically, Public Health Law article 30 places the responsibility on defendant to regulate the provision of emergency medical services in the state (see Public Health Law §§ 3000-3034) and, in furtherance of that responsibility, defendant has promulgated regulations governing the training, examination and licensing of EMTs … .Ball v New York State Dept. of Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 02494, Third Dept 4-23-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff, an EMT, after a complaint from a patient, was facing a Department of Health hearing at which his EMT license could be revoked. Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution.

 

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