You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision addressing several issues not summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until June 24, 2013, when the Supreme Court … vacated the March 18, 2013 order, and … granted W & H’s [defendants-attorneys] motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Inasmuch as W & H’s motion to withdraw as counsel, which was opposed by Michele [plaintiff’s decedent] , was initially denied, Michele could not be expected to commence an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against W & H while the representation continued … . Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action as time-barred. Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 01197, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION BE STATED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE; EVICTION ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the landlord did not comply with the HUD regulation requiring that a notice of termination of a lease state the reasons for the termination with enough specificity to allow the tenant to mount a defense. The issue was raised by respondent-tenant’s oral general denial:

In our view, the notice of termination was deficient, as it did not set forth the factual predicates underlying the alleged violation of the lease terms, instead merely paraphrasing the lease and the underlying regulation … . No specific incident is described in the notice, nor are any specific facts. The regulatory standard of requiring “enough specificity so as to enable the tenant to prepare a defense” demands more detail as to the nature of the asserted misconduct (24 CFR 247.4 [a] [2]). Matter of Metro Plaza Apts., Inc. v Buchanan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01087, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM ON A LULL (FORKLIFT) USED TO REACH ELEVATED AREAS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER WHO LEASED THE LULL AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on his Labor law 241(6) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from a makeshift platform he placed on a lull (forklift) to reach elevated areas of a house he was wrapping with an insulation material (Tyvek). The central question was whether plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall and injuries:

… [I]t is beyond dispute that the lull was not an adequate safety device for the elevated work being performed by plaintiff at the time of his fall … . This conclusion is not changed by defendant’s provision of harnesses incompatible with the lull … . Plaintiff’s accident was plainly the direct result of the makeshift lull setup failing, and the parties are therefore in agreement that, unless plaintiff’s choice not to use other available safety devices when installing the Tyvek was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries, plaintiff has established his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Plaintiff indeed brought extension ladders and scaffolding with him to the job site, and it appears that defendant provided some ladders as well. …[T]here is simply no trial evidence to suggest that plaintiff knew he was expected to use a ladder or scaffolding to wrap the front of the house with Tyvek. It is uncontroverted that use of the lull with a makeshift platform had become commonplace at the job site in the weeks preceding plaintiff’s accident, that the scaffolding was set up at the rear of the house specifically because the lull could not traverse the terrain there and that defendant’s only affirmative safety-related instructions to plaintiff regarding the subject elevated work were to either use a harness or construct a platform, both of which involved use of the lull. As proof of the foregoing element is lacking, there is no rational process by which a jury could conclude that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries … . DeGraff v Colontonio, 2022 NY Slip Op 01074, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE STRUCTURE-LOSS (FIRE-DAMAGE) CLAIM; THE PARTIES WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision addressing many property-insurance (fire loss) issues not summarized here, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a motion for partial summary judgment:

… Supreme Court erred in sua sponte granting LaVigne [defednant] summary judgment on her structure loss claim as no party had moved on or briefed relative to this claim. We agree. “Although a court may not generally grant summary judgment sua sponte in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212, in certain circumstances, a court may grant such relief, even if it is not demanded, so long as there is no substantial prejudice to the adverse party. In such cases, [this Court] require[s] that the court give notice to the parties that summary judgment is being considered as a remedy, so that they may develop evidence and offer proof in support of or in opposition to the motion” … . Here, although the court did ask questions regarding the structure loss claim at oral argument, we do not find that to be sufficient notice that summary judgment was being considered and, as such, the insurance company was substantially prejudiced … . … [I]t is clear from the record that the parties were not “deliberately charting a course for summary judgment” … , and in fact were quite surprised by the Supreme Court’s questions regarding summary judgment on this claim. Moreover, it appears from the record that the insurance company did not depose LaVigne. Collyer v LaVigne, 2022 NY Slip Op 01083, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , , , , ,

CERTAIN CHILD CUSTODY RECORDS AND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES RECORDS (WHICH DO NOT RELATE TO AN INVESTIGATION) MAY BE DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGH ON BEHALF OF AN INFANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain child custody records and Child Protective Services (CPS) records were or may be discoverable in this negligence and medical malpractice case brought on behalf of an infant. The custody records were relevant to plaintiff’s standing to sue and to family dynamics which may have affected the child’s health, and there may be some CPS records which are discoverable because they do not relate to an investigation, Therefore the matter was remitted for an in camera review:

Supreme Court did not address the second basis upon which defendants sought disclosure of the custody records, however, which was that they may contain information on family dynamics that impacted the infant’s development and would therefore be relevant as to plaintiff’s allegations, in her bill of particulars, that the infant’s learning disabilities and intellectual and emotional deficits arose out of defendants’ conduct. …

… [D]efendants are not entitled to disclosure of records relating to either a report of abuse or an investigation into one … . …

… [C]hild protective officials and related child welfare organizations may well possess discoverable documents that were not generated in the course of a child protective investigation but do contain information relevant to assessing whether the infant’s claimed injuries were linked to defendants’ actions or some other cause. C.T. v Brant, 2022 NY Slip Op 01090, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

,

THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DIMSISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, under the facts, plaintiff had not abandoned this medical malpractice action and plaintiff’s failure to timely file the certificate of merit was not a ground for dismissal of the complaint:

… [P]laintiff’s attorney filed an alternative certificate with the complaint that he was unable to timely procure the required consultation in view of the impending statute of limitations in accord with CPLR 3012-a (a) (2). In such an instance, the certificate of merit must be filed within 90 days of commencement, a deadline that plaintiff did not meet … . The mere failure to meet that deadline, however, does not require a dismissal of the action … . … [P]laintiff expressly identified his medical expert in the … discovery response. In his opposing affidavit, plaintiff’s counsel explained that the failure to file the certificate of merit was an oversight, i.e., basic law office failure, and further affirmed that he duly consulted with the physician in accord with the requirements of CPLR 3012-a (a) (1). In any event, plaintiff did not formally move for leave to file a late certificate of merit and, therefore, whether plaintiff established good cause under CPLR 2004 for such leave is not at issue … . … [W]e find no basis to dismiss the complaint based on the certificate of merit issue. Duvernoy v CNY Fertility, PLLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01084, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

,

THE BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the breach of the implied covenant of good faith should have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract action:

Supreme Court … erred by denying that part of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A review of the allegations in the amended complaint discloses that this cause of action is based upon the same set of facts and seeks similar damages as the breach of contract cause of action. In view of this, the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and, therefore, it should have been dismissed … . Shmaltz Brewing Co., LLC v Dog Cart Mgt. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01086, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

NO ONE MOVED TO QUASH THE NONJUDICIAL SUBPOENA SERVED ON A NONPARTY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO COMPEL THE NONPARTY’S APPEARANCE AT A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have compelled the former Town Supervisor (St. Lawrence) to appear for depositions in this slip and fall case:

… [T]he plaintiff served nonparty Christopher St. Lawrence, former Town Supervisor for the Town, with a nonjudicial subpoena directing him to appear for a deposition. St. Lawrence failed to appear for the deposition as directed in the subpoena, and the plaintiff moved … to compel him to comply with that subpoena by appearing for a deposition … . … Supreme Court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

Since the Supreme Court found that the subpoena was proper, that no one had moved to quash it, and that St. Lawrence had failed to comply with it, the court should have directed St. Lawrence to comply with the subpoena (see CPLR 2308[b] …). … [T]he court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel St. Lawrence to comply with the subpoena by directing him to appear for a deposition …  Thus, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, to schedule the deposition in compliance with the subpoena and for further proceedings to compel compliance with the subpoena. Schiller v Town of Ramapo, 2022 NY Slip Op 01061, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

, ,

PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMONSTRATED HE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FORMULATE A COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HIS REQUEST FOR PRE-JOINDER DISCOVERY AND PRESERVATION OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined pre-joinder discovery and preservation of the accident site was not necessary in this slip and fall case:

The petitioner alleges … he slipped and fell due to an accumulation of water leaking from the ceiling onto the landing at the top of an escalator in a subway station. The petitioner commenced this proceeding against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) seeking to direct the Transit Authority to preserve and produce any surveillance videos or records prepared in the regular course of business concerning the accident, or to provide an affidavit explaining the absence of any such videos or records. The petitioner also moved pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), in effect, to compel the Transit Authority to permit an inspection of the location of the accident upon certain conditions and to refrain from performing alterations or modifications to the location pending that inspection. …

CPLR 3102(c) provides, as relevant, that “[b]efore an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbitration, may be obtained, but only by court order.” Here, the petitioner’s notice of claim demonstrates that the petitioner possessed sufficient information to enable him to formulate his complaint and commence an action … . Therefore, under the circumstances, the only purpose of the pre-action discovery sought by the petitioner would be to “explore alternative theories of liability, which is not a proper basis for invoking CPLR 3102(c)” … . Moreover, considering, inter alia, the evidence already in the petitioner’s possession, the order directing the Transit Authority to preserve the condition of the site of the accident until completion of an inspection was unduly burdensome …”. Matter of Neham v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

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