You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case against NYC, determined the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was untimely served. Although the notice of claim was served one day after the 90-day deadline, and the city initially notified plaintiff that service was untimely, subsequent communication from the city indicated the claim was being considered:

The plaintiff’s submissions established that although the Comptroller sent the plaintiff a letter dated March 6, 2020, indicating that a notice of claim was not timely filed within 90 days from the date of occurrence, the Comptroller sent the plaintiff another letter, also dated March 6, 2020, acknowledging receipt of the notice of claim, which was assigned a claim number, and stating that “[w]e will do our best to investigate and, if possible, settle your claim.” That letter also stated that “if we are unable to resolve your claim, any lawsuit against the City must be started within one year and ninety days from the date of the occurrence,” without any reference to the claim being untimely … . Further, the plaintiff’s attorney averred that on March 21, 2021, the City sent a letter requesting certain documents from the plaintiff “to evaluate the claim for settlement purposes” and that the plaintiff’s attorney emailed the requested documents the following day. The plaintiff also submitted an email dated March 25, 2021, from Millicent Nicholas-Richards, Negotiation and Settlement Supervisor for the New York City Law Department, acknowledging receipt of the requested documents, and stating that “[w]e are reviewing” and that the plaintiff’s attorney would be contacted if any additional documents were needed. Thus, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants made representations that the plaintiff’s claim was under consideration for settlement and that the plaintiff did not need to take any action other than providing documents “for settlement purposes” or to commence an action against the City within one year and 90 days if a settlement was not possible. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff, who did not move to deem the notice of claim timely served or to extend the time to serve the notice of claim within the one year and 90 day limitations period, was “lulled . . . into sleeping on [his] rights to [his] detriment” … .Guo En Tan v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 04161, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: The notice of claim in this slip and fall action against the city was served one day late. Communications from the city indicated the city was considering the claim. The deadline for making a motion for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim passed. At that point, the city was equitably estopped from asserting the notice of claim was not timely served as a defense to the action.​.

 

, ,

HERE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S INDICTMENT AND PLEA TRANSCRIPT IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL ACTION; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THOSE RECORDS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SEALING ORDER ISSUED BY COUNTY COURT; IF THE RECORDS WERE COURT RECORDS AND PROCURED FROM THE COURT, THE SEALING ORDER WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THEM; IF THE RECORDS WERE PROCURED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES, THE SEALING ORDER APPLIES; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that whether certain records associated with plaintiff’s criminal action, including the indictment and plea transcript, were “sealed” and thus not accessible by the defendants depended on where the defendants procured them. The sealing order did not extend to “court records” as opposed to records kept by the police and prosecutors:

We must … decide whether CPL 160.55 i… encompasses the content that plaintiff seeks to have excluded from trial. After plaintiff entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in the criminal action, County Court issued a sealing order pursuant to CPL 160.55, which applies when an action has been terminated by a conviction of certain violations, including disorderly conduct. * * *

A careful comparison of the language used in CPL 160.50 and 160.55 leads us to agree with defendants’ contention that CPL 160.55 does not extend to court records. Under CPL 160.55 (1) (c), once notified of a qualifying violation conviction, the enumerated criminal justice entities must seal “all official records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution” in their possession. By comparison, CPL 160.50 (1) provides that, when an action has been terminated in favor of the accused, unless the court requires otherwise, “the record of [an] action or proceeding shall be sealed” and notification of such termination and sealing shall be sent by the clerk of the court to the “the commissioner of the division of criminal justice services and the heads of all appropriate police departments and other law enforcement agencies” … . Upon receipt thereof, “all official records and papers, including judgments and orders of a court but not including published court decisions or opinions or records and briefs on appeal, relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor’s office shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency” (CPL 160.50 [1] [c] … . By its plain terms, CPL 160.50 seals official court records pertaining to the arrest and prosecution, whereas CPL 160.55 omits that express sealing … . * * *

We are mindful that the record does not reveal how defendants obtained copies of the indictment and combined plea/sentencing transcript. To the extent defendants obtained these documents from the official court file maintained by County Court, they would not be subject to the sealing order issued pursuant to CPL 160.55. However, if these documents were obtained from the files of “the division of criminal justice services, police agency, or prosecutor’s office” (CPL 160.55 [1] [c]), they would be subject to the sealing order.  … [P]laintiff did not waive the privilege that is afforded to these documents in the event they were obtained from one of the aforementioned law enforcement entities. Given that the record is not sufficiently developed on the issue of how these records were obtained, we must reverse so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied plaintiff’s motion in limine as it pertains to the indictment and plea/sentencing transcript and remit to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the matter. Kokoska v Joe Tahan’s Furniture Liquidation Ctrs., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04130, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 160.55, a sealing order does not extend to court records, as opposed to records kept by law enforcement and prosecutors. Here there was a question whether the defendants procured the indictment and plea transcript from the court. If so, the sealing order did not apply to them.

 

, , ,

IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING BASED UPON AN ACT WHICH WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT MOTION MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY SERVED, DEPRIVING FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the criminal contempt motion against father for bringing a recording device into court should have been dismissed because there was no proof father was personally served with the motion:

A finding of criminal contempt, as is pertinent here, must be supported by a showing of “[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]), and proof of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt … . “Such a contempt, committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, may be punished summarily; when not so committed, the party charged must be notified of the accusation, and have a reasonable time to make a defense” (Judiciary Law § 751 [1] …). To this end, a “criminal contempt proceeding requires personal service on the contemnor” … . “A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a respondent who is not properly served with process” and, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that the respondent may have actually received the documents, because notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court” … .

Family Court acknowledged in its written order that it was unable to summarily hold the father in contempt, as the only direct evidence of his possession of a prohibited recording device was discovered outside of the courtroom by court officers who were not immediately available to testify. As such, personal service of the motion charging the father with contempt was required. Nothing in the record reflects that such service was effectuated. We note that, to the extent that the court’s notice of motion indicates that it was mailed to the father to a Pennsylvania address, there is similarly no affidavit of service/mailing and no receipt of mailing in the record. Matter of Ruoyao P. (Zhechen P.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the procedural requirements for a motion charging criminal contempt for an act which was not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court. The motion must be personally served in accordance with the CPLR. Failure of proper service deprives the court of jurisdiction.

 

, , ,

CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proper procedure was not followed to substitute the executor of defendant’s estate for defendant. Therefore Supreme Court lacked any jurisdiction over the matter and did not have the power to grant defense counsel’s motion to substitute the executor:

… [T]he former counsel for the defendant purportedly moved on the defendant’s behalf, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126. … Supreme Court, sua sponte, substituted Jared Pierre, as executor of the defendant’s estate, for the defendant nunc pro tunc and granted the motion purportedly made on the defendant’s behalf. The plaintiff appeals.

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . “[A]ny determination rendered without such a substitution is generally deemed a nullity” … . Further, “[t]he death of a party terminates the authority of the attorney for that person to act on his or her behalf” … .

“CPLR 1021 defines the procedural mechanisms for seeking a substitution of successor or representative parties, and for the dismissal of actions where substitutions are not timely sought” … . “A motion for substitution pursuant to CPLR 1021 is the method by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the deceased party’s personal representative, and such a motion is not a mere technicality” … . Pierre v King, 2025 NY Slip Op 04028, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction over the matter. The procedure for substitution of a representative is explained in CPLR 1021 and must be followed.​

 

, ,

BY SUBMITTING A CLAIM TO THE “SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND” (VCF), PLAINTIFF, WHO ALLEGED HIS PROSTATE CANCER WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS PHYSICIAN FOR AN ALLEGED DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PROSTATE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the plaintiff’s submission of a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) precluded his medical malpractice action. Plaintiff submitted the claim to VCF alleging his prostate cancer was related to his work at the World Trade Center after September 11th. Years later, in 2021, plaintiff sued his physician alleging a delay in diagnosing and treating the prostate cancer. Apparently the VCF claim was made close in time to the filing of the lawsuit. By filing the VCF claim, plaintiff waived the right to bring a civil lawsuit based on the prostate cancer:

“… [T]he Air Stabilization Act * * * created the [VCF]  . . . to provide no-fault compensation to victims who were injured in the attacks and to personal representatives of victims killed in the attacks … ; and provided an election of remedies —all claimants who filed with the [VCF] waived the right to sue for injuries resulting from the attacks except for collateral benefits” … .

The Air Stabilization Act was amended by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act … . * * *  The waiver provision now provides:

“Upon the submission of a claim under this title, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or for damages arising from or related to debris removal. Brennan v MacDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 03994, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Submitting a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) waives the right to bring a civil suit based on the subject of the claim. Here plaintiff alleged his prostate cancer was related to work at the World Trade Center. Because he submitted a VCF claim for the prostate cancer, he cannot sue his physician for medical malpractice alleging a delay in diagnosis and treatment.

 

, ,

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 7003(1), which requires a judge to forfeit $1000 when a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief is improperly denied, is unconstitutional. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine:

… [W]hile CPLR 7003(c) is not a direct diminution of judicial compensation, the language of that provision explicitly “targets judges for disadvantageous treatment,” as it provides that a $1,000 forfeiture be paid personally by a judge who does not issue a writ of habeas corpus where one should have been issued … . CPLR 7003(c) is, thus, an indirect diminution of the salary of judges within the meaning of the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that “[b]y its nature, CPLR 7003(c) singles out judges for financially adverse treatment because of their exercise of their judicial functions and does so in a manner that discriminates based on how they decide an application for a writ. To impose a forfeiture on a judge based on which way they decide an application undermines the core objective of the [C]ompensation [C]lause of protecting judicial independence.” * * *

By imposing a penalty on a judge who refuses a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus [*14]relief where such relief should have been issued, the Legislature, through CPLR 7003(c), is interfering with judicial functions by incentivizing one specific outcome, namely, issuance of the writ, because a judge only faces a penalty if he or she refuses to issue a writ. Such influence is impermissible, as “‘the mere existence of the power to interfere with or to influence the exercise of judicial functions contravenes the fundamental principles of separation of powers embodied in our State constitution and cannot be sustained'” … . Poltorak v Clarke, 2025 NY Slip Op 04496, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: CPLR 7003(1) requires a judge to forfeit $1000 for an improper denial of habeas corpus relief. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine.

 

A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were entitled to jurisdictional discovery to determine whether New York has long-arm jurisdiction over two individual employees of RMA, Waldrop and Clark, which sells body armor. An 18-year-old man committed a racially motivated mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, killing ten people and injuring many others. The complaint alleges that the body armor protected the shooter, allowing him to kill the security guard and shoot more people inside and outside the store:

…  “[I]n order to defeat a motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that facts may exist to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant[s]” … . We agree with plaintiffs that they have set forth a “sufficient start” … to show that their position is not ” ‘frivolous’ ” … . …

… With respect to Waldrop, plaintiffs allege that he was intimately involved in the daily operations of RMA, was involved in developing the body armor used by the shooter, and was directly involved in the marketing and sales of that body armor. They also allege that he chose to allow the sale of body armor to civilians, i.e., non-military and non-law enforcement personnel, or was “deliberately indifferent” to such sales, and that he knew RMA body armor was being marketed to and sold in New York. We conclude that those allegations are sufficient to warrant discovery on the matter of personal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Waldrop … . …

With respect to Clark, plaintiffs allege that he, personally, marketed the body armor to, and communicated directly with, the shooter, encouraging him to purchase the body armor, either knowing or having reason to know that the shooter was a civilian. Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of that individual conduct, Clark knew that RMA’s body armor was being sold to civilians in New York, presenting grave risks to New York residents. We thus likewise conclude that plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to warrant discovery on the matter of personal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Clark … . Salter v Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 03896, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of New York’s long-arm jurisdiction and the criteria for jurisdictional discovery.

 

, , , , ,

CLAIMANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM CONCERNING INJURIES INCCURRED WHEN WORKING FOR THE CITY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO PRE-ACTION DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH WHEN THE CITY GAINED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery to support his allegation that the city had timely notice of his accident which would warrant leave to file a late notice of claim:

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “the court must consider, inter alia, whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … . ” ‘While the presence or absence of any single factor is not determinative, one factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the [municipality] received actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim in a timely manner’ ” … .

… In support of his application, claimant sought, inter alia, any incident reports concerning the accident and any correspondence between respondents concerning the accident. Claimant alleged that he told his employer about the incident five days after it occurred and believed that his employer notified the City of the accident at that time.

… Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that part of his application seeking pre-action discovery (see CPLR 3102 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, claimant demonstrated that pre-suit discovery is needed in support of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim for the purpose of establishing when the City had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Wisnowski v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03886, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: When applying for leave to file a late notice of claim, demonstrating the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim within 90 days of the accident is crucial. Here the claimant alleged his employer told the city about the accident five days after it occurred. Claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery on that issue.​

 

, ,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined plaintiff’s motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict finding defendant rear-driver negligent should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped when her car was struck from behind. Defendant had struck the car directly behind plaintiff. Although there was evidence plaintiff stopped suddenly (in stop and go traffic), defendant did not offer proof of a nonnegligent explanation for the accident:

We … agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying that part of her posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of defendant’s negligence (see generally CPLR 4404 [a]). A party is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict where there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . As relevant here, “[t]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility . . . , and . . . a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, [nonnegligent] explanation for the accident” … .

Here, the evidence at trial established that, at the time of the collision, plaintiff and defendant were driving in “stop-and-go” traffic during rush hour on a “wet, [d]rizzly” morning. Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the collision, she had come to a stop because the vehicle in front of her had stopped. Defendant testified that the collision occurred when the vehicle in front of her suddenly stopped; she thought the middle vehicle hit plaintiff’s vehicle first. Defendant tried to turn her vehicle to avoid the collision, but was unsuccessful and collided with the middle vehicle. The driver of the middle vehicle in the chain testified that plaintiff’s vehicle stopped suddenly. He denied initially colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle; it was only after he was hit by defendant that his vehicle collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.

In short, the undisputed evidence at trial established that defendant was the rear-most driver involved in the chain-reaction collisions and, therefore, is presumed negligent absent the proffering of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences establishing such a nonnegligent explanation based on the trial record here. Specifically, under the circumstances of this case, the ” ‘[e]vidence that plaintiff’s lead vehicle was forced to stop suddenly in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the collision sufficient to support the jury’s verdict inasmuch as ” ‘it can easily be anticipated that cars up ahead will make frequent stops in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” Blatner v Swearengen, 2025 NY Slip Op 03880, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this rear-end collision case made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which preserved the issue of defendant’s negligence for appeal. The appellate court held defendant was negligent as a matter of law. The matter was remitted for a trial to determine proximate cause (there was a car between defendant’s and plaintiff’s cars) and, if necessary, damages.

 

, ,

IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE EVE OF TRIAL “IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY” BASED UPON PERCEIVED EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on the eve of trial, in the interest of judicial economy, based on an evidentiary issue. Absent a motion by the defendants, the judge lacked the power to dismiss the action:

… [I]t is undisputed that there was no motion by defendants requesting dismissal of the complaint. Rather, defendants opposed the request by plaintiff that he be permitted to admit in evidence at trial certain medical records. Inasmuch as there was no motion for dismissal pending before the court—either on the basis that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law or based on plaintiff’s admissions—the court lacked authority to dismiss the complaint in the interest of judicial economy … . Indeed, by sua sponte dismissing the complaint before plaintiff presented any evidence, the court deprived plaintiff of an opportunity to oppose dismissal and deprived defendants of an opportunity to state the grounds that supported dismissal (see generally CPLR 4401). Additionally, we can find no legal authority (nor do the parties identify any), that permits a court to, on its own volition, dismiss a complaint on the eve of trial without any request for such relief—absent extraordinary circumstances not present here … . Although the court determined that plaintiff cannot substantiate his claims, the court nevertheless erred in dismissing the complaint on that basis moments before trial was to commence without any request for such relief from defendants. Wallace v Kinney, 2025 NY Slip Op 03879, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: On the eve of trial, absent a motion to dismiss by the defendant, a trial judge generally does not have the authority to dismiss complaint “in the interest of judicial economy” based on perceived evidentiary deficiencies.

 

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