You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

CVS, A DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT CVS’S PROVIDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WITH THE WRONG DOSAGE OF MEDICINE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the jury should not have heard evidence that CVS mistakenly gave plaintiff a double dose of a drug. CVS was a defendant but successfully moved for summary judgment prior to the trial:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the jury to hear evidence that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (hereinafter CVS), mistakenly gave the decedent a double dose of digoxin, and testimony from [defendant] Manvar that the double dose of digoxin predisposed the decedent to an arrhythmia that caused his cardiac arrest. CVS, a defendant in this action, was awarded summary judgment based on its argument that its error in giving the decedent a double dose of digoxin was not a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s cardiac arrest. As summary judgment is the “functional equivalent” of a trial, the court should have precluded [defendants] Huppert and Manvar from presenting evidence at trial that CVS’s negligence may have been a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s cardiac arrest … . Raineri v Lalani, 2021 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

THE CONTEMPT FINDING AND THE $535,000 FINE WERE BASED ON AN ORDER WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the contempt finding and the imposition of a $535,000 fine could not be enforced because it was based on an order which Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to issue:

… [A]fter the entry of the order on appeal, this Court modified the prior order upon an appeal by defendant … . Defendant had transferred title to the … property to her children while reserving a life interest for herself, and she transferred title to … property to an LLC of which she was the sole owner, but later gifted that LLC to her children … . We stated in our decision that Supreme Court … equitably distributed the … properties “by directing defendant to prepare and execute deeds listing plaintiff as a one-half owner of those properties” … . We held that “[t]he court, however, lacked jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the children and the LLC were not named as parties to this action” … . We therefore conclude in this appeal that the directive in the prior order requiring defendant to sign those deeds cannot be a basis for a finding of contempt, and we therefore modify the order by vacating the finding of contempt and the imposition of a fine upon that contempt. Jolley v Lando, 2021 NY Slip Op 00679, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT BEFORE THE OPPONENT HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND CLOSED HIS OR HER CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted because defendant had not yet presented any evidence:

“[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … . “By its express language, [CPLR 4401] authorizes the grant of a motion for a directed verdict only if the opponent of the motion has presented evidence and closes his or her case. The requirement that each party await the conclusion of the other’s case before moving for judgment [under CPLR 4401] is designed to afford all of them a day in court . . . Accordingly, the timing of a motion prescribed by CPLR 4401 must be strictly enforced and the grant of a dismissal [pursuant to CPLR 4401] prior to the close of the opposing party’s case will be reversed as premature, even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s motion was granted before defendant had an opportunity to present any evidence. Thus, it was error for the court to entertain plaintiff’s motion … . Veley v Manchester, 2021 NY Slip Op 00760, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

THE DUE PROCESS PRONG OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH RESPECT THE GERMAN MANUFACTURER; IN ADDITION THE FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL MEDICAL DEVICE AMENDMENTS TO THE FDA REGULATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the due process prong of long-arm jurisdiction was not satisfied and the failure to warn allegation was preempted by Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations under the Medical Device Amendments (MDA). The medical device was not described in the decision but it apparently involves treatment of the eye:

Plaintiff has not shown a regular flow of Morcher’s [the German manufacturer’s] goods into New York, advertising directed at New York, the delivery of Morcher’s goods into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase in New York, or any other facts that may arguably have established jurisdiction … . …

It is undisputed that the device in question is a class III medical device with respect to which the federal government has established requirements. Thus, we must determine whether plaintiff’s “common-law claims are based upon New York requirements with respect to the device that are ‘different from, or in addition to,’ the federal ones, and that relate to safety and effectiveness” … . If so, those claims are preempted by the MDA … . If, on the other hand, the common-law claims provide a damages remedy and are premised on a violation of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they ” ‘parallel,’ rather than add to, federal requirements” and are not preempted … . … Plaintiff … fails to identify any federal statute or regulation that requires defendants to provide warnings to consumers or their physicians … . Barone v Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00745, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE OF A PARTY TO A SEPARATION AGREEMENT MAY SEEK A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF THE AGREED MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS; THE DISSENT ARGUED ONLY THE PARTY, NOT THE ESTATE OF THE PARTY, CAN SEEK A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE HANDLED IN PROBATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that the estate of a party to a separation agreement that was merged but not incorporated into a judgment of divorce could seek a downward modification of the maintenance payments. The dissent argued only the party to the agreement, not the estate of the party, could seek a downward modification based on extreme hardship:

FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]his Court recently held that plaintiff and defendant’s decedent entered into a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (settlement agreement), which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, whereby decedent agreed to pay lifetime maintenance to plaintiff that continued even in the event of decedent’s death … . * * *

Pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law, “[w]here . . . [a separation agreement] remains in force, no modification of an order or judgment incorporating the terms of said agreement shall be made as to maintenance without a showing of extreme hardship on either party” (§ 236 [B] [9] [b] [1] …). A modification of maintenance based on extreme hardship is thus, personal to the parties who contracted as to the amount of maintenance in the separation agreement and, as noted, a modification of that amount has only been awarded in situations involving personal hardships. In my view, an “estate” can never establish a personal hardship and thus, is never entitled to a downward modification of maintenance. While defendant in this case submitted evidence that the continued payment of the maintenance obligation would pose a hardship on the estate, such a hardship is not upon any party to the settlement agreement. Indeed, it is only a hardship upon the beneficiaries of decedent’s estate who wish to maximize their inheritance. In my view, any difficulty in the estate’s ability to pay the amount of lifetime maintenance agreed to by decedent is an issue that should be raised by the estate in the probate court when determining the reserve funds to be set aside to satisfy the maintenance obligation. Gardner v Zammit, 2021 NY Slip Op 00707, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE AND QUASHING OF SUBPOENAS IN THIS FRAUD ACTION STEMMING FROM HIGH CREDITWORTHINESS RATINGS GIVEN TO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to quash defendant’s subpoena of a nonparty former employee of plaintiff should not have been granted. The decision provides an extensive discussion of the procedures and criteria for subpoenas and motions to quash, and refused to apply the standing requirement for governmental agency investigative subpoenas. . Plaintiff bank had invested in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to which defendant had given high creditworthiness ratings. The action sounded in fraud:

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff was not entitled to seek to quash the nonparty subpoena. CPLR 2304, which authorizes a motion to quash a subpoena, provides as relevant here that, “[i]f the subpoena is not returnable in a court, a request to withdraw or modify the subpoena shall first be made to the person who issued it and a motion to quash . . . may thereafter be made in the supreme court.” …

… [P]laintiff, in moving to quash the nonparty subpoena, failed to meet its burden of establishing “either that the discovery sought is ‘utterly irrelevant’ to the action[s] or that the ‘futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious’ ” … . …

… [P]laintiff has not shown that the nonparty’s testimony would be utterly irrelevant or that it was inevitable or obvious that taking the nonparty’s deposition would be futile to uncovering anything legitimate … . …

… [P]laintiff’s own submissions suggest that the nonparty has at least some knowledge of plaintiff’s underwriting practices with respect to the non-prime loans at issue here … . M&T Bank Corp. v Moody’s Invs. Servs., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00706, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

AFTER TWICE ADMITTING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR ANSWER TO DENY OWNERSHIP AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants, after twice acknowledging ownership of the area of plaintiff’s slip and fall, should not have been allowed to amend their answer to deny ownership after the statute of limitations had run

[Defendants] may not amend their answer in this manner after the statute of limitations has expired; the amendment would be too prejudicial to plaintiff … . Jackson v 170 W. End Ave. Owners Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00625, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees in this tax lien foreclosure action because plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant was properly served with the notice to redeem:

Pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0(c), prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff was required to serve the defendant with a notice to redeem “by personal service, as defined in the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York” (see Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0[a]). Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant with the notice to redeem by “nail and mail” service (see CPLR 308[4]). However, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, this service was ineffective, as the plaintiff failed to exercise the requisite due diligence in first attempting to serve the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) … .

Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to properly serve the notice to redeem prior to commencing a foreclosure action, the plaintiff is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees from the person to whom the notice was required to be sent, provided that the person “offers to pay the penalties allowed by law at any time before final judgment is entered” (Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0[f]). Here, the defendant offered to pay the penalties allowed by law in a letter … , nearly one month prior to entry of the final judgment … . DBW TL Holdco 2014, LLC v Kirk, 2021 NY Slip Op 00543, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGMENT LIEN WAS NOT DOCKETED UNDER THE SELLER’S SURNAME; THEREFORE THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff-buyer was entitled to judgment on his quiet title cause of action and to a declaration that the property is not subject to the defendant’s judgment lien. The judgment was not docketed under the seller’s surname:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to quiet title and for a declaration that the real property at issue is not subject to the defendant’s judgment lien. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the deposition transcript of a supervisor of the Docket Department of the Kings County Clerk’s Office (hereinafter the supervisor). The supervisor testified at her deposition that the judgment at issue was not docketed under “Paul”—the surname of the title owner of the property. Thus, no valid lien against the property was created (see CPLR 5018[c][1] …). Moreover, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had no actual or constructive notice of a judgment lien on the property … .

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Any alleged defects in the docketing procedure employed by the Kings County Clerk’s Office are not attributable to a bona fide purchaser of the property … . Charles v Berman, 2021 NY Slip Op 00542, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

, ,

SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the settlement confessions of judgment were valid and should not have been vacated. The Second Department noted that vacating a judgment entered by filing a confession of judgment requires bringing a plenary action, which the defendants did not do. But, because Supreme Court reached the merits, the Second Department reversed on the merits:

“Generally, a person seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment must commence a separate plenary action for that relief”… . Here, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its order, the grounds for vacatur relied upon by the defendants do not fall within an exception to the general rule. Accordingly, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for failure to commence a plenary action … . However, the court did address the merits of the defendants’ motion, and in the interest of judicial economy, we also consider the merits.

“Construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law, and the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument and should be enforced according to its terms” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is no language in the merchant agreements limiting the plaintiff’s authority to file the settlement confessions of judgment. Moreover, the settlement agreement and settlement confessions of judgment clearly and unambiguously permitted the plaintiff to file the settlement confessions of judgment in the event the defendants breached the terms of the settlement agreement. Ace Funding Source, LLC v Myka Cellars, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00538, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

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