You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, THE PLAINTIFFS, YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED, MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this slip and fall case should not have been allowed to amend the notice of claim to add the allegation that the city created the icy condition in the parking garage. The city had moved for summary judgment because it did not have written notice of the condition. The plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend the notice of claim, years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The city was entitled to summary judgment:

“‘A plaintiff seeking to recover in tort against a municipality must serve a notice of claim to enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merits of the claim'” … . “‘A notice of claim must set forth, inter alia, the nature of the claim, and the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose'” … . “Under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), ‘[a] notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability'” … . Here, contrary to the court’s determination, the proposed amendment to the notice of claim was not to correct a technical mistake, defect, or omission within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), but rather, improperly sought “to assert a new theory of affirmative negligence several years after the . . . applicable limitations period” … . Congero v City of Glen Cove, 2021 NY Slip Op 02131, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

, ,

IN THIS COMPLEX EXCESS INSURANCE CASE, WHICH INCLUDED A REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE LAW-OF-THE-CASE AND RES-JUDICATA DOCTRINES DID NOT DICTATE THE OUTCOME AND THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined that RLI, an excess insurance carrier, was not obligated to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. In the underlying action, plaintiff, an employee of Transel Elevator, was working on an elevator at a hotel and was injured descending stairs at the hotel. The complex relationships among the parties and several insurance carriers cannot be fairly summarized here. What follows in the First Department’s summary of the case. In essence the First Department held that prior rulings did not dictate the outcome here under law-of-the-case or res-judicata principles:

Plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaration that the excess insurance policy issued by RLI Insurance Company, Inc. was next in order of coverage for a personal injury action, in which Aspen and RLI’s common insured, Alphonse Hotel Corporation, was a defendant. The issue in this case is whether RLI, an excess insurer with a follow form policy, is bound by a prior judicial determination of this Court that the primary policy issued by Ironshore Indemnity Inc., which underlies RLI’s excess policy, covers the defendant in the personal injury action, Alphone, as an additional insured. In the prior declaratory judgment action between Aspen and Ironshore, this Court declared that the language in the additional insured endorsement extends coverage broadly to any injury causally linked to the named insured, which was satisfied in this case because the loss involved an employee of the named insured who was injured while performing the named insured’s work under the contract with the additional insured. RLI argues that it is not bound by this Court’s prior determination because it was not part of the prior declaratory judgment action. In the present declaratory judgment action, RLI wishes to relitigate the issue of whether Ironshore’s policy covers Alphonse as an additional insured. RLI relies upon the 2017 Court of Appeals decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth. (29 NY3d 313 [2017]), which interpreted language in an additional insured endorsement similar to the language here as covering the additionally insured party, vicariously, only for negligent acts of the named insured. It is undisputed in the instant case that the named insured was not in control of the instrumentality of the accident that caused the underlying personal injuries. … RLI is not bound by our prior determination and that it is entitled to a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v RLI Ins. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02092, First Dept 4-6-21

 

,

TWO VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF TWO SUCCESSIVE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS TWICE REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT RENDERING THE THIRD FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based upon the February, 2021 Court of Appeals ruling, determined two voluntary discontinuances of two successive foreclosure actions twice revoked the acceleration of the debt, rending the third foreclosure action timely:

… [O]n February 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Freedom Mtge. Corp v Engel, — NY3d —, 2021 NY Slip Op 01090 (2021), holding, inter alia, that “where acceleration occurred by virtue of the filing of a complaint in a foreclosure action, the noteholder’s voluntary discontinuance of that action constitutes an affirmative act of revocation of that acceleration as a matter of law, absent an express, contemporaneous statement to the contrary by the noteholder” (Freedom Mtge., at *6). Thus, contrary to defendants’ argument, the September 2013 voluntary discontinuance of the 2009 first foreclosure action did constitute an “affirmative act,” within six years, thereby revoking the prior election to accelerate. A second foreclosure action was commenced in October 2013 and discontinued in September 2017. To the extent there is a question surrounding plaintiff’s reason for discontinuing the second foreclosure action and whether that reason constituted a “contemporaneous statement” that they were not seeking to de-accelerate the debt, it does not change the fact that the third foreclosure action is timely because it was commenced within six years of the date of acceleration, which was October 2013. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Boktor, 2021 NY Slip Op 02124, First Dept 4-6-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE THEORY WAS NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWERS; THE MOTION TO DIMSISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) defendant security company’s (Kent’s) motion to dismiss the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) was untimely because the defendant did not assert a defense based on documentary evidence in its answers; and (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim failed because the affidavit submitted by defendant’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his personal knowledge and did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the documents referred to in the affidavit as business records. Plaintiff, Erin, alleged a security guard employed by defendant (Kent) sexually assaulted her at a hotel where Kent provided security services:

… [T]he affidavit of Kent’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his own personal knowledge, and therefore was of no probative value as to the issues of fact that he addressed … . Moreover, although “an affidavit from an individual, even if the person has no personal knowledge of the facts, may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence” … , the affidavit must nevertheless “constitute a proper foundation for the admission of the records”… . Because Kent’s director of operations did not establish that the documents annexed to his affidavit fell within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518[a]), those documents were inadmissible … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiffs do have a well-pled negligent hiring claim cognizable at law. Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to put Kent on notice of their claim that Kent negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained the guard who, plaintiffs allege, sexually assaulted Erin, and that Kent knew or should have known of the guard’s propensity to commit sexual assault. Moreover, plaintiffs can amplify these allegations in their bill of particulars … . Doe v Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02063, First Dept 4-1-21

 

,

FATHER’S EXCUSE FOR NOT APPEARING (HE OVERSLEPT) WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FATHER DEMONSTRATED A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE TO THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; DEFAULT CUSTODY ORDER VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined father’s motion to vacate the order granting, without a hearing, custody of the child to the grandparents should have been granted. The Third Department found that father’s failure to appear was excusable (he overslept) and father had a meritorious defense to the grandparents’ application for custody:

Although oversleeping may not ordinarily constitute a reasonable excuse, we find such excuse to be reasonable under the particular circumstances of this case … . …

… [B]efore Family Court may award custody to a nonparent, it must have first made a finding of extraordinary circumstances and then determined that such award is in the child’s best interests … . …

… .Family Court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make the requisite extraordinary circumstances and best interests findings prior to awarding the grandparents permanent custody of the child. … Family Court’s failures in this regard, together with the father’s superior claim to custody of the child, constitute a meritorious defense … . Matter of Melissa F. v Raymond E., 2021 NY Slip Op 02026, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Article 78 prohibition petition was the appropriate vehicle for raising the issue whether Warren County had jurisdiction over offenses alleged to have been committed in Saratoga County. The Third Department held the charges could not be brought in Warren County under the so-called “particular effect” rationale (i.e., the argument that the offenses had a “particular effect” on Warren County). The petitioner, who resided in Warren County, was charged with grand larceny and other offenses alleged to have been committed when petitioner was treasurer of Lake George EMS involving bank accounts in Saratoga County:

Respondent failed to demonstrate that the evidence before the grand jury established that Warren County has particular effect jurisdiction over the instant crimes. Respondent submitted his paraphrased testimony of one witness, whose familiarity with Lake George EMS and/or source of information was not disclosed. According to respondent, the witness testified that petitioner stole money from Lake George EMS at a time when he knew the organization was having difficulty meeting payroll. Based on this testimony, respondent argued that petitioner’s conduct “was likely to create a situation where emergency medical services would be restricted or discontinued by the Lake George [EMS] thus having a materially harmful impact upon the community welfare.” In our view, such testimony fails to demonstrate a concrete and identifiable injury to the Warren County community. Matter of Gentner v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 02028, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT REFORMATION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO NAME THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS INSUREDS WAS DUE TO A MUTUAL MISTAKE; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant property owners (Pollards) did not state a cause of action for reformation of an insurance policy based upon mutual mistake. Defendants’ tenant slipped and fell on a staircase outside his apartment at 192-198 Main Street and made a claim against defendants. Defendants’ business, Pollard Excavating, was insured. The insurer disclaimed coverage of the slip and fall at defendants’ apartment because the policy covered only defendants’ business:

The Pollards … allege that they believed that they were covered in their individual capacities and that the failure of [the insurer] to name them as such was the product of a mutual mistake. “It is well established that when interpreting an insurance contract, as with any written contract, the court must afford the unambiguous provisions of the policy their plain and ordinary meaning” … .

… [T]he … third-party complaint asserts that the Pollards own the buildings located at 192-198 Main Street and that they are shareholders of Pollard Excavating and Pollard Disposal. The coverage form contained in the policy issued to Pollard Excavating specifically identifies the insured under the policy as a “corporation in the business of excavating” and further identifies, as relevant here, that “your stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their liability as stockholders.” Inasmuch as the express provisions of the insurance policy contract do not include individual coverage for the Pollards, it was incumbent upon the Pollards to allege sufficient facts showing mutual mistake. To that end, the second amended third-party complaint fails to contain any factual allegations that [the insurer] agreed to provide coverage to the Pollards in their individual capacities or that any oral agreement was reached by which [the insurer]  was obligated to do so. We therefore find that the … third-party complaint fails to allege with sufficient particularity that the parties “reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either [party], the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Hilgreen v Pollard Excavating, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02031, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF ESTATE MET THE CRITERIA FOR ATTACHMENT AGAINST REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY DEFENDANTS WHO OWNED AND/OR OPERATED A LIMOUSINE RENTAL SERVICE; THE LIMOUSINE WAS INVOVLED IN A HORRIFIC ACCIDENT KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND 19 OTHERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, over a concurring memorandum, determined the criteria for attachment were met by plaintiff against real property owned by the Hussain defendants. The Hussain defendants owned and/or operated a business which rented a limousine involved in an accident killing plaintiff’s decedent and 19 others:

Plaintiff demonstrated a probability of success on his claims [relating the maintenance of the limousine].

Plaintiff … pointed to CPLR 6201 (3), which, because he is likely to succeed in recovering a money judgment against defendants, applies if defendants “assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property,” or were about to do so, with the “intent to defraud [their] creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff’s favor” … . … As “[t]he mere removal or assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment,” however, plaintiff was further required to show that defendants offered the four properties for sale with the requisite intent to either defraud their creditors or frustrate a potential money judgment  … . …

Plaintiff … met his burden of showing that defendants harbored the requisite intent in attempting to dispose of the parcels at issue and, in the absence of any proof to rebut that showing, he was properly granted confirmation under CPLR 6201 (3) … . …

Plaintiff was … entitled to confirmation with regard to Shahed Hussain because he was “a nondomiciliary residing without the state” within the meaning of CPLR 6201 (1). Plaintiff represented, with support from annexed newspaper accounts, that Shahed Hussain left New York for Pakistan in March 2018 and had no plans to return to the United States. Halse v Hussain, 2021 NY Slip Op 02032, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been denied because the proof the bank has standing was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ainsley, 2021 NY Slip Op 02014, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

THE ESTATE OF THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED BEFORE HER DEATH AND THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SEEK A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the estate of the mortgagor was not a necessary party in the foreclosure proceeding and the complaint should not have been dismissed on that ground:

The estate of the mortgagor was not a necessary party to this action, as it had no interest in the property at the time this action was commenced, inasmuch as the mortgagor conveyed the property that is subject to the mortgage to the defendant prior to her death, and the complaint does not seek a deficiency judgment against her estate … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Apelbaum, 2021 NY Slip Op 02008, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

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