You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXTERMINATOR, WAS IN THE ATTIC OF DEFENDANT’S HOUSE; THE ATTIC HAD NO FLOOR AND THE PLAINTIFF WALKED ON THE BEAMS OR JOISTS; THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE STEPPED ON A SMALLER PIECE OF WOOD LYING ACROSS THE BEAMS, IT GAVE WAY AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE CEILING; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, DETERMINED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SMALLER BOARD WAS A LATENT DEFECT OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE OF ANY DEFECT, SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff, an exterminator, went into defendant’s attic which apparent had no floor, only the beams or joists. Plaintiff testified that there were some smaller boards lying across the joints. According to the plaintiff, when he stepped on one of the smaller boards it gave way and his leg went through the ceiling:

“[T]he issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” … . However, in order to meet his prima facie burden of proof at trial, the plaintiff was required to submit sufficient evidence to enable the jury to decide this critical issue in a logical manner, based on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, rather than through sheer speculation or guesswork … . Here, the evidence showed that the main beams were part of the structure of the house, but the function of the smaller pieces of wood was never really made clear, except that the plaintiff offered that they may have been intended to hold the insulation in place. In fact, the jury heard next to nothing about the smaller piece of wood that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. There were no pictures of it, no testimony regarding its dimensions, no evidence as to whether such a smaller piece of wood would ordinarily be safe to walk on, no evidence as to whether the smaller piece of wood even appeared reasonably safe to walk on, and no evidence that the smaller piece of wood was in a rotted, deteriorated, or otherwise unsafe condition, other than the plaintiff’s testimony that it looked “discolored” and “pretty damp.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and affording him every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, there was simply no rational basis upon which the jury could determine, without speculating, that the smaller piece of wood that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall constituted a latent hazard due to its alleged rotted condition … . Saintume v Lamattina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02004, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the appellate division because there was a quasi-judicial hearing before an administrative law judge at which evidence was taken. The court noted that the aspect of the underlying action which sought a declaratory judgment could not be transferred to the appellate division:

… [A]lthough petitioner also contends that she is entitled to declaratory relief, we do not “have jurisdiction to consider the declaratory judgment action as part of this otherwise properly transferred CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . The transfer of a declaratory judgment action to this Court is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g) … and we “lack[] jurisdiction to consider a declaratory judgment action in the absence of a proper appeal from a court order or judgment” … . We therefore vacate the order insofar as it transferred the declaratory judgment action, sever the declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding, and remit the declaratory judgment action to Supreme Court for further proceedings … . Matter of Blue v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 01924, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

, ,

THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION (SLIP AND FALL) ACCRUED, EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS SERVED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT IS A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of claim served more than 90 after the slip and fall without leave of court was a nullity. The court further determined that the request for an order deeming the notice of claim timely served made more than one year and 90 days after the slip and fall could not be authorized by the court, even where the summons and complaint was served within that time period:

It is well settled that an “application for the extension [of time within which to serve a notice of claim] may be made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute has been tolled” .. . Where that time expires before the application for an extension is made, “the court lack[s] the power to authorize late filing of the notice [of claim]” … .

Here, we conclude that “[p]laintiff’s service of the summons and complaint within the limitations period does not excuse the failure to serve a notice of claim within that period,” and we further conclude that “plaintiff’s earlier service of a notice of claim is a nullity inasmuch as the notice of claim was served more than 90 days after the accident but before leave to serve a late notice of claim was granted” … . Thus, because plaintiff’s cross motion seeking an order deeming her notice of claim to be timely filed “was made after the expiration of the maximum period permitted” for seeking such relief, i.e., one year and 90 days, Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross motion, granted defendant’s motion, and dismissed the complaint … . Bennett v City of Buffalo Parks & Recreation, 2021 NY Slip Op 01920, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

, , ,

THE INFANCY TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 208 APPLIES TO A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE SOLE DISTUBUTEES ARE INFANTS; THE TOLL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY TO A RELATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY ACTION WHICH IS PERSONAL TO THE DECEDENT (FRIST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the infancy toll of the statute of limitations in CPLR 208 applies where the unmarried father of two children dies intestate. The statute of limitations for the ensuing wrongful death action is tolled until the appointment of a guardian of the children’s property. Father was involved in an altercation with a defendant, suffered fatal injuries and died later that day, September 6, 2012. Plaintiffs, the mothers of the two children, were each appointed guardians of the property of their children in 2015. That is when the statute began running on the wrongful death action, rendering the 2016 complaint timely. A wrongful death action directly compensates the distributees, here the children. The assault and battery action, by contrast, is personal to the decedent. Therefore the infancy toll does not apply to the assault and battery cause of action. The First Department explicitly overruled a decision relied upon by the defendants, Ortiz v Hertz Corp., 212 AD2d 374 (1st Dept 1995). (The opinion is comprehensive and can not be fairly summarized here.):

Today we clarify that Ortiz is not good law, because it was based on an incorrect application and interpretation of Hernandez. Therefore, pursuant to the precedent established in Hernandez [78 NY2d 687] … we hold that when the sole distributees of a decedent’s estate are infants, the toll of CPLR 208 applies to a wrongful death claim “until the earliest moment there is a personal representative or potential personal representative who can bring the action whether by appointment of a guardian [of the property of the infant distributee] or majority of [a] distributee, whichever occurs first” … . Machado v Gulf Oil, L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 01849, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT WAS DEFECTIVE, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATE A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CLAIM; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a defective complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if affidavits or other evidence demonstrate a potentially meritorious claim:

The amended complaint is defective because it merely alleges that the Bluestone defendants participated in fraudulent transfers, without alleging that they were a transferee of the assets or benefited in any way from the transfers … . However, a defective complaint will not be dismissed where affidavits and other evidence amplify inartfully pleaded but potentially meritorious claims … . Plaintiffs rely on evidence submitted by the Goldman defendants in opposition to the Bluestone defendants’ motion to dismiss which suggests that the Bluestone defendants may have participated in and benefitted from the alleged fraudulent transfers. This evidence indicates that plaintiffs have potentially meritorious fraudulent conveyance claims against the Bluestone defendants. Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01853, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, issued a preclusion order after a compliance conference because no motion was pending:

Order … which, upon granting plaintiff’s motion to reargue, reinstated his lost earnings claim but precluded the claim for years which tax returns are not produced to defendants, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the claim reinstated without limitation.

The underlying preclusion order should not have been issued sua sponte at a compliance conference, with no motion pending … . Sullivan v Snow, 2021 NY Slip Op 01873, First Dept 3-25-21

 

,

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint was timely pursuant to the six-month extension afforded by CPLR 205 (a).  The dismissal of the complaint did not include any specific findings of a general pattern of delay. Therefore the six-month extension was not precluded:

In 2018, Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint in the prior, 2010 foreclosure action for plaintiff’s failure to seek a default judgment within one year of defendant’s default. The dismissal order did not include any findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation, as required to preclude the application of CPLR 205(a) for failure to prosecute … . Under the circumstances, the court should not have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the present action as time-barred, as this action was timely brought within six months after the motion court dismissed plaintiff’s first foreclosure action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kim, 2021 NY Slip Op 01876, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, ,

WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that where the basis of a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is fraud, the statute of limitations is six years:

[Defendant] Katten contends that even if the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is taken at face value, the statute of limitations is three years because plaintiff seeks damages, not equitable relief … . However, “a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Albert Hallac for breach of fiduciary duty is based on allegations of actual fraud; hence, the statute of limitations for the claim against Katten for aiding and abetting Hallac’s breach of fiduciary duty is six years. Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 2021 NY Slip Op 01881, First Dept 3-25-21

 

, , , ,

THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure file an affidavit of service after serving the warrant and notice of eviction did not affect the validity of the service of the warrant of eviction which triggers the 14-day waiting period before execution of the warrant. The court noted that the matter was moot because the petitioner was subsequently evicted based on a different warrant, but the matter should be heard on appeal because the circumstance is likely to recur. The two dissenters argued the mootness of the matter precluded appeal:

… [T]he issuance of a warrant is the court’s last act in a summary proceeding, as denoted by the phrase, “Upon rendering a final judgment for [the owner], the court shall issue a warrant” (RPAPL 749 [1]). The execution of the warrant terminates the lease … . Likewise, the execution of the warrant terminates the summary proceeding and the jurisdiction of the court …  Because the court no longer has jurisdiction, the filing of the affidavit of service is superfluous. This stands in stark contrast to the purpose of the affidavit of service at the commencement of the summary proceeding, where it suffices as proof that the party was properly served pursuant to law, as proper service is required to bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court … .

… [W]e find that filing the affidavit of service at the conclusion of service of a warrant of eviction is not required, and the 14-day notice begins the day following the date of service, posting or mailing, whichever is later … . Matter of Dixon v County of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 3-25-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE WAS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN DEPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case was premature because plaintiff had not been deposed:

Plaintiff alleges that after crossing Pearl Street at the intersection with Whitehall Street he was struck from behind by defendants’ box truck, while he was on the curb/lip of the sidewalk. According to the affidavit of the driver, defendant Rosado, plaintiff was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and walked into the side of the truck while it was already making a right turn.

While plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence on his part, his motion was premature in that defendants did not have the opportunity to depose him … . Bey v Rosado, 2021 NY Slip Op 01840, First Dept 3-25-21

 

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