You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO LIFT A HEAVY BOX MANUALLY; THE FACT THAT A FORKLIFT WAS AVAILABLE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; A WORKER IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW ORDERS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted. The Labor Law 240(1) claim was reinstated and judgment in favor of plaintiffs was granted. Apparently plaintiff was injured when lifting a heavy box after the stage manager directed him to do so. The fact that a forklift was available would only raise an issue of comparative negligence which will not defeat a Labor Law 240(1) claim:

… [A]lthough defendants established that there was an available safety device, i.e., a forklift, and that plaintiff knew that it was available and that he was expected to use it, plaintiffs established that the stage manager instructed plaintiff and his coworkers to lift the box manually. Regardless of whether that stage manager was plaintiff’s actual supervisor, plaintiff was under no obligation to demand safer methods for moving the box … . To expect plaintiff to refuse the stage manager’s demands “overlooks the realities of construction work” … .

“When faced with an . . . instruction to use an inadequate device [or no device at all], many workers would be understandably reticent to object for fear of jeopardizing their employment and their livelihoods” … . Finocchi v Live Nation Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02680, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

​Practice Point: Plaintiff was directed to lift a heavy box manually. A worker is expected to follow directions. The fact that a forklift was available was therefore not determinative. Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION STARTED ANEW WHEN DEFENDANT MADE A PARTIAL PAYMENT; DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statute of limitations in the foreclosure action had been restarted by partial payment and defendants had waived the argument that the plaintiff did not have standing:

The partial payment exception “requires proof that ‘there was a payment of a portion of an admitted debt, made and accepted as such, accompanied by circumstances amounting to an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ “… . “If the exception is established, the statute of limitations begins to run anew from the date of the partial payment” … . * * *

“Having failed to interpose an answer which asserted the defense [of lack of standing] or to file a timely pre-answer motion raising that defense,” [defendant] waived his contention on his cross appeal that plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action … . Citibank, N.A. v Gifford, 2022 NY Slip Op 02650, Fourth Dept 4-22-22​

Practice Point: Partial payment of a debt after the statute of limitations has run may start the statute running anew. Failure to raise the lack of standing defense in the answer or a motion to dismiss waives it.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS A-FRAME LADDER-FALL CASE; ALTHOUGH NO DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. The court noted that the motion for summary judgment was not premature, even though no depositions had been taken:

Plaintiff established prima facie that PPC is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) through plaintiff and his coworker’s affidavits that the unstable eight-foot A-frame ladder, which was missing rubber feet, shifted, causing him to fall … . It was undisputed that PPC was the owner of the property. Plaintiff also established that his work of retrofitting light fixtures was covered under § 240(1) and did not constitute mere maintenance … .

We reject PPC’s argument that plaintiff’s motion was premature (CPLR 3212[f]). The fact that no depositions have been taken does not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, as PPC failed to show that discovery might lead to facts that would support its opposition to the motion … . PPC also failed to show that facts essential to its opposition were within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge … . Its argument that deposition testimony might further illuminate issues raised by the affidavits is unavailing. “The mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny such a motion” … . Laporta v PPC Commercial, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02624, First Dept 4-21-22

Practice Point: In order for a pre-discovery summary judgment motion to be deemed premature, the opposing party must show discovery might lead to facts which would support opposition to the motion (not the case here).

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304, which, to be valid, must state the default amount and length of time the borrower has been in default, was not shown to be inaccurate. But the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to foreclose. The evidence that the bank’s standing was based on a merger with the holder of the note was not submitted until the reply, and therefore should not have been considered:

Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, including but not limited to the duration and an amount of the default, the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid … . …

… [T]here is no reason for us to conclude at this juncture that the $64,862.12 default sum set forth in the plaintiff’s RPAPL 1304 notice reflects any actual error. The second paragraph of the plaintiff’s 30-day notice explains that the $64,862.12 amount claimed to be due includes principal, interest, escrow payments, and late charges, which would necessarily raise the gross amount due to a sum that exceeds the amount of the missed principal. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action. The plaintiff is not the original lender. The subject note, though attached to the complaint, bears no indorsement. And further, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence in admissible form as part of its prima facie case that the note was assigned to it prior to the date of commencement of the action … . …

The certificate of merger showing that ESB-LI merged into the plaintiff does not demonstrate that the plaintiff is the holder of the subject note. It was submitted to the Supreme Court for the first time in the plaintiff’s reply papers, and therefore, could not be considered as part of the plaintiff’s initial prima facie proof of standing … . Emigrant Bank v Cohen, 2022 NY Slip Op 02532, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: To be valid, the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must accurately state the amount of the default and the length of time the borrower has been in default (there was no showing the amount was inaccurate here). If the bank does not demonstrate it was holding the note at the time the foreclosure was commenced in its moving papers, it has not demonstrated standing to foreclose. Evidence of standing submitted in reply papers should not be considered.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED TWO DAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR-NINETY-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN THE FILING AND THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE MUNICIPALITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim was timely and should have been granted. Although the second order to show cause was submitted two days beyond the one year-and-90-day deadline for suing a municipality. the statute of limitations was tolled for three days between the filing of the first order to show cause and the denial of that first motion:

Since the time to serve a notice of claim upon a public corporation cannot be extended beyond the time limited for commencement of an action against that party … , the court lacks authority to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute of limitations has been tolled … . “CPLR 204(a) tolls the statute of limitations while a motion to serve a late notice of claim is pending” … . Where “a court declines to sign an initial order to show cause for leave to serve a late notice of claim on procedural grounds, but a subsequent application for the same relief is granted, the period of time in which the earlier application [was] pending [is also] excluded from the limitations period” … . …

… [T]he medical records provided the defendants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s claim. The records evinced that a stroke code was called shortly after the plaintiff’s presentation to the hospital, that, based on an assessment of her condition, it was decided that a tissue plasminogen activator was not needed, and that it was later determined that the plaintiff had suffered a stroke but that it was too late to administer that drug.

The plaintiff further made an initial showing that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving the notice of claim, and the defendants failed to rebut the showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … .

Finally, where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Ahmed v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02521, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: The one-year-ninety-day statute of limitations for suing a municipality is tolled for the time between submitting an order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice of claim and the judge’s refusal to sign the order to show cause. Here, although the second order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice was submitted two days after the one-year-ninety-day statute had run, it was timely because of the three-day toll between the filing and denial of first order to show cause. Here the medical records sufficiently notified the municipality of the essential facts of the claim, the municipality did not demonstrate prejudice and there was no need for a reasonable excuse because there was actual knowledge and no prejudice.

 

,

THE DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY AN “AMENDED” BILL OF PARTICULARS BECAUSE IT ADDED NEW INJURIES AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the document labeled a “supplemental” bill of particulars was actually a post-note-of-issue “amended” bill of particulars which should not have been served without leave of the court:

… [T]he document that they denominated a “supplemental bill of particulars” … , was, in reality, an amended bill of particulars, as they sought to add new injuries (see CPLR 3043[b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was to strike the amended bill of particulars … , denominated as a supplemental bill of particulars, which was served without leave of court and after the note of issue had been filed …  . Naftaliyev v GGP Staten Is. Mall, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02556, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: A “supplemental” bill of particulars which adds new injuries after the note of issue is filed is actually an “amended” bill of particulars which can only be served with leave of the court.

 

, , ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS TOO SMALL; PLAINTIFF-TENANTS ALLEGED THE LANDLORD DEREGULATED APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, tenants of a 49-unit apartment building, should have been certified as a class. The complaint alleged the landlord deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Supreme Court erred in denying class certification on the ground that plaintiffs failed to show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members . . . is impracticable” (CPLR 901[a][1]). Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P. (24 NY3d 382, 383 [2014]) and subsequent cases, such as Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC (34 NY3d 116 [2019]), make it clear that qualified plaintiffs may “utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory rent overcharges against landlords who decontrolled apartments in contravention of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a) while accepting tax benefits under New York City’s J-51 tax abatement program.” The legislature contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members … . Here, as in Borden, plaintiffs allege defendant deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits. Construing the class certification statute liberally … given that the asserted class consists of former and current tenants who lived in the 16 units improperly treated as deregulated after November 15, 2013, while defendant was receiving J-51 tax benefits, it is reasonable to infer that some units in this 49-unit apartment building would have had more than one tenant and several tenants would have moved away, making joinder of all members impracticable … . The identity of class members, i.e., which units were treated as deregulated and who leased them during the relevant time period, is within defendant’s knowledge. Hoffman v Fort 709 Assoc., L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02510, First Dept 4-19-22

​Practice Point: Here class certification should not have been denied on the ground the class was too small. The plaintiffs are tenants alleging the landlord improperly deregulated apartments while receiving tax benefits. Classes as small as 18 members were contemplated by the legislature.

 

,

ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VERDICT WAS RENDERED SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted because it was made more than 15 days after the jury verdict:

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) as untimely, as it was made more than 15 days after the jury verdict was rendered, without good cause shown for the delay … . Galarza v Heaney, 2022 NY Slip Op 02395, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside a verdict made more than 15 days after the verdict was rendered, without a demonstration of good cause for the delay, should not be granted.

 

, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s attorney offered a reasonable “law office failure” excuse for not complying with a discovery deadline (conditional order of preclusion):

“The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . “Conversely, where a claim of law office failure is conclusory and unsubstantiated or lacking in credibility, it should be rejected” … .

Here, in opposition to the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, in effect, to enforce the conditional order, the plaintiff’s counsel provided a detailed and credible explanation of the law office error that resulted in the failure to comply with the conditional order … . The plaintiff also demonstrated potentially meritorious causes of action … . Fortino v Wheels, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02393, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: Here counsel offered a detailed, credible explanation for law office failure (failure to comply with a deadline for discovery). That explanation was coupled with the demonstration of potentially meritorious causes of action. Defendant’s motion to enforce the conditional preclusion order should not have been granted.

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE UNABLE TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S ILLNESS AND THE COVID-19 SHUTDOWN; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to extend the time for making a summary judgment, for reasons related to COVID-19, should have been granted:

… [T]he defendants submitted evidence showing that after their prior motion was decided, the plaintiff did not attend scheduled independent medical examinations because of illness and that discovery was further delayed by the COVID-19 shutdown. As a result, the defendants established good cause for their failure to timely move for summary judgment … . Under these COVID-19-related circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for leave to renew those branches of their prior motion which were to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and extend the time to move for summary judgment. Upon renewal, the court should have granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to extend the time to move for summary judgment. We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the selection of a new date by which summary judgment motions shall be filed…. . Newfeld v Midwood Ambulance & Oxygen Serv., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02422, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: The COVID-19 shutdown was a valid excuse for defendants’ inability to complete discovery. Defendants’ motion to extend the time to file a summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

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