You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY IS OPENLY REPUDIATED; CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION BASED UPON FRAUD ARE TIMELY SIX YEARS FROM THE CONVERSION OR TWO YEARS FROM DISCOVERY OF THE CONVERSION; THE RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION HERE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined causes of action alleging defendant Filardo, plaintiff car dealership’s employee, used fraudulent schemes to steal funds from plaintiff over a period of years, should not have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, and/or on the ground the causes of action were not adequately pled:

The plaintiff asserted causes of action against Filardo for breach of fiduciary duty (first cause of action), breach of the duty of loyalty (second cause of action), faithless servant doctrine (third cause of action), conversion (fifth cause of action), fraudulent concealment by fiduciary (sixth cause of action), and promissory estoppel (ninth cause of action), and causes of action against both defendants for aiding and abetting fraud (fourth cause of action), civil conspiracy (seventh cause of action), fraud and deceit (eighth cause of action), unjust enrichment (tenth cause of action), money had and received (eleventh cause of action), and fraud by non-disclosure (twelfth cause of action). …

“The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … Here, the plaintiff alleged that its relationship with Filardo was not terminated until November 2017, and there is no allegation that Filardo openly repudiated his employment obligations prior to that time … .

… [W]hen the allegations of fraud are essential to a cause of action alleging conversion based upon actual fraud, the cause of action is governed by the limitations period for fraud set forth in CPLR 213(8). That statute provides that, in an action based upon fraud, “the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it” … .Star Auto Sales of Queens, LLC v Filardo, 2022 NY Slip Op 01476, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty does not start running until the fiduciary openly repudiates the duty.

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for conversion based upon fraud is six years from the conversion or two years from discovery of the conversion.

 

, ,

PLANTIFF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER IN 2014 IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF LAVERN’S LAW (CPLR 214-A) IN 2018, WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER BY VIRTUE OF ITS RETROACTIVE-APPLICATION AND REVIVAL PROVISIONS, THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s med mal action alleging failure to diagnose lung cancer based upon a CT scan in 2014 was time barred pursuant to the retroactive-application and revival limitations in CPRL 214-a, enacted on January 31, 2018 (called Lavern’s Law):

[Lavern’s Law] “appl[ies] to acts, omissions, or failures occurring within 2 years and 6 months prior to the effective date of this act, and not before” … . Thus, by its terms, the discovery toll in Lavern’s Law’s applies retroactively to causes of action that were not time-barred as of Lavern’s Law’s effective date, i.e., causes of action accruing on or after July 31, 2015. Plaintiff’s causes of action, which accrued on May 16, 2014, predate the earliest date to which Lavern’s Law’s retroactive discovery toll applies.

Lavern’s Law also provides for the revival of certain time-barred medical malpractice causes of action. Where a claim based on the negligent failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor occurred and, “within ten months prior to the effective date of the act . . . became time-barred under any applicable limitations period then in effect, such action or claim may be commenced within six months of the effective date of the act . . . .” … . Therefore, a failure to diagnose cancer or malignant tumor cause of action that became time-barred between March 31, 2017 and January 31, 2018 may be revived if it is commenced no later than July 31, 2018 … . Because plaintiff’s claims became time-barred on November 16, 2016, the limited revival provision of the new law (for certain claims that became time-barred after March 31, 2017) does not avail her … .Ford v Lee, 2022 NY Slip Op 01414, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: Lavern’s Law (CPLR 214-a, enacted in 2018) extended the statute of limitations for failure to diagnose cancer by virtue of its retroactive-application and revival provisions, neither of which applied to plaintiff here who alleged failure to diagnose in 2014.

, , , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant real estate broker, despite the plaintiff’s consent to the broker’s “dual agency:”

Although the complaint does not explicitly articulate a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, such a cause of action is manifest in its factual allegations, and the documentary evidence fails to utterly refute those allegations … . In connection with his sale of certain real property, plaintiff signed a disclosure form pursuant to Real Property Law § 443, giving his informed consent to a “dual agency with designated sales agent” relationship with defendants. The form states that a dual agent cannot give the seller or buyer “undivided loyalty.” Nevertheless, it does not relieve defendants from all fiduciary duty. The form states that defendant Nikki Carchedi, of defendant Stone House Properties, “is appointed to represent the seller in this transaction.” The complaint establishes a cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty beyond the acknowledged “divided” duty by alleging that [defendant] Carchedi failed to disclose that she had a personal stake in the sale to the buyers, who planned to subdivide the property immediately after purchase and retain her as the broker for the sale of the subdivided parcels, and that they did so, listing the subdivided parcels for almost three times the price plaintiff received in his sale … . We also note plaintiff’s assertion that the agent representing the buyer was the son of Carchedi’s longtime client about whom plaintiff had expressed concern. Hahn v Stone House Props. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-8-22

​Practice Point: Even though breach-of-fiduciary-duty was not explicitly pled, the facts alleged stated a cause of action against defendant real estate broker.

Practice Point: Even though the seller signed a form consenting to the broker’s “dual agency,” the broker was not relieved of her fiduciary duty to the seller. Allegedly, the broker was aware the buyers were going to subdivide the property, sell it at three times the price, and that she would be the broker for the subsequent sales.

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO AMEND THEIR ANSWERS IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S CULPABLE CONDUCT AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (RE: HER WEIGHT AND SMOKING) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DELAY IN MAKING THE MOTION CAUSED NO PREJUDICE; GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY NEED NOT BE SHOWN; FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED PLEADINGS WITH THE MOTION PAPERS AND DEFECTS IN VERIFICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the defendants in this medical malpractice actions should have been allowed to amend their answers to allege culpable conduct and comparative negligence on the part of plaintiff, citing her weight and smoking habit: (2) the defendants failure to attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion papers was a technical defect which should have been overlooked; (3) the defendants did not need to submit a certificate of merit for the proposed amendments; and (4), the defects in the defendants’ verifications should have been overlooked:

“While [defendants were] or should have been aware of the facts and theories asserted in the amended [answers] long before amendment was actually sought, delay alone is not a sufficient ground for denying leave to amend” … . Under the circumstances in this case, there was no unreasonable delay by defendants in seeking leave to amend, as plaintiff has not filed her note of issue nor has the case has been certified as trial-ready … . Further, because there was no extended delay by defendants in moving to amend, they did not need to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay … .

… “[O]n a motion for leave to amend, [the movant] need not establish the merit of its proposed new allegations, but simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit”  … Contrary also to plaintiff’s argument, Golson v Addei [216 AD2d 268] does not stand for the proposition that a comparative negligence defense in a medical malpractice case based on a plaintiff’s smoking history is per se meritless … . Johnson v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01418, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: In a med mal case, plaintiff’s weight and smoking habit maybe grounds for affirmative defenses.

Practice Point: There was no need to submit a certificate of merit with the motion to amend the answers.

Practice Point: Where there has been no prejudice to the plaintiff, the unexcused delay in seeking amendment of the answers here was not a sufficient ground for denying the amendment.

Practice Point: Failure to include the proposed amended answers with the motion for leave to amend, and defects in defendants’ verifications, were technical defects which should have been overlooked.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined Family Court did not have jurisdiction to modify the separation agreement by putting a cap on the child-support/spousal-support credit father was entitled to for his payment of the mortgage and apartment expenses:

A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce may be reformed only in a plenary action … . Family Court does not have jurisdiction to modify a separation agreement … . Under the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, the father is entitled to pay his $2,100 in monthly child support directly to the mortgagee of the parties’ former marital apartment. However, the Family Court erred in capping the father’s credit against support arrears at $25,200 per year based on this provision. Although Family Court found that there was no similar provision with respect to spousal support, in fact the parties’ stipulation permits the father to also deduct the payment of apartment expenses, including the mortgage, from his spousal support. Accordingly, Family Court improperly amended the stipulation by imposing an annual maximum credit to which the father is entitled based solely on his child support obligation. Matter of Deborah K. v Richard K., 2022 NY Slip Op 01391, First Dept 3-3-22

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RENEW ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANTS’ WINNING ARGUMENT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to renew should have been granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was improperly granted based upon an argument first raised in reply papers:

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss … based on defendants’ argument raised for the first time in their reply to their motion to dismiss, that [the] operating agreement contained a provision wherein plaintiffs purportedly waived any past, present, and future conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs moved for leave to renew and reargue, claiming that the issue of the waiver provision was improperly raised for the first time in reply, and in substance was contradicted by another section of the operating agreement that provides, among other things, that no one other than the members can enforce any provision of the operating agreement against any member.

The motion to renew should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ claim that the waiver issue was improperly raised in defendants’ reply provides a reasonable justification for granting the renewal motion … . Upon renewal, defendants’ motion should be denied with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim … . Dismissal is warranted only where documentary evidence “conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Mehra v Morrison Cohen LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 01396, First Sept 3-3-22

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a stipulation of settlement in open court was valid, despite a Court of Appeals decision which ruled the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) cannot be applied retroactively. The retroactive application of the HSTPA (to the stipulation) was deemed a “mistake of law” which is not a ground for invalidating a stipulation:

On … the date of trial, the court facilitated settlement negotiations and the parties placed the material terms of their settlement on the record. “The in-court oral stipulation made here . . . evidences [defendant]’s unconditional agreement, through authorized counsel, to settle” for a sum certain of $7.5 million, provide leases at specific monthly rents for plaintiffs still living in the building, and enter into a confidentiality agreement … . “[W]hen the transcript . . . is read in its entirety, it is clear that what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and not simply an agreement to agree” … . “The fact that it is necessary for the parties to exchange general releases and execute a confidentiality agreement does not render the agreement invalid”… , nor does the parties’ representation that they would “execute formal settlement papers” demonstrate that there was no agreement on material terms … . …

We reject defendant’s contention that the decision of the Court of Appeals … , issued one month afterwards, requires that the settlement be vacated. While that decision held that the retroactive application of the [HSTPA] would violate due process …, previous interpretations to the contrary constituted “a mistake as to the law,” which is insufficient grounds for vacating a stipulation … . Nieborak v W54-7 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01397, First Dept 3-3-22

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal of this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 because issue was never joined. Therefore the action should not have been dismissed:

“‘A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met'” … , including that issue has been joined in the action (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). Here, the dismissal of the action pursuant to the conditional order of dismissal was improper, since none of the defendants had submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Central Mtge. Co. v Ango, 2022 NY Slip Op 01286, Second Dept 3-2-22​

 

, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT THE CITY BUS STOPPED “VIOLENTLY,” CAUSING HER TO FALL; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVICENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant Transit Authority’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony that the bus stopped “violently,” causing her to fall, was not supported by any objective evidence:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found for the plaintiff against the defendants. Although the plaintiff characterized the stop as “violent,” neither her testimony regarding the nature of her fall nor the circumstances surrounding the stop nor any other evidence she presented was sufficient to provide the objective support necessary to demonstrate that the movement of the bus was “unusual and violent” … . Stark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

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