You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR FINDING A PARTY IN CONTEMPT AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not comply with the rules for finding a party in contempt and imposing sanctions:

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, a contempt application must be in writing, must be made upon at least 10 days’ notice, and must contain on its face the statutory warning that “FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT” … . Here, among other things, the defendants were never provided with the warning required by Judiciary Law § 756 … . Further, an order requiring the performance of an act may not include an additional clause stating that in default thereof, the party will be guilty of contempt of court … .

The Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the … order as conditionally imposed sanctions upon the defendants and their counsel. “A court does not have the authority to impose a penalty or sanction absent enabling legislation or court rule authorizing the penalty or sanction” … . Here, the court cited to no legislation or court rule to support the imposition of sanctions. To the extent that the court relied upon 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, it should not have done so. Among other reasons, the … order did not set forth the conduct on which the imposition of sanctions was based and the reason why the court found the conduct to be frivolous … . Yong Hong Xie v Lan Chen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01819, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the procedural rules a court must follow to find a party in contempt and impose sanctions.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS TO THE EXTENT THE COURT-IMPOSED PAGE-LIMIT WAS EXCEEDED; REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION OF THE MOTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge’s refusal to read plaintiff’s motion papers to the extent the court-imposed page-limit was exceeded was unreasonable. Having accepted plaintiff’s papers, the court should have considered them in their entirety:

“It is appropriate for courts to set page or word limits on submissions, and to reject papers that fail to comply with those limits” … . However, “[i]t is not reasonable . . . for a court to accept papers that do not comply with the court’s page limitation and then refuse to read the noncompliant pages, denying, as a consequence, substantive relief that may be warranted” … . Having accepted the plaintiff’s papers, the Supreme Court should have considered the entirety of the plaintiff’s affirmation and memorandum of law submitted in support of the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’ motion and in support of the cross-motion. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new determination on the merits of the defendants’ motion and the plaintiff’s cross-motion. Weingarten v Kopelowitz, 2026 NY Slip Op 01816, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: If the court accepts motion papers which exceed the court-imposed page-limit, the court must consider the papers in their entirety.

 

, ,

THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN ORDER MAKING SPECIAL FINDINGS TO ALLOW A JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) TO AVOID DEPORTATION TO GUATEMALA (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the petition for an order making special findings to allow a juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) such that the child can remain in the US and avoid deportation to Guatemala:

The child simultaneously moved for the issuance of an order making special findings that, among other things, the child’s reunification with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect, abandonment, or abuse, and it would not be in his best interests to be returned to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and last habitual residence. Although Surrogate’s Court granted the guardianship petition, following a subsequent hearing, the Surrogate issued the order on appeal denying the child’s motion for an order making the requisite declaration and special findings on the basis that the child presented “no credible testimony . . . of abuse, abandonment or neglect or that reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable.” * * *

… [T]he evidence established that the child is under the age of 21, unmarried, and a resident alien physically present in the United States and, inasmuch as the Surrogate appointed the child’s brother as his guardian, the child has been legally committed to or placed under the custody of an individual appointed by a juvenile court located in the United States within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J) (i) … .

… [W]e conclude that reunification of the child with his parents is not viable due to parental neglect (see generally Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). The record demonstrates that the child’s parents did not provide the child with medical care, even after he sustained a serious injury … , encouraged the child to drop out of school and work on the family farm at the age of 15 … , failed to protect the child from gang violence in Guatemala … . … [I]t would not be in the best interests of the child to return to Guatemala, his previous country of nationality and country of last habitual residence … . Matter of Juarez, 2026 NY Slip Op 01686, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

 

, , ,

HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION; PLAINTIFF PASSENGER HAD SUED DECEDENT DRIVER AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY; THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DECEDENT DRIVER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEDENT DRIVER; THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY DID NOT GIVE THE INTERESTED PARTIES THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DRIVER’S DEATH; AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE DECEDENT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the attorneys for the decedent driver did not have the authority to move to dismiss plaintiff-passenger’s action against the decedent because the decedent’s death during the pendency of the action divested the court of jurisdiction, (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the driver’s death should not have been granted because defendant did not notify the parties with an interest in decedent’s estate of the motion, and (3) plaintiff-passenger’s cross-motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the driver’s estate should not have been granted because plaintiff did not notify parties interested in the estate of the cross-motion and did not otherwise follow the procedures for such an appointment:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party … . * * *

“CPLR 1021 defines the procedural mechanisms for seeking a substitution of successor or representative parties, and for the dismissal of actions where substitutions are not timely sought” … . CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made.” Further, “a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that she provided notice of her cross-motions to persons interested in [the] estate … . Moreover, the plaintiff “failed to demonstrate the steps [she] had taken to secure the appointment of a personal representative in the appropriate Surrogate’s Court or that resort to the appropriate Surrogate’s Court was otherwise unfeasible . . . and otherwise failed to adequately demonstrate why the appointment of a temporary administrator was needed to avoid undue delay and prejudice” … . Ford v Luckain, 2026 NY Slip Op 01493, Second Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the procedures which must be followed when a party in a pending traffic-accident case dies, divesting the court of jurisdiction and curtailing the authority of the decedent’s attorneys to act on decedent’s behalf.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT WHICH INCLUDED THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the defendant energy company did not demonstrate plaintiff agreed to an arbitration clause which defendant claimed was included in a four-page “Terms and Conditions” addendum to the contract. Essentially plaintiffs argued they were never provided with the four-page “Terms and Conditions.” Defendant relied on weak and contradictory evidence to the contrary, some of which was provided for the first time in a reply document (generally not considered by a motion court):

As a procedural matter, defendant could not employ its reply to remedy a basic deficiency in its prima facie showing … . After all, defendant’s theory of actual notice rested on its sales representative’s adherence to a business practice and defendant was unable to establish, in its underlying submission, the actual relevant practice (if any) that [the sales representative] used.

As a substantive matter, the inconsistent factual presentation between defendant’s underlying submission and its reply submission leaves a void on the critical question of what documents were reviewed with [plaintiff], undermining defendant’s contention that a particular business practice was employed and followed such that [plaintiff] received actual notice of the arbitration provision. Knight v Family Energy Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01599, First Dept 3-17-26

 

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